The best analogy I heard about this movie: "It's like if they said they made a Beatles movie, but you find out 90% is about Lennon and Yoko."

Napoleon needs an entire miniseries, like John Adams did. He had an entire era named after him, you need to narrow your focus signifocantly. Waterloo alone had an entire film devoted to it.

Napoleon rolled Europe for 20 years. There's no way you can put his entire life in a two hour movie. Especially somebody so complex as Napoleon.

This was the first time in my dads 52 years of life that he walked out of a movie halfway through. He has a history degree and he essentially called it a mockery of napoleons life and French History. He even tried to give it another chance but then the food fight scene between napoleon and Josephine came on and he couldn’t take it.

Scott telling historians to "get a life" is self explanatory.

Ridley Scott admitted that he refused historians advice on the project, thinking he could capture the scale of Napoleons historic significance himself by looking at a Wikipedia page. But like all men filled with hubris, he failed.

When Ridley Scott makes a film, God flips a coin.

"Napolean is more of a victim of its own ambitions, weighed down by the sheer scale of what it was trying to accomplish" The duality of this sentence is quite lovely.

You can’t condense Napoleon’s life into 3 hours. He need a TV show that’s 10 seasons long

Imagine a 4 season Napoleon show on HBO shot over 8 years. Cast a guy in his early 30s and make him look slightly younger at the beginning, and by the end make him look slightly older and he can very easily portray Napoleon's aging process

I think my brother put it pretty well when he said: “This feels like a parody of Napoleon” It’s hard to argue with that idea considering that some parts of the movie felt as if they were mocking Napoleon

Napoleon one of the most badass Generals to grace the Earth in the last 500 years deserves FAR MORE respect, in portraying him on film.

The mere idea of condensing the whole adult life of Napoleon in 160 minutes was in and of itself insane.

The French historian who is widely recognised as the best specialist of Napoleon I, the lovely Jean Tulard, who also happens to be a self-professed Ridley Scott fan, hated this film; he jokingly suggested Scott must be getting on a bit, at his age (Tulard himself is 89 old) but he was also very serious about his reasons to dislike Scott's latest work. Tulard pointed out to the fact that from a historical perspective, Napoléon Bonaparte has to be separated into two distinct entities: the young, hungry, ambitious consul Buonaparte ('Boney', as the English infamously nicknamed him), and the Emperor-what power made of him. Both are fascinating men in their own right, but they would require two very different movies. Not to mention, these are very complex moments in French history we're dealing with and the details are so potently interesting that one wonders how Scott managed to miss all of them out in favour of a much more ordinary story. As for Napoléon's great love for his first wife Joséphine, which was elected as the focus point of the film... The idea that Boney's passion for her, although undeniable and well documented (seriously. Their correspondence is abundant and _raunchy_), somehow hindered his formidable tactical spirits is laughable, at best. Bonaparte was a political beast, a master of military strategy, and quite the ruthless, driven creature. His love also waned as he came to realise that his wife could not give him an heir, and he repudiated her remorselessly enough. By the way, Ridley Scott cast Joséphine as an actress FIFTEEN YEARS YOUNGER than lead Joaquin Phoenix, which is rather frustrating for the historian considering the real Joséphine de Beauharnais was SIX YEARS OLDER than her brand new husband-whom she married out of marital strategy and ended up loving in time (their affections mirrored, since she grew fonder of him as his own passion dwindled)-who had been with only one woman beforehand, a prostitute; whereas Joséphine was the widow to one of France's most raging libertines, the marquis Alexandre de Beauharnais, who died under the guillotine, a man said to have inspired Laclos the character of Valmont in _The Dangerous Liaisons...!_ (And the puzzling choice to have Joaquin Phoenix play with this stony, witless face all along when Bonaparte was renown by all to be an extremely animated, passionate, charismatic man... I don't know if it's French bashing but it certainly beats history to a pulp.)

Can we all just agree that the greatest and most accurate Napoleon portrayal was in Bill and Ted?

Master and Commander remains my favourite military history film to date

The scene where he said "I am the Senate", did a flip and threw Mace Windu out of the windows of Versailles was true cinema.

