I think the only way to do the Napoleonic era would be a series like HBO's Rome. There is just alot of important moments that would never get the proper justice in a movie.

Historical epic. The only thing historical about it is that there was a guy called Napoleon.

Joaquin Phoenix looked sad and tired. It seems to me he played Napoleon as the Joker: Napolean Jokeaparte.

It was almost like a parody. Had they named it Napoleon and Josephine, then maybe i could have given it a pass.

It was a horrible story. The set designs and battles were epic and spot on. Loved Vanessa Kirby ❤️ JPs portrayal of Napoleon was a real downer. Ridley Scott is definitely hit and miss. Loved Gladiator, Thelma and Louise, Alien. He reminds me of Logan Roy with his narcissistic response to French criticism.

The fact that we didn't get a single scene of the the Italian Campaign is insane to me. I had a similar feeling when I watched "Kingdom of Heaven" but after seeing the directors cut of that movie, I became a big fan of it.

Double Toasted also had the exact same opinion if not worse, as Korey refer to it as a "Comedy".

The battles were neither epic or spot on. Musket era battles did NOT involve both sides running towards each other and clashing in a melee like vikings. They manoevred and counter manouvred so as to get their line infantry and artillery to inflict as many casualties as possible, while sustaining as few casualties as possible, using cavalry to cover their flanks and to neutralise enemy artillery. This was the stuff Napoleon was expert at and we saw none of it. Aside from Toulon and a couple of the Peninsula campaign battles (never mentioned), battles in this era were not fought in the dark or at dusk, trench warfare was not used, riflemen did not have telescopic sights and Napoleon did not set up his HQ tent within musket range of the British line. I agree that JP's portrayal was bad. He delivered his lines like he was reading the news.

You cannot have a movie where the main character over a twenty five year period, starts the movie looking older than he does at the end. And the hairlip tend's to draw my eye, Napoleon did not have a hunchback a clubfoot or a peg leg. Reality is that this movie is a deconstruction of Napoleon by Hollywood, Ridley Scott on his soapbox again. not a serious movie, by a fantasy/Sci-Fi movie maker.

I think rhe only way to do the Napoleonic era would be a series like HBO's Rome. There is just alot of important moments that would never get the proper justice in a movie.

Holy shit, I didn’t know Chris had a channel I’m glad I found this 🔥

Trailer : Battles, rise to emperor ... Movie :Josephine & Napoleon ,and love/hate story.

In 2002 A&E did an 8 hour mini series which was not too bad. The length made for much better pacing and at least Christian Clavier affected a credible French accent as Napoleon.

I used to want Ridely to make a movie about Caesar. There's few things I want less from the man now.

the movie felt like an intentional and malicious deconstruction.

I enjoyed the movie despite its many flaws. I'll be watching the extended cut as well. It reminds me of when Oliver Stone made Alexander in 2004. The theatrical cut was poorly received, but when I watched the final cut, I loved it.

This is such a lost opportunity. There probably won't be another film made about this era for years.

It's kind of funny that I keep wanting to compare this to my experience with Dune. So glad that I didn't repeat that monumental disappointment. This was going to be the first time I wanted to see a movie with Phoenix in it. I've seen 3 of his films, one of which was Gladiator and I have seen Gladiator twice, which was more than enough times for me.

This movie is baffling on so many levels. First of all, why didn't they released it as a 2-part movie, like Kill Bill instead of completely butchering it in the editing?! Oh yes, that would make too much sense, instead they will release the full version on Apple TV+ and expect us to pay again for a subscription, because Hollywood is run by brainless monkeys. Then, there's the decision to not focus on Napoleon's triumphs and defeats, his rise & eventual fall and how he influenced an entire era of European history. Nooooo... instead the movie focuses on his relationship with Josephine, because when I go to watch an epic biopic about one of history's greatest generals, I'm interested in his pillow talk with his wife. Then there's the way Joaquin Phoenix portrays Napoleon, as if he's a stoner or something. Sleepy, timid and almost looking embarrassed when he's going to war. Meanwhile, Napoleon was known for being a highly energetic, charismatic and arrogant Alpha male. Hell, even Bill & Ted portrayed him more accurately. Oh and what's with the color grading in this movie? It looks like Ridley Scott put a Zack Snyder filter on. And don't get me started on all the historical inaccuracies, because who wants historical accuracy in a historical drama, amirite?! Just watch Waterloo (1970) with Rod Steiger & Christopher Plummer instead.

