Ridley Scott Napoleon is a complete flop. If you ask me, Sergei Bondarchuk's Waterloo is a thousand times better. There is no comparison between the Magnificent Rod Steiger to the Abominable Joachim Phoenix. The Musical Score in Waterloo was exciting compared to the awful one in Napoleon. I tried my best not to leave the movie theater. The Battle scenes in Waterloo are very realistic using many thousands of live extras compared to the few hundred in Napoleon. And why is it dark in Napoleon. You would think in that age there was no Sunlight. Napoleon never charged with his horse in battle like Scott shows him in the battle of Waterloo. If you want to see a romantic Napoleon just watch the movie Desiree with Marlon Brando and Jean Simmons. Another good movie is War and Peace with Henry Fonda and Audrey Hepburn. The Movie "Waterloo" is pretty accurate historically. However "Napoleon" is pure fiction and they make the Great Napoleon look like a complete bum. The dialogue is extremely boring and there is a lot of things that never happened.

Nah what's also great is the 1927 movie; its nearly 5 hours long but its all silent

Yes, and Steigar shows both Napoleons grandeur, greatness and charme.

And Christopher Plummer's Wellington is much more memorable

You might be interested to know there is a 2022 book on the making of the movie “Waterloo”.

Exactly

exactly. this should have been a serie, not a movie. Napoleon life is too much for only 1 movie.

and even that is only a detail of Napoleon's history compared to other things not mentioned

Hard to do that when your focused on him having weird sex with his wife

@@jameshill8493seriously the 💩they focus movies on these days is downright disgusting, disgraceful and sick.

Could have covered so many more actual important events and added real context to his decision making if half of the movie wasn't wasted on Josephine

Hey [Acme633], totally agree with your take on the film. The lack of historical accuracy and the disjointed portrayal of Napoleon's life left me feeling indifferent. It's disappointing when a director of Ridley Scott's caliber falls short. The film indeed needed more depth and focus on pivotal events. Also, Josephine's disproportionate presence was puzzling. Thanks for sharing your insights!

@@smith9157 The movie shows the current situation in the film world. The movie is about a strong man not a woman so it has to have a strong woman or it will be crushed by the social justice critics. This is why Josephine (a historically unimportant person) had to overshadow the main character. You just cant have good movies anymore unless they are showing some Feminist, LGBTQ, Trans or Racist agenda.

I mean, they butchered Austerlitz. It's clear that Scott's personal message took priority before Napoleon the person.

How was it “highly inaccurate”? Other than not including every notable moment in the man’s life

I do agree with you. Kubrick had an impeccable taste. In fact, Ridley Scott was a brilliant director but the years, the money and the fame took their toll...

I heard recently Napoleon is actually black Frenchman, whoever draw him back then was racist. Netflix should be releasing new biography how Napoleon overcome adversity being African French during the revolution and ascended to power and his battle in Japan. Its 2023 and History is malleable nowadays anyways so it doesn't matter.

​@@buckrogers-lk3yr If you get history from movies you deserve what you get.

@@buckrogers-lk3yr Arguably, Napoleon was neither black nor french. He was the most famous son of Corsica, an island that is home to a proud people and near Italy.

@@buckrogers-lk3yr that is just beyond cringe. i never understood why such people just just tell stories of actually interesting people people and instead are just erase the entire history, mythology and folklore surrounding black folk by blackwashing european canon. It seems very racist to do such things to me, yet somehow it's woke and cool these days.

The funny thing is... I knew this movie would suck long before I watched it. You guys are just making my case further.

Or the Battle of Leipzig. He still had a somewhat functional army there but the battle cost him between 60.000 to 80.000 casualties (KIA, WIA, MIA) and marked the end of the reign of Napoleon and showed that the armies of the european Empires had finally adapted. No longer won Napoleon (sometimes Phyrric) victories (like Borodino or Wagram - there he lost between 25.000 to 40.000 against Austria's 26.000 to 40.000) but he was soundly defeated and could no longer replace those losses. While the life support was shut off at the battle of Waterloo, Leipzig was the instance where he was declared braindead.

'tragic failure' it was a triumph of russia against the greatest military mind of the age

Funny story Napoleon listed Haiti as his greatest failure not Russia

I always wanted to see a movie based on a french soldier who is caught up in the dreaded Russian campaign? I even wrote a script and would work very well.