We should give the promotional team for this movie a lot of props for managing to make a trailer that makes the footage from a poorly written character drama about Napoleon’s relationship with his wife look like a historical epic about Napoleon Bonaparte.

Someone like Christopher Nolan has to make a Shostakovich film. Great composer with a tragic life that would fit a movie setting very well.

The fact that Marshal Ney's brave stand against the Russian ambush while the 40,000 man French Army was evacuating Russia where Ney ordered his surviving men under his command to cross the bridge before him wasn't featured in the film should tell you a lot about the vision of the project; or lack thereof. Ney risked his life to and put his men's lives above his as the Russian horde picked apart a fleeting French force who was literally fleeing the battle before it even began. Marshal Ney is one of the most interesting officers under Napoleon's command and should be a key character in any film or series about Napoleon. As should many of the other officers and soldiers. It's weird and sad that a competent director like Scott, known for epics like Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven wanted so badly to tell a cringy love story about one of the greatest military commanders in human history. Like why? Who asked for that? Show me his campaign to Moscow. Show me the entirety of Austerlitz. Show me the entirety of fucking Waterloo at least!

Cant lie, Ridley Scott has whiffed a lot since the mid 2000's

When my Dad and I walked out of the theater, he said "I think it would've been more accurate if they had instead called it 'Napoleon & Josephine'. Would've saved me the money I spent on our tickets"

I remember an interview with Peter Jackson shortly after the release of the LOTR. PJ emphasized that what ended up on the cutting room floor was dictated by one rule--Does the scene advance the plot toward the end of the story or not? That was the vision that he and his writing team kept in mind throughout the filming and writing. Keep the main thing the main thing.

It does seem like ol' Ridley's been really mailing it in for a while now. He's still good at creating worlds, he's just forgotten, or no longer cares, how to really tell good stories within them.

Oppenheimer proved you could make a dense, dialogue heavy, epic, historically accurate movie entertaining and commercially successful. Scott's lack of care and attention and inability to listen to reason (like the historians pointing out inaccuracies) means he does an injustice not just to the character but also his own reputation as a filmmaker.

The ENTIER Italian campaign is not even mentionned ONCE in this movie. The most important event in Napoleon's life after the Russian campaign and Waterloo, and it is not ever even IMPLIED that Napoleon went to Italy. In fact the Italian campaign is probably the most formative years of his life, that basically shaped all of his skills and life view and brought him to the international spotlight. NOT a single word.

I just watched it at the cinema tonight. Took a bit of a nap when all the Josephine divorce plot was unfolding. Bit later on a French character asked Napoleon if "this was a joke?" and I literally stuck my hand out into the air to gesture to all around if the entire movie was a joke? nice of them to give von Blücher a shout out during the Waterloo Battle scene wasn't it? Visuals were very good though.

I’m sure his soldiers hardly ever talked about it the rest of their lives, and if they did, probably very little. Some things that happen in life are almost impossible to talk about because you’ll burst out in tears uncontrollably. That’s how powerful war is.

Imagine making one movie about the two world wars and everything in between. You would get something like this.

Napoleon was such an interesting microcosm in history. A person who shouldn't have been able to make a mark on history, according to the rules of society. Yet he defines an entire era of Europe.

Because Napoleon’s reviews were so abysmal, I ended up watching “The Holdovers” with my friend instead thinking nothing of it. In my eyes, it was one of the most emotionally intimate and clever movies I’ve seen in a while. (I do have a few minor criticisms here and there, but by in large, the movie was a masterpiece.)

Ahhhh thank you, well put man. I was hoping you covered there not being any French accents or French speaking people throughout the film. Or maybe I'm uneducated and Napoleon was from LA and his brother from England loool

Just saw the movie and I didn't see Napoleon on the screen, I just saw Joaquin Phoenix. It's not just because he was too old and didn't look like him. Ciarán Hinds didn't look like Caesar in HBO Rome, but I still saw Caesar because he did such a fantastic job in his performance.

Imagine living a life so bold, diverse, and dynamic that it can't be captured in even a 3-hour mega-budget film.