True comments

My only surprise was, they didn’t have Napoleon saying not tonight Joséphine. Movie was a dogs breakfast

Napoleon Dynamite was much closer to an accurate depiction of Napoleon

I saw it this past weekend. I liked it. I usually fall asleep in movies I stayed awake the whole time.

Seems there was such a rush to do an epic. Threw me off when I heard RS was in process to do this. Had my doubts especially with JP in the lead. Better to have done a trilogy with French/Italian actors. Or focus on 1 or 2 most profound battles and flashbacks to lesser ones. Or do the Wellington side to cover Napoleon and that era with English, French, Russian, and German where appropriate. Subtitles are fine. Something grandiose in all this... One reviewer, entrenched in that era, mentions that there was no credit to Napoleon's marshalls. Something to be said about a more humble approach rather than going half-baked and selling it by announcing that $200M was spent. Such waste...

There is so much epic shit that happened in his life and to his many marshals and generals, heroics and immense bravery in so many desperate situations that a person today cannot fathem the hopelessness and horror, yet you push on with all your troops together. I can start listing them off but... all that are reading this should watch EpicHistoryTVs animated documentaries about The Napoleonic Wars, very well made.

“Joséphine” (And Some Guy Named Napoléon) would have been a more apt title for this PowerPoint Presentation. There is almost nothing historically accurate except most of the period costumes and some of the set designs. 1/5 or 2/10

First saw Ruppert Everett in Another Country. Great performance.

It may be true that Ridley Scott has made more "bad" than good films. However the good one are influential for eternity in the industry. Napoleon is technically flawless but history wise the director has an axe to grind wirh Bonaparte

Napoleon let his mark on history so much that 200 years later some people still can't get over it and feel to plot to assassinate his character. There's good chance that Napoleon will be study for many many 🎉century to come. Because he has live One of the richest life that any individual will ever live on earth. But will people remember Ridley Scott in 200 years ? Probably not. Ridley has bitterly fail to kill a Legend. People ain't as fool as he tought.

If you can't judge a movie because it "is not the full version" or whatever why should anyone pay the full price for watching it? And I really doubt the full version will be the "real thing" because i don't think an hour and a half more of Josephine will make it any better as there are so many flaws to fix! And the battle scenes were so disastrous in so many ways: no real intensity to show the importance, nor any movement to show Napoleon's greatness as a general, no real leadership...it was like an emotionless zombie master throwing his army of zombies to a senseless melee with the enemy zombies like in the Middle Ages which is so stupid and inaccurate. And that dark blue grey filter to mask the CGI is so boring and makes it harder to understand what's actually going on on the battlefield. In those grand battles regiments of so many different nations took part each with its own uniform and color and all that was turned into the orcs' assault on Helms Deep. And again without the proper context or even a hint of their importance they were totally meaningless. The whole movie was like Josephine, battle, Josephine, battle or some other event with no real context and cohesiveness. 10 days later i can't understand yet the main purpose and direction of this movie and i bet that if someone who has no clue of Napoleon watch that film will ask themselves "why is this guy so important so that 200 years later people spent enormous amount of money to make a movie about him"

Whoa! I was wondering why you haven’t been on DT and here you are doing your own thing

Haven't seen the film and certainly don't plan to pay to see it. I am not surprised at the bad reviews. Scott has made wonderful films. Alien is one of my favorites. But he should stay away from history. Even though Gladiator was a really big success, it was really bad history. That was less of a problem because few people know much about Roman history. It was so long ago that whether it is correct or not matters little to the modern world. But the period of the Napoleonic wars still has relevance in the present. More people would see its faults. I would say that Scott should stay with scfi, but he has demonstrated that he can screw that up to.