That's a good thought and that would have made the story flow better, no doubt, but Ridley Scott is 85. If I were him, I would NOT be taking on epic trilogies that take up years of your life.

maybe Ridley think, he has not enough time to complete the three movies as he is 87 years old.

He died fairly young in his 50s. He was 42 when he invaded Russia.

old age, at 45? are you 12 or something?

People died very young compared to our age. Also, they were very short in stature.

What inspires a man to be great? Could it have been that woman that drove his insanity?

Agree, had the same reaction…plus the weird colors looked fake. And its a shame, as a historically accurate Josephine is plenty interesting, as she had a complex and often deep relationship with Napoleon, and was was smart, sophisticated and independent. But they wanted to make her “the power behind the throne” orsomething, and why make a movie about Napoleon a romance? It’s like Muzak, in trying to please everyone, you end up with something no one likes.

I think what's worse, though, if they were going to take the rout of making Josephine who made Napoleon what he is, more work needed to be put into it. Its one thing to portray a woman behind a great man, its quite another to portray a man a bumbler who needed her woman to make it through the daily grind, and who happens to have some egotistical issues or something.

@@gregdrivesdriver5104 not like how they portrayed. And what greatness that was never really given any weight to it

@@Itried20takennames It should be called "Diary Of A Love Affair."

That's both right and wrong. Yes , France was in a horrible position because every other Monarchy in Europe was afraid that the revolution could spread and their crows could be taken so they did everything in their power to stop it. Coalitions, wars ,supporting rebels (everything). However Napoleon himself was not innocent as well. He actually turned a lot of his own supporters against him the moment he crown-himself Emperor. It was a problem for the revolutionaries because they overthrew the monarchy and executed the king for "The rule of the people" and suddenly the biggest protector of the republic took the crown. Also the Iberia mess was his doing , not the powers.

What the other guy said. But saying Napoleon didn't go forth with offensive military campaigns is wrong. He did both defense and offense wars. He basically is the father of nationalism but that cannot be attributed to himself alone, the historical context and the industrial revolution also played a big part in that (and in the liberal revolutions at all, it probably wouldn't have happened without it).

He is famous dictator and not much better than the monarchies. It wouldn’t be fair to frame him like you are either

Napoleon was primarily a “defender” of France? Look at where his battles were fought. Not much “defending” going on.

You have a very whitewashed understanding of Napoleon if you think all his wars were "defensive" in nature. Yes the monarchies feared and despised what he represented to be sure, but he was also a narcissistic nationalist and imperialist who believed he was destined to rule Europe and made decisions to that effect. To the detriment of France.

brilliant take, completely agree

I haven’t seen it yet but it seems like a hugely wasted opportunity. We won’t get many massive budget historical films. They should have given Napoleon a different arc. Sounds like it was played in a very bizarre way.

Didn't even show the Italian Campaign... it should've been the sole focus of the movie lmao

Facts. I wanted to experience the insanity and genius move behind Napoleon in terms of accomplishments, tragedy and warfare. There's so many directions to take an unique legend like Napoleon and I don't understand why the love relationships always gets brought up because it limits his legacy on the screen. Ridley has a habit of changing history and the narrative of a time according to his own opinions and somewhat greed for understanding the past along with not being true to real life characters like most filmmakers. Also, they should have spoken in accents or at least French.

@alcottdevalte7440 100%!!! The thing is, you don't have to LIKE the guy to tell the story or to appreciate their achievements. This movie was little better than badly written smear propaganda, emphasis on badly written. It provides ZERO insight into the person, its so bad that it only reflects on Ridley's capacity as a filmmaker - or rather his LACK thereof.

I was thinking the exact same thing as I was driving home from the venue. it was even dull at times. Jaquin Phoenix was miscast, too old and sullen for the part. Did like Vanessa Kirby as Josephine. She had the charisma that the little corporal lacked.

I agree I actually said maybe (3) films like LOTR, I watched an awesome doc series on YT and it went for about 8 hours, there is no way this movie can cover this, the retreat from Moscow is a movie in its self, I await the critical drinkers review

Steven Spielberg is already preparing a mini-series on Napoleon, and with a bit of luck, it won't be as disappointing.