Spot on review. Totally agree, Napoleon is well made movie that didn't know what it wanted to be. I personally wish Riddley Dcott had ditched the love story and focused on Napoleon's military career

I'm hoping that someone does make a 10 part tv series about Napoleon,and I'm really hoping it's done by a FRENCH company with an entirely FRENCH cast,and is above all an honest telling of his life's story.

There are two fundamental problems with this movie. The first is that it's not the movie we - or History Buffs to be specific- wanted it to be. We wanted to see the young, ambitious, cunning, intelligent, brilliant Corsican officer rise to become Emperor using his wits and talents. We wanted to see his genius in planning battles and why his men followed him to the bitter end. We wanted to see the political climber who used lies and manipulation to claw his way to the top and stay there. We even wanted to see the Liberal reformer who made many compromises in realising his agenda for France. However, Scott wasn't interested in any of that. He wanted to tell a much more personal tale of Napoleon and Josephine, showing the world through their eyes and romance. An interesting angle but ok. That then brings us into the second problem with the movie as it fails spectacularly at that too. Who is Napoleon? Who is Josephine? Why do they love each other? Why does she cheat on him and why can't he let her go? Why are they so obsessed with each other and what draws them to each other? I sure as hell can't tell you based on the text of the film. We're never given any of the details to help us understand who they are, why they're drawn together and why it's tragic when circumstances force them apart. We just don't understand or care about them as we're never given the time to as so much attention is spent on battles and the political moves of Napoleon which, again, also aren't very well developed so rather than being a deep dive into Napoleon is instead a jumbled, confused, unfocused mess. And what's so frustrating is that all of the pieces are there! Phoenix and Kirby could have been great, the set pieces are spectacular, the movie in general looks gorgeous and with more time or a better script, could have been great. Really, I think Josephine should have been the main character. Call it "The Emperor's Wife" or something and frame it through her eyes, so no battles or politics, just show how she viewed him on her own. That's the only way it could have worked. Cos trying to do ALL this, and for a theatrical cut? It was as doomed for failure as invading Russia.

I have studied Napoleon for decades and assumed this would be a trilogy at the least. You could easily make 10 films on each stage of Napoleon. The Man changed the world forever...Twice and that's not even delving into his personal life. You could make 3 films on his military strategies alone, which are still used today with modern militaries.

The Drinker has been hanging on to that Waterloo joke for _years_ ..... And DELIVERED

I can't say I'm at all surprised that Sir Ridley Scott's NAPOLEON turned out this way, for more reasons than one. If anything, it only makes me want to watch WATERLOO all over again. For starters, as Cypher the Cynical Historian would put it best, this is a case of a filmmaker who, when dealing with a historical subject, needs to choose battles, not only both literally and figuratively, but wisely, and that happens to be largely the case in terms of story structure and character. Putting aside numerous egregious historical inaccuracies - which also happen to plague previous Scott epics like KINGDOM OF HEAVEN and 1492: CONQUEST OF PARADISE - trying to cover the entire career of a man who conquered a portion of the globe and ruled it as emperor spans too many years, characters, events and other factors that are filled with far more intriguing depth, and which even a miniseries would have to omit certain details and events in order to focus on narrowing the most important elements of Napoleon's history to allow for better character arcs of actual historical figures, continuity of historical details and much more. And even if Napoleon was a narcissistic megalomaniac, his character should neither be glorified or demonized, or portrayed as either a petulant brat or overly stoic figure, but as someone relatable, which is already difficult enough for the audience to relate to compared to a disgraced figure of a lower rank seeking both justice and revenge like Russell Crowe's Maximus from GLADIATOR. Second, Scott has always been more of a visual artist than a dramatist, part of a trend going WAY back to the 1970's and 80's when filmmakers were pursuing the art of cinema as such. But while these filmmakers would hit it out of the park every now and then, they more often than not forget the principle of cinema as established by Pudovkin: that is to say that "a film must not merely be shot, but built" with organic construction and continuity in terms of story, character and event arcs, and execution in terms of cinematic technique and performance, working together in unison. While Scott has hit it out of the park with classics like ALIEN, BLADE RUNNER, THELMA & LOUISE, GLADIATOR, BLACK HAWK DOWN and THE MARTIAN, and certain films like LEGEND have gained cult status, his career is also dotted with a number of failures including 1492: CONQUEST OF PARADISE, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, ROBIN HOOD and EXODUS: GODS AND KINGS that have suffered on the level of not having a compelling enough story, characters to root for or other factors that maintain audience interest. He's exceptional as a technician, capable of creating indelible imagery, but certainly not on the same level as filmmakers like Kubrick, David Lean, or others who have committed themselves to the Pudovkin technique of auteur theory and practice. Finally, not to beat a dead horse, but we're already in an era similar to the period of the mid-1960's to mid-70's where the mammoth blockbuster is fading rapidly in both quality and audience interest, and established filmmakers of the type that include Scott are sadly past their prime. It's time for Hollywood - and other competing film markets - to quit investing in expensive projects that don't even come close to making their money back and instead invest in more innovative and daring smaller-budgeted projects that will allow talented new visionaries with actual skill who can come up with original material and make it look like it cost more than the actual budgets given and with far more freedom in concept, style and uncensored content than what is usually given with films with higher budgets by shady, hostile studio executives. This is a case of history repeating itself - and hopefully, like the high period in cinema from the late 1960's to mid-80's, we can have more than enough ample reason to go to the movies again.

