If even British people, being the historical enemy of Napoleon, realize this film is a character assassination of the man, then that’s precisely what it is.

Rupert Everett as Wellington was embarrassing, he just Seemed to sneer his way through his scenes. Can't think of any secondary characters that had any life - Tsar Alexander perhaps was the best portrayal. No life to any of it

I'm an enthusiastic armchair historian of the Napoleonic era at best. My son and I were both giddy as schoolboys, when we discovered that Scotley Ridd was behind the lens. As the closing credits rolled, we were both incredulous, angry and despairing of the wider historic movie landscape.

I worry that we can't make epic movies anymore. Directors seem to think that audiences don't have the patience or attention span to let a story unfold. Watching some of the old classics on the subject (Bondarchuk's "War and Peace" or "Waterloo"), you really appreciate the slow build, character development and eventual payoff, things which seem to be a lost art.

I barely dragged my wife into the movie theatre. When we got out, she was ecstatic, while I felt robbed, insulted, and outraged. Also, question: If they used The Godfather 3 ending to have Napoleon die on St Helena on a chair, why do they state 10 seconds after that his final words were "France, Army, Josephine...". They're contradicting their own fantasy story😂

One thing I will give the film is that it made me actually want to learn more about Napoleon, despite its horrendous treatment of history.

Funny, and here I was worried whether this movie would be either an all hero or an all villain portrayal. In the end it did neither, it made Napoleon a simp who just was lucky at war but a loser at everything else.

I imagine (and hope) that Mr. Spielberg is carefully taking note of all these reviews and making the appropriate adjustments to his Napoleon project.

Excellent review, and I agree with everything said. Well done.

I watched Napoleon and Godzilla Minus One within a week of each other. Godzilla was a more attractive figure than Phoenix' Napoleon. There was more real emotion and pathos in seeing the victims of Godzilla die than there was in every single battle scene in Napoleon. The Godzilla movie is even conscious of its historical inaccuracies and makes an effort to account for them. Yeah, the Godzilla movie showed more respect for history.

I was so eager for this movie, then I watched it opening night with some friends 😵‍💫...I kept having to tell them, "this is not what happened". They seemed to enjoy it as did a majority of the theater.

My personal highlights; The Prussians at Waterloo arriving on the French left. The fact that everyone, (including Blucher) spoke English with non-regional dialect, except the English, who spoke haughty toff, Napoleon, who croaked in whispers, and two international ambassadors who randomly exchanged a sentence each of subtitled Deutsch. The epic spectacle of Le Grande Armee advancing into Russia in a single column marching 4 man abreast. "Prepare to receive cavalry!". British infantry instinctively respond by abandoning their trenches (?) and advancing in linear formation. All the scenes of Napoleon and Josephine exchanging long awkward silences in large dark rooms. I am very glad i smuggled a whiskey flask into the cinema.

Napoleon's life is so interesting, epic and inspiring that with proper passion and dedication, you can make a trilogy reaching the level of Lord of the Rings. Look at all the possible supporting characters with fantastic back story: Nicholas Davout, Mitchel Ney, Joachim Murat, Berthier, Bernadotte, Blucher, Nelson, Francis II, Kutuzov, Alexander, Suvorov, Catherine the great, Prince Schwarzenberg, Frederick William III, Louise of Mecklenburg-Strelitz,... Instead, they try to put it down to a movie of 4 hours, and then 2 & a half. That is why it has no soul. Probably, Christopher Nolan with his iconic and fantastic timeline control can draw a meaningful story/ messages out of this vast time range coverage. But it is too much for Ridley.

I have a feeling g they left so much out of the 4 hour cut it became this .. no explanation of plot, how how and why coalitions were formed against Napoleon and the politics of it all. Listened to the pod earlier and you all got it right, not least the total missing of the Marshalls ... only knew who was who wy kept checking IMDB ... unexplainable.