Yes, I'm hoping so too. We're lucky Spielberg was planning this before Ridley Scott's film released. I think a mini series would better serve Napoleon's story or better yet a trilogy of films. Just hope Spielberg aims for more historical accuracy and less focus on Napoleon's relationship with Josephine. Their story should be covered but not overly so. I know a film or mini series isn't a documentary, but when portraying real historical figures I think it needs to be factual to some extent. Or what's the point? Have a good one @@tyller60

@@tyller60based on Kubrick script too

As a non french, scale 1-10 how bad?

Ridley Scott should have been put out to pasture BEFORE 'Prometheus', but especially AFTER that god-awful film!

As a America, ce la vie😅

@@schrisdellopoulos9244 And your point? "This is life?"

Funny because I had the exact opposite experience. Apparently, these history buffs haven’t seen many history movies, or didn’t expect it to be about Josephine, or are upset that Joaquin wasn’t possessed by Napoleon’s spirit during filming to perfect his character. But it’s pretty damn good, and I can admit to watching a good film when I do, despite its flaws. Braveheart was a crap representation of history, but it’s not a bad movie

I agree with you on both. Both were very well done.

This looks like it was done by a kid for a dvxuser short in 2004.

DW Griffith was the pioneer in color toning scenes - blue for night, yellow for morning, red for battles. It sounds as if Ridley Scott is just playing with the old toolkit here.

I reccoment the excellent mini series "Napoleon", great soundtrack too, which lacks in Scott's film.

@@frisianwarrior2295 There's more than one miniseries. I know of three. Which are you referring to?

Totally agree. Especially with the "get rid of Josephine" part 🙂

I totally agree with you. I saw the movie on Thanksgiving and actually was finding myself dozing off during the movie

That’s what they’ll never top the film Waterloo. That’s film did it justice. Shame it was made by a Soviet director, as it flopped in the West.

It completely skipped his genius for war in the initial campaigns in Northern Italy that made him famous. His later battles like Austerlitz weren't a simple ambush against a moronic bunch of generals; it was a series of deceptions (he pretended his army was weak and one of his flanks were vulnerable) and then heavy attacks and counterattacks that destroyed the Allies armies order of battle. His supporting actors in the movie (particularly on the military side) were weak as though he won the whole thing by himself in spite of them. I didn't mind Josephine (she was somewhat important to his psyche), but not to his genius for war and political intrigue. She should have been a supporting role, not the main focus of the movie. Also, Joaquin Phoenix is a seriously overrated actor with a limited emotional range of grunts and facial tics. I would have preferred a more serious focused actor, not someone playing a clown version of Napoleon. He was a complex character, but Ripley Scott seems more interested in portraying a caricature of a lovesick and awkward brute versus then a military genius who terrorized most of Europe for almost 20 years and keep Emperors, Kings, Military Leaders, and Statesman up at night worrying about his next moves. His Maxims on war are still taught in many military academies, he helped rewrite much of the French Judicial law, and instituted reforms in mobile warfare and logistics that are still used today. He wasn't just a clown who got lucky against morons. Many of the military and political leaders who fought him were very skilled in their arenas of politics and war. Even Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington) said his only battle directly against Napoleon was "the nearest run thing you ever saw". The weather and some bad decisions by his subordinates had as much to do with his losing as did the last-minute arrival of Blucher's Army. I did like the inclusion of one individual. The black general seen in several scenes (in history he was an actual individual, Thomas-Alexandre Dumas, the father of Alexandre Dumas (famous French writer of "Count of Monte Christo" and "Three Musketeers".). General Dumas was actually captured trying to evacuate Egypt after Napoleon's failed campaign and eventually died of stomach cancer several years after being released from captivity. He was ignored by Napoleon after his release and the French Government never paid his family survivors benefits after his died (long before Napoleon was deposed). Several of Alexandre Dumas's characters are based on his father's adventures, later imprisonment, and well documented skills as a swordsman.

Well said. After watching the movie, I thought who would follow this soy boy cuck into war? They chose to follow this man, he wasn't put there because of his rich daddy.

Ironically, I did walk out, but only because I was desperate for the loo. Why is it so important not to disgrace the life of a long dead Corsican who was at least partitially responsible for the early deaths of an estimated 2.5 million miltary personnel and 1 million civilians?