In 2002, the French made a 4-part 6-hours long TV miniseries about Napoleon's life. It's truly worth checking out. Much better than Ridley Scott's failed movie attempt.

I think Rod Steiger will always have the best one in 1970's "Waterloo". Despite it being over 50 years old, the damn near perfect historical accuracy and practical effects, including copious use of live extras, just makes the film.

As always, a very thoughtful and well put together analysis.

For me, one of the main problems with the Movie was that the Battle of Aspern was not depicted. Napoleons first defeat, which could have cost him the war because he lost in Vienna and the Prussians almost joined the war, was not shown.

My biggest issue is how wrong they got most of the history in the film. His argument always is "how do you know you wernt there" But these events are soooo well documented that everything that is wrong is too easy to call out especially waterloo at the end of the film. Not to mention after that the writing itself

Hollywood needs to know that romance isn't needed in everything. It shouldn't be forced to stop the plot.

Somehow Napoleon still escapes true depiction and understanding!

I'm not going to lie. This movie kinda killed a part of me. That might make it sound like I think it's the worst film ever, and I don't. What I mean is, I am a huge history buff but I was born in the mid 90's so most of the historical epics I fell im love with from Troy, to Alexander, to Gladiator, and so many more were all well out of theaters by the time I was going to movies. It had always been a bucket list item of mine to see a big historical epic in theaters so when I heard one about one of my historical favorites was getting a film I was hyped. I literally bribed my wife by taking on the lion's share of her household duties to go see it with me opening weekend. Then I got a film that did not have the historical chops to be a true love letter to the history or the interesting character drama to justify its innaccuracies like other movies like Braveheart. Instead after the first act I sat board wishing I hadn't done the work or paid the money to make this my Friday night. I struggle to think I will bother when the next (far too rare) historical epic comes out.

"Napoleon is more of a victim of its own ambitions; weighed down by the sheer scale of what it was trying to accomplish." Coincidently that's a fitting description of Napoleon the man.

Napoleon and his marshals were very interesting individuals (that are very well documented), so its bizarre that they needed to fabricate events to make the film 'interesting'.

I finally found my truly proper film critic. WELL DONE MATE!

I love that you mentioned master and commander. Epic!

“They think they are great because they have boats”. Terrific writing. ✍️

I'm surprised The Drinker didn't mention the weird tone the movie has of trying to knock Napoleon down, any time he achieves anything it was immediately undone with some form of humiliation in the next scene. Like the mummy somehow shifting to avoid his touch, acting like a fool in diplomatic situations, falling asleep randomly, slapping himself in front of Tsar Alexander, or how he's literally made fun of and belittled by little girls. Not to mention the movie spends next to no time on Napoleon crowning himself Emperor or the consequences of such a thing. I really wanted them to show how that event would have had consequences. But no one even mentions anything. The Pope doesn't even question it.