I do think Time Bandits did more justice to Napoleon. Joaquin Phoenix feels like he is channeling Brando from Apocalypse Now when he picks up the crown. Josephine desperately needed Napoleon to protect her. Her husband was killed by the directory and she had been imprisoned, She escaped prison because of the death of Robespierre and she attached herself to Napoleon hard for the protection he provided. His letters showed how much he loved her, but that didn't rule him. Two days after he was married he was at the head of an army invading Italy. Waterloo told the story of the last 100 days of Napoleon's glory and it took a much better film maker 2 1/2 hours to do that. My major fear was they wouldn't have time to cover the entire french revolution and napoleons brilliant military and political career along with his love life in even a 4 hour movie. The story itself is much more interesting than the movie. I'm unsure about what Scott was trying to do. Was it an attempt to show populist dictators are useless idiots? Unfortunately just because Trump is , it doesn't mean Napoleon , operating in the most cut-throat meritocracy on earth and winning , was.

Hard to believe there’s a worse Napoléonic film out there than Waterloo, but here we are now. The French soldiers in trenches at Austerlitz was a highlight. Probably the most accurate thing in the whole movie. Absolutely dreck from every angle - historical accuracy, excitement, character development, you name it - a failure on every front. When Phoenix yelled about the boats it sounded like a teenager whinging at his dad. All it needed was for him to slam his chamber door & for Linkin Park to start blaring from his stereo. The only saving grace is that Ridley Scott is genuinely pissed people are telling him what a moron he is.

Hated it. A totally biased vision of History made by a Napoleon-hating Englishman, which on its own is already a problem right there. The only thing Ridley Scott seems interested in is pushing the early 19th Century English propaganda of the "crazy complexed little tyrant who invaded everyone and was insane". The problem is that the "Napoleon complex" is a myth totally made up by English caricatures that has long since been completely debunked by all scholars and History professors. As if after 220 years, nothing had changed, and historians hadn't existed. It's almost as if Ridley Scott was born in 1770 and got teleported in 2023. This could be an English propaganda piece from 1814. Well Napoleon was never a crazed bloody tyrant. All he ever did, at least up to 1808, was defend France from the enemies seeking to invade it or destroy it, mainly England, Prussia, Austria and Russia. Let's not make any mistakes about who were the good guys and the villains here, and it certainly wasn't Napoleon. Up to 1808, Napoleon never declared war on anyone and always pushed for peace ; he only reacted brilliantly to successive coalitions financed by England, aiming to attack France because they couldn't stand the reforms of the French Revolution and were crapping their pants. It's actually England which systematically broke peace treaties signed with Napoleon and manipulated France's neighbors (Amiens 1802, Tilsit 1807, etc.). All Napoleon ever did was defend the ideals of the French Revolution. One of the most fascinating aspects of Napoleon to this day, is trying to understand how could a genius like him, a man so modern and in advance of everyone, could screw up so badly in Spain (1808), and Russia (1812). What happened? It's THE QUESTION, at the center of all fascinations for Napoleon to this present day. But Ridley Scott isn't interested in that, because he already had his dumb agenda. No interest at all in character development and Historical truth. But you know what? Here is the hard truth Ridley : Napoleon invented the modern world and the functioning of a modern state as we know it today. In less than 15 years, he created every ideal, law and structure that makes a democratic state work today. In fact, very little has changed since Napoleon's state reforms. He figured out everything in a few years, early 19th century. That is insane, it's the vision of an absolute genius, and that's why he is likely the most important figure in all of History. So wether we are French, American, English, German, Spanish, Austrian or Italian, we are all children of Napoleon, wether we like it or not. 20 years after his death, England was copying all of Napoleon's reforms and creations, after spending 15 years caricaturing him as a crazy maniac, which is what, sadly, Ridley Scott is still doing today with his disgusting film. By spiting on Napoleon, he's actually spiting on Western World institutions and his own heritage, which is ironic. Funny how ignorants shame Napoleon for being an emperor who dictated everything and had absolute power. As if it was exceptionally horrible in early 19th Century. Well what do you think existed next to France? Democracies? All of France's neighbors were either kingdoms or empires. All of them. And I can assure you that if you lived in France in 1804, you would have been much better off than living in Prussia, Austria, Russia or England. You would have been living in a country that pushed for meritocracy, and where the rights of the individual were guaranteed by Napoleon's creation of the Civil Code, which was unique and completely revolutionary for its time. And no social class privileges. In fact many of Napoleon's marshals were sons of merchants, blacksmiths or inn keepers. And I'm not even insisting on his military genius and his transformation of warfare with the invention of the army "corps". And by the way, the whole Josephine/Napoleon mind games are complete bullshit and total invention. And finally, the ONLY relevant question one must ask about Napoleon is : Is our world better off today with him having existed ? And the answer is a resounding yes, since everything we cherish today, everything we stand for, came from him. That's why comparisons with Hitler are both deeply insulting and completely idiotic. "Napoleon" is an awful piece of trash made by ignorants fools. Stanley Kubrick must be turning in his grave seeing this and thinking of what he intended to do with his Napoleon. Because, unlike Scott, Kubrick knew. He knew who Napoleon really was.