Scott should have gone with an unknown actor to play Napoleon. Phoenix just doesn't work as Napoleon for me. Also, the battle scenes look grim and grey like later 'Game of Thrones'. This is blueprinted film-making. We are not getting the level of detail necessary to stimulate the mind.

Yes😊

I've heard virtually nothing positive about this movie, for me I'll always picture Rod Steiger as the Emperor

No, the battle scenes were far from epic. If that's what you're going for, don't bother. Go find a copy of Waterloo, or even one of the Sharpe's TV films if that's what you're looking for. The scene of the British climbing up out of a WWI trench to form square was so completely ridiculous it belongs in a bad sitcom, not a big budget historical epic.

all the reviews are the same for this movie. It's a huge miss. agree with your assessment of his current career. he's been more miss than hit and even those movies that are considered hits like The Martian & The Last Duel that I frankly don't care for.

I keft the theater after 5 secobds Borodino's battle

When you see this movie in cut shots like a Trailer it looks Awesome,.But then when you watch it Normal is just sucks~

You no longer at double toasted? Haven’t seen you there in awhile

I won't see the movie until the four-hour extended version comes out, because I've heard that this theatrical release is too fast-paced and it shows that many things have been omitted. I don't understand why they do this, I guess it's a marketing strategy so people pay twice to watch the film 😂

I Yesterday return from Austelitz reeactment battle i was been Austrian Grenadier on this show and i must say every reeactor there thing that Napoleon movie is terrible and our show there in that reeactment was much more fun and realism that movie

Amazing you failed to mention 'Black Hawk Down' or 'Blade Runner' as Scott's great work.

Historians really seem to hate this film based on Ridley's Scott reaction to them being "Shut up! You weren't there!" Also lots of people hate Napoleon's wife being a young actress when the real wife was actually OLDER than Napoleon, again typical Hollywood refusing older actresses in favor of younger actresses to make the main lead look Mature.

Napoleon Mumblepart

I love history, but the worst thing about this movie is that it is BORING !!!! I could forgive historical inaccuracy if it was a good story. But the real is history is far superior to this absolute lazy muck. Never want to see a movie by this writer again.

braaaaaaaaaam!!

Great review. Movie was a complete disaster and embarrassingly juvenile ~

I doing napoleonic historical reeactment from 2006 and battlescenes in this movie are parodi and joke even people whit basic info about wars in 18-19 century or even some info about battles know that nobody ever doing that stupid charge and fight like in some pub,every Battle in movie is historical nonsence,for exaple Battle of pyramids was 15 km from pyramids,nobody shot cannons on pyramids,battle of Austelitz have flat fields and some hills and only few small ponts not alps hills like in movie and only 2 soldiers die in ponds not all army 😂 etc even old movies like War and Peace or documentary have better battles that this movie.Yea and Napoleon never charge on horse on enemy its total nonsence.I sow this movie Yesterday and its terrible and i dont speak only about his nonsence but boring story only about his lust for wife and they portraid Napoleon like weak near crying children and not like charismatic commander that people follow him ,Yea if you wanna see how battles was fight in that era take look on Austelitz reeactment Battle on yt or Waterloo reeactment Movies like Napoleon whit Clavier or old movies about Napoleon from 70-80 are much better or look on Barry Lyndon movie its historical accurate and still fun to watch

Historical revisionism?

The Counselor was much better ~

Did you just say Prometheus is a bad movie? 😳

Alien and Blade Runner are really great. The rest of his movies are so so, though they always look and sound very good.

100%

I liked recent films Oppenheimer and Killers of the Flower Moon, but Napoleon was better, looking forward to 4 hr version. Phoenix deserves an Oscar for this, also the film put Edouard Philipponnat on my radar. Best performance from Everett in decades. The battle scenes were the best action I have seen this year. Not a film for kids. Disagree with most of you accessment.

Actually, even though he has clearly lost the plot, take them or leave them, Prometheus and Covenant were highly meaningful speculative horror films.