Thanks TCD, again you've saved me 40 bux and 158mins of my life sitting through this one. As always, your observations and detailed analysis were well worth the listen, great work!

Trying to tell the story of Napoleon in 2-1/2 hours was a giant undertaking. For the people who learn history from movies, this one did okay. His march into Russia was a military feat all by itself. Not even the Germans were successful in their invasion of Moscow. The supply lines were too long to sustain armies.

Napoleon led one of the biggest lives ever. You could probably do a feature-length movie on every year of his life from the time he got sent to boarding school. Imagine a 3-hour movie focusing entirely on that time he quit the army and became a romance novel writer. Or another movie focusing entirely on his governing of Elba during his first exile. Or another movie where he sits in Moscow waiting for the Russians to send somebody over to surrender. Or nothing but one single major battle.

This is why generally, I think historical films should be centred around single events, not entire lives or careers. I remember the Alexander the Great film having many of the same problems.

This is so spot on

Iam loving your voice, drinker. Its so soft compared to how rough it used to be

Napoleon's life needs to be told in at least 3 movies. He literally fought all of the Europe 5 times and won. The only way to beat him was to keep running away until his army got beat by the elements and lack of supplies. This movie couldn't be made today because it would show a masculine charismatic leader and thats not allowed in todays media.

For those disappointed with the latest Napoleon movie, might I suggest people give the Russian four-part adaptation of Leo Tolstoy's War & Peace by Sergei Bundarchuk a chance. If you truly want to see the scale and scope of 1800's battlefields brought to life then these films are a must watch.

Thank you for saving my time!

Another outstanding review!

Oversimplified did it pretty well, but even so Napoleon’s life was too extraordinary for it to be so simply presented

Honestly, I trust the drinker more than every major critic and news outlet. Glad to have him cover this one.

Spot on. Watched half of it yesterday and feel like asking for my money back!

The scoped Sniper Rifle at Waterloo that was shown 3 times fucking killed me in my movie seat…

The way they completely ignore Spain's role in the napoleonic wars is mindblowing.

Phoenix has no fire in his belly when he delivers stirring speeches or lines. He's like a can of good cold coffee instead of a bowl of fire noodles.

Your best review in a long time.

Absolutely on point.

My only concern is, how the hell do you capture a career like Napoleon's in one movie? Over a period of 25 years, he literally led one of the most interesting lives in history, during one of the most interesting times in history. Countless movies and miniseries have focussed on just a few aspects of his life, and the French Revolution that precipitated his rise to power. More books have been written about him than about anyone else, ever.

Thank you for your refreshingly honest and accurate review. When I think of historical figures like Napolean, Mozart, I think of Polanski as a winning cinematic candidate. I admit in advance that Roman Polanski may be a touch too old to underake such an epic film as Napoleon. Moreover, his latest film, The Palace, was a monumental disappointment. However, if we put that aside, and if we can focus on filmmaking and not his personal foibles, I believe there is something meticulous and assured in Roman's direction that prompts me to think he would have been ideal making an epic film of this kind- in French, and with more depth and cinematic aplomb. Think of Polanski's Macbeth, The Pianist, An Officer and a Spy, Chinatown. Kubrick regarded him as an exemplary technician, which he was. Again, he is possibly too old to undertake such a lofty and ambitious film, but Roman's craftsmanship and Swiss-watch-like obsession with nuance and detail would have served this material well. Just an observation based on style and previous works.

My biggest pet peeve with this movie is his wife Josephine is supposed to be 10 years older than him but instead, they got an old actor to play Napoleon while his wife is 10 years younger who is 20 years younger then the actual Josephine is supposed to be.

Speaking as a lifelong Napoleon geek, you've turned in what is by far the best review of this film.

The Holdovers and Godzilla Minus One are both actually good movies that came out this year.