I saw Napoleon last week. I love this review. You have so totally captured my frustration and disappointment! My gosh, 200 million dollars and outstanding costumes, all wasted in a terrible movie full of mistakes with no plot, no story, no character development, no raison d'etre.

"Never interupt a movie director, when he is making a $200 million dollar mistake" 😏😏😏😏😏

Thanks Zack. After my eager anticipation for this film was routed in the cinema I found myself, instead, eagerly anticipating your reviews. This - and your podcast review session - certainly haven't disappointed. They have brought some much needed thought and entertainment to the, otherwise, lacklustre proceedings!

I used to want to see a movie or a TV Series about Emperor Justinian and Empress Theodora. Now upon seeing this movie, I don’t want that anymore because it will just be like this; Justinian will be portrayed as a simp and a weakling who can’t do anything right while Theodora will be a boss slay queen who does everything, when in reality they were partners who ruled equally. Justinian introduced the Corpus Jurius Civilis, as well as enlarged the city of Constantinople, not to mention his ambitious conquests to the west. Theodora for her part helped put in harsh laws against human trafficking, encouraged her husband to stand up to the Nika Riots, and when he got hit with the plague in 542, she stepped up and ran things until he recovered whereas most empresses would’ve given up on Justinian and married someone else and let them take over. It’s one of the great love stories of the ages, but i don’t want it depicted on screen for fear of character assassination

Historian on set: "this isn't historically accurate" Ridley Scott: "WerE YoU tHeRe?"

Great review and I 100% completely agree with everything you've said. Never before have I looked forward to something so much to have it all end up so disappointing.

I felt like it should have been titled as "Napoleon & Josephine: A Love Story."

When I saw that Scoped Sniper Rifle at Waterloo I nearly had a stroke.

Napoleon in a movie? ONE movie? You gotta be kidding me. You can't, he is a subject matter that needs a mini series at least ten episode.

Thank you for articulating the real unforgivably bad part about it - it's just a bad movie just as entertainment or story - and a potentially great opportunity ($200 million + visuals) and wasted it.

This film looks like an adaptation of British anti-Napoleonic propaganda from the 19th century. Good thing he wasn't played by Danny DeVito

With all the faults well described by now, forgotten is a point of praise of Dr. White's: that the look of the film is visually fantastic. To me, the sense of transport to this particular era made the movie experience pleasurable despite the disappointments. I could correct the script's errors and fill in the blanks as I went along. And curse the director but not the production crew. It could be a game for history nerds: plunk yourself into this fantasy and win with the most corrections and elaborations. Another plus, view it is a twin cautionary tale. Here is what happens when you change or deny history: the point is lost. Here is what happens when too many people trust in a clinically narcissistic strongman whether he's an ex-emperor or ex-president: he might come back.

Fingers crossed Steven Spielberg's New TV Show Continues A Weirdly Specific Kubrick Trend That Guarantees Greatness Steven Spielberg is turning Stanley Kubrick's unmade Napoleon film into an HBO series.

Brilliant review mate. Been waiting for this. I felt like Joaquin Phoenix was miscast as Napoleon. He’s an excelent actor BUT there are others I would have rather like to see in the Role. Also not a single mention of Trafalgar…

Thank you for your passionate review.

Great review. You hit it exactly. Thanks.