A work of art

Let's be honest. Whilst Scott has directed some all-time great movies, the past two decades have been filled with more misses than hits. Black Hawk Down in 2001 is the last really fantastic movie he made, but every project he comes out with is surrounded by this buzz of "remember how great Ridley Scott was? This next thing is going to be his return to form!"

Napoleon ordering his army to fire cannons at the Pyramids would be like Bob Ross starting forest fires. Napoleon was engrossed by Ancient Egypt, his Grand Army discovered the Rosetta stone and gave birth to Egyptology.

Just found your channel. 3 weeks ago. And I'm catching up. I'm from Kenya Africa. Love your commentary

Darn. I was looking forward to seeing this one.

I’ll say what I said to my girl when we were leaving the movie theater. Some historical figures you could make a short film about and cover everything important in it. For someone like Napoleon, who had such an eventful life, you would need at least something like a show that lasted at least 5 or 6 full seasons. To someone like me, who loves history and is fascinated by Napoleon’s story, anything less would feel silly. He just had too many interesting things happen to him to leave them out. I promise, you may not even like history, but you could love a 5 or 6 season Napoleon show. His life was just that incredible.

To me, it is kind of crazy how refreshing it is to hear an honest breakdown of a flawed movie that isn't the same old "flawed in wokeness".

Thanks for reminding me I need to watch Killers Of The Flower Moon at the beginning of this video. 😄👍

The Drinker identified the core problem of the movie: it's unfocused and that shows in the non-existent character progression. Napoleon and Josephine stay the same throughout most of the movie and even after their divorce. Napoleon is a military genius, if a bit insecure about his position, in the beginning, and it ends the same way. It is never clear if and to what extent his private life influenced his mental state before a battle but it seems to strongly imply it; because we spend a lot of time contemplating his marital problems... This reminds me of Ridley Scott's Robin Hood, where he wants to make his character a bit of an anti-hero (or unconventional hero, if you have strong feelings about that term) and it end up flip flopping between states of heroism and not; much like Napoleon.

And that’s pretty much why Stanley Kubrick never made his Napoleon film. He spent years collecting information and trying to distill this man’s life into a workable script, but could never get it how he wanted it. There’s just too much there. Like you said, it would make a better mini series, like The Crown, with different actors playing the various stages of his life. Now that would be epic.

Napoleon is not just a man, but a entire era. Modern Europe is the result of this singular man. His battles are still studied with Austerlitz, his greatest triumph, treated as a masterclass in warfare. Waterloo as a movie worked because it focused just on the battle and the men involved. This movie can’t cope with a historical figure that stands as a giant even now.

Thank you for your work. You're saving me heaps of time and money that I might have wasted watching shite. Thanks!

I still wanna watch it!!!!

For me, the bar was set far too high by the powerhouse performance of Terry Camilleri in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. Thats a portrayal that'll never be beaten.

My dad and I were massively excited for this film (we are history buffs) and the first thing both of us said to each other as the credits rolled was: "Disappointing"

I think this film should be correctly named "Josephine featuring Napoleon".

Drinker, I think you have single-handedly tanked the movie's second weekend with this video. Well done.

As someone who grew up watching 1970’s Waterloo by Sergei Bondarchuk, I knew this movie would never live up to the expectations set by it. The sheer scale of the battle sequences in Waterloo were truly a spectacle to behold. Actual tactics and troop maneuvers were used while staying extremely historically accurate. Ridley Scott meanwhile shows the Napoleonic wars to be “Hollywood medieval” in nature and just have a bunch of men smashing into each other

I made it a point to tell everyone that I would not see Napoleon until the director's cut was released, and that was before one had even been announced. I learned my lesson with Kingdom of Heaven. But everything I'm hearing and reading gives me the impression that even a director's cut will not do much to save this one.

Def a type of thing that needed a TV series

I enjoyed your take and on it. The movie was exactly what I expected. I like Joaquin for the most part so I liked the movie. Subbed

The minute you see the director screaming about how he doesn't need historians you can feed the entire thing to the wood chipper.

It's absolutely crazy that the same man who made The Duelists made this Napoleon movie. The Duelists had such an eye for accuracy, and Napoleon, well......not so much.