Very interesting to hear your points of views on the film. As a french speaking Canadian I was able to see and hear the comments from french YT channels on cinema, most of them didn’t like the film. I know a bit about Napoleon’s life, I wonder why they missed so much on history (from an historian heard last week only 20 minutes are right, historically). True that Scott was only filming a script the studio gave him, but it shows how much Hollywood doesn’t care about telling a story with minimum of accuracies. (just an example, yes, the battle was not in front of the pyramids but the cannons would have had to be at a very steep angle to reach the top. And even that the artillery is too close to hit such a high target). Phoenix seems depress all the time, the bluish and sepia photography is a turn off. I don’t think I’ll see the film, there is I think much better movies out there. P.S. : I learned recently that Napoleon kept his Corsican accent all his life, yet no movies seems to portray that details (even french films). Corsican would mean adding an Italian accent to the french language. Napoleon was «bullied» about that accent at an early age in school.

I watched a spanish-speaking youtuber making a review like this a couple of days ago, and the conclusion he made and your conclusions in this video are the same. He said "You leave the theatre and you don't know anything. You watched almost 3 hours and you don't know who Napoleon IS. You don't know why he was followed, why he fought, how he raised, who all characters are. You don't know why you should care. You watched 3 hours, and you don't know anything."

Scott likes to be in control. directing writing, producing with nobody that can say no is a recipe for disaster. Like the last two alien films.

I CANNOT WAIT FOR THIS REVIEW... Bring it, Sir!!

Excellent review!

@3:40 THANK YOU!!! You are the first and only reviewer I’ve seen who’s pointed out the bizarre disconnect between orders and actions. It’s as if the orders being given were background dressing to make the setting _sound_ cool, because lord knows the men didn’t actually follow what was being shouted most of the time. During Waterloo, the British ordered “first rank, fire” yet you get sporadic shots from both ranks. And you had the EXACT same thought I did that the battles looked more like a noob playing Napoleon Total War against AI for the first time. Every. Single. Battle. Devolved into a chaotic melee in the middle totally devoid of tactics or maneuvers. It’s as if Scott only knows how to do melee battles because of Gladiator. Heck, we even got the stupid charging of Napoleon’s generals staff into the melee just like some mindless AI would do! I hope the thing about a Spielberg Napoleon series is true, and if so, I hope his attention to historical detail and consistent story give us the proper Napoleon story he aught to have.

Loved the stream of F bombs in your podcast review.

2 scenes that will forever live in infilmy 👍1. His ridiculous reaction to being told he was going to st Helena: “what? Oh shucks! What a bummer”. 2. the way his head slid sideways at the end presumably to show he’d died or nodded off

I'm a lifelong Napoleonic fan, have been a cuirasier reenactor (14th dutch) for many years, but I will not watch this movie. It will ..... stop my will to live. 😢

Well said!

Watched it last night - you are absolutely spot on - no soul - I didn't care about one single character.....A film without that is just pointless

And that exploding horse in the beginning wasn’t a really good date moment

100% AGREE

I feel the movie is like what someone in England at the time would read in the papers about Napoleon Headlines, scandals and, propaganda. Any of us history nerds know from the trailer a the battles scenes were bad. Not only is he charging at Borodin he’s wearing is Republic General uniform. I scoffed at first when he said boats, then thought maybe he was trying to be condescending. I knew it wasn’t going to be a history film. I do agree about the visuals and the strong connection to the paintings. I do like the return from Elba scene visual, being late winter. Very close to the painting. That’s one thing this movie did better than Waterloo😂

Zack, I'll wait to see if you have same opinion as me. My jaw dropped into my popcorn on several occasions...and not in a good way.

Like flicking through a magazine. Few scenes other than set pieces Austerlitz, Waterloo etc lasted more than two minutes. No build up No tension No motives No conflicts. Just sex scene, battle scene, ballroom, bedroom again, different battle somewhere else another ball, guy on a horse, a big ship, another sex scene, back to the battle, Josephine by a lake, back to battle tent, napoleon on Elba, another sex scene, big battlefield mayhem, napoleon on st Helena, end. With pointless statistics not even saying which armies battles were fought against and which side won. Why were these battles fought? What was at stake? Nothing!

I am going through the age of Napoleon podcast at this moment and the inaccuracies are right in your face. I really hated this film. Which is a shame, because I generally like Scott’s films

Just imagine if the magnificent wardrobe dept had been as slapdash with historical accuracy as Ridley Scott was with the story.

So, Schnapoleon directed by Mel Brooks

Only a fool sees a Ridley Scott movie for historical accuracy.

3:15 except they desaturated everything into a dull, muddy blue-gray! All that fantastic cinematography and costuming wasted, IMO.

Joaquin Phoenix's portrayal of Napoleon is one of the worst parts of an egregiously bad film: Napoleon as a sleepy, almost brainless Don Corleone. Shakespeare nailed it when he wrote, "full of sound and fury, signifying … nothing." This film IS comedic, and has next to nothing to do with the Napoleon of history. Could this have been on purpose?

I almost walked out of the cinema but thought that Waterloo would be worth seeing. How wrong could I be, I thought it was poorly put together in the edit maybe the long version will make more sense but not sure how the script can be fixed but what do I know!

It is the UK propaganda version of Napoleon. No you miss the point. Scott is creating a narrative of Napoleon as lucky loser and he skips all the things would make him look cool, just so he could continue that dumb narrative

Thoroughly agree with everything you say. I'd looked forward to this film and, thanks to scathing reviews such as yours, I'll wait until it comes to Netflix. Loved your review, but hey, Dr Zack, please do some tweaking to your lighting. The shadows of your glasses across your face are totally distracting. I kept on thinking you had a port wine stain. But I really enjoyed your review. Thanks.

Damn, that was passionate and intelligent.

No need for the "spoiler" warning, as I have no intention of watching it.

I was absolutely deeply disappointed with Ridley Scott's film Napoleon. I had seen the shorts and immediately felt this could be a multi-visit film. On my departure from the theatre, I felt woefully let down. Ridley Scott you can do much better than this.

CANNOT WAIT

Great eval of the movie... I'm not a historian, but was amazed by the very weak script, fragmented story-telling (direction), and general lack of passion in most of the movie. Thanks for putting this together and sharing it with us.

Napoleon leading the charge at Waterloo :/

Agreed.

It's the only one of Ridley's films that sucked on an epic scale. Many of the elements are what we expect. The sets, the costumes, the actors, the photography, the beauty but the script. Oh boy the play. Something that Ridley said was the most important thing. Well, he's right. The play is everything and that's what he got wrong and that's why the movie doesn't work.

I would have been part of the target audience for this kind of movie but when I found it it was insipid shite I didn't bother. This period of history has an aversion to quality in all of its manifestations. Any recommendations for a written biography of NB?

Never mind the spoiler alerts this man is doing you a favour! And fair warning to Spielberg……sir please follow history to the letter or face getting the same brutal rebuttal!

I was depressed leaving the theatre. Hadn’t looked forward more to a movie since dune. If they had kept the tone anything close to the trailer this would’ve been a masterpiece. Such a waste what’s the point

Of all the many damning reviews of this film that I have seen, this one is the best. Many thanks for enduring the film so that we don’t have to…

This movie should be called “Josephine the Tart and that Guy in the silly hat”.🇫🇷

480p video in 2023 makes this almost impossible to watch on large tv.

"A waste of good cinema"

@3:07 Gutter is taken directly from the 1970 Waterloo film

The fundamental issue with a biopic about a warring general is that half the audience will not want to see it. So the film has to entice the other side of the biological divide... and that's always going to disappoint, those looking for diminutive, yet heroic male role models. Liberal Western Democracy must destroy all cults of personality. Everyone who's educated in the West is taught this. Popularism, or a cult of following a single individual is the most pernicious 'evil' known in the West. To the educated, It is the culpability of the uneducated to instinctually 'and blindly' follow charismatic 'illiberal' leaders. The most salient point about Napoleon in his own time ...and for writers, cultural critics and artists there afterwards... was that he ushered in a period where 'god ordained monarchs' rule was superseded. He was a catalyst, he brought about a zeitgeist of individualism. That 'unanointed' individuals could change history... was unknown before. Napoleon was emblematic of this romantic period. Where anything and everything was suddenly possible. Napoleon wasn't famous because of who he was, his battles, his hat. etc. Only that he symbolised the possibilities of a single individual, a normal 'unordained' citizen. A complete break with religious orthodoxy. A revolutionary idea, suddenly unleashed on the world. Something we currently take for granted and is yet, culturally demonised. The last thing the West wants... is populist generals upsetting the good times... rich people are still very much enjoying in the West.

A lot of films dealing with a major historic figure can get away by slight twists of truths and nissing out on certain scenes but they can still within a certain timespan structure a reasonable narrative and theme this film does neither. It reminds me of a computer game you are looking so forward to only discovering its still in early access waiting months for the rest to come out. How the hell does Apple expect us to watch more of it when we have seen the core elements of it. Does anyone really want to see all this again i know i wont.

considering that his mother was in real life a total prude and viewed josaphine with a large amount contempt and did not approve her marrying napoleon at all.

the movie was so awful that i have stopped watching it after 1 and a half hours.

Any chance the 4 hour cut could change your opinion?

"What is this costume you have on?" (lol) There was something about Josephine in this movie I just didn't find sexually attractive, I been having trouble attempting to figure out what it was. I wondered if it was that deep voice or her general Psychopathic stare,

I recall seeing in the comments the movie looked awful from the trailers. Told ya. Phoenix was TERRIBLE, horribly miscast.

Off topic: how would Christopher Nolan direct Napoleon tho?

I enjoyed it. It was a wild ride and it sparked an interest in me to explore the (true) history of Napoleon.

Phoenix doing his best? At what, playing the Joker? Himself? At what point did anyone think he would be a good Napoleon? Old, weird, dull I his psychotic way. Like getting Johnny Depp to play Tonto, there was never any serious adult who thought this was a good idea.

The smallest ‘big’ movie in cinema history.

I agree. The script was poor. I suspect the film is chopped bits from the 4 hour Apple TV version.

Merci beaucoup Vive l'empereur 🇨🇵

Are there any good Napoleon movies?

Has any other major blockbuster been so badly slaughtered by critics and historians as Napoleon?

I agree I just watched the movie and it was terrible in so many ways.

To catch the feel of an era is very important and I think Ridley Scott is good at that. But the story needs a focus when you try to make his life story. Why did 'Gladiator' work? First of all, I can say that only few of the audience knew the actual facts. Then you can allow for some liberties. AND then you can tell a story about a guy who never existed. AS for Napoleon, well, you can see the problem right away. I'm almost glad Stanley Kubrick never got to make his take in the early 70's. Cause he would have faced the same problems as Ridley Scott did.

The movie depicts a c*ntstruck Napoleon who is destined to lose. If the real Bonaparte was alive he would sue ...

I don't know whether it was the script, the direction, or Phoenix himself, but his portrayal of Napoleon was the worst thing about this film. He was nothing more than a clinically depressed Commodus. I can forgive a lot if the movie can give me a convincing portrayal of the man. It can't even give me that. Fail.

I m agree with you.we expect to spend a good epic movie moment as the trailer show. At the end ,the movie was completely failed.

I can't help wondering if the scene where she draws her dress back and opens etc etc is taken from "Armadeus" in which there is a similar one ( even if it happens in real life in the intimacy between couples. ) Napoleon's voice is all wrong. Really wrong. He's too old. The character is not Napoleon. It just doesn't work. Maybe it's ok for American kids today. Maybe it's aimed at them. Even Marie Antoinette is played in a ridiculous manner. I guess the makers just don't care whether they adhere at least to a degree to the real people. Josephine was double the age of the actress and Napoleon half the age of the actor!!!. This film should be called "The Ritual Humiliation of Napoleon." Excellent review by you. Yes, the greatest crime in creativity is to be boring.

The more negative or mixed (at best) reviews I come across of this, the more temerity I feel in investing an outing to see it theatrically. The movie comes across by description as bloated and unwieldy. There's definitely too much eventfulness in Napoleon's story to encapsulate in a single movie--this subject perhaps would be better served though a mini-series. Or perhaps a single period of Napoleon's life explored in a single film. At any rate, I feel I would probably prefer to catch this one on cable TV somewhere down the road. Another example of a botched screen depiction of one of the all-time true life stories: The utterly lackluster and historically divergent treatment of Antony and Cleopatra's union in the second season of the HBO series 'Rome'.

"This film lacks the most fundamental of things - Napoleon has no dynamite".

Sharpe series with Sean Bean is superior fs !

The French marching in long thin lines at Waterloo when everyone knows they marched mostly in column. That part of the reason the Old guard was beaten back with not a lot of difficulty..

watch the movie with the volume off is a great idea !!! 🤣🤣🤣