@@psychologicalprojectionist You misunderstood the importance I was placing on his figure. It's not a benevolent significance, but a historical one. As someone who appreciates history, I don't like seeing historical figures (OR events) being misrepresented and butchered. Look at the movie 'Downfall'. It is an AMAZING movie that accurately depicts Hitler and the last moments of the war. It's a great movie because it shows you what actually happened. This movie does NONE of that, it's all over the place and focuses on a very uninteresting part of Napoleon's life, his wife.

So, I'm assuming you never paid to see, 'Drop Dead Fred'? hehehe.... Phoebe Cates and What'sHisName...

@@psychologicalprojectionist Wait until you hear how many people the Russians and Germans kill in the next century thanks to kicking out Napoleon and his liberal humanist ideas. SO much to be proud of especially if you're Russian lol.

The only thing that kept me was Josephine's story arc.

I think it was Ridley's exact intention to let the audience down. I hate it too

This was the greatest movie of the year. There’s nothing we can do.

Scottish Propaganda 🤔

I like that Phoenix played the role, and i understand that the movie would have to be stupid and gratuitous to make lots of money. The trailer was more than enough to confirm this, and I'll just say a few things. In 1787, Napoleon was a lieutenant in the artillery, a "nobody." By 1804 every monarch in Europe was calling him "your majesty," and damned sure didnt like it! For the best look at Napoleon, find the 5 volume series "Memoirs of Napoleon Bonaparte" by that guy Bourienne. Bourienne was Napoleons closest friend when they were kids, and because of his accounting skills, fluency in various languages, and unbelievable stamina, Napoleon made him his secretary, and he was with Napoleon from start to finish, and kept a diary, etc. Those 5 books will tell you plenty!

@@Skipjack7814 Friends are also likely to either embellish or at least portray their friend in a more positive manner than otherwise. Still a good source, just bare in mind its limitations.

@@questionmaker5666 I understand, and some people suggested this (in footnotes, the series i have is a 3rd edition, and has many footnotes and slight corrections, but Napoleon wound up turning against him, and really "jacking up" his life, and by the third volume he was in no mood to "varnish" much. If youve read Calaincourts "With Napoleon In Russia," that really shows the genius of Napoleon. (Calaincourt) shared Napoleons carriage as they left the failed Russian campaign, and Napoleon really expanded on his dreams for a unified Europe. (With him in charge of course!) Napoleon was truly brilliant, but he seriously underestimated the force of nationalism.

@@questionmaker5666 for example, if a woman sat next to Napoleon and "spread her legs," (movie) he would have been disgusted and would have humiliated her. But again, gratuity for the average moviegoer

Exactly the lack of "why" is everywhere, like why there's English fleet in Toulon, why Napoleon had to be in Egypt, why he organized a coup, why did he claimed himself emperor, why did he invade Russia if previous scene is Napoleon talking with Tsar happily. Also with the absence of many characters and events the whole story just doesn't make sense logically, such as not mentioning the war in Spain, so Wellington just came out of nowhere etc.

Nonsense, actor was great. Plot not so much.

I saw a doco series on YT that blew me away it went for 8 hours, it was unbelievable what this man achieved, and no mention of J, after listening to this I doubt whether I will go an see it

@@theend9494whats the name of the docu series? I’d love to check it out

i will get back to you @@Swagmaster021

Please elaborate on how Napoleon's sexual relationship with Josephine was misrepresented...

@@Nebula37 I mean, the dude was an absolute freak to put it gently. in the film they just have sex for like 20 seconds and that's it. in reality they were much much more passionate and Josephine was not the dominant "beast" the film portrays. she was soft and agreeable after the debacle of her cheating on him.

was better than Gladiator. Napolean's character was indepth, he had humility, was capable of violence, humorous was just a well done job by Joaquin. The movie looked incredible, action scenes were great, story was great it was a drama + action + love story, violence was great I dont understand why people are disappointed. These history buffs expect a long drawn out 3 part movie about every expedition he's ever done. I mean this reviewer complains about the "colour" of the battle scene. Get over it mate the scenery was incredible

So far as I have seen at this point, there is no comparison. Scott's looks cheap, though admittedly, it's tough to get a way to pull off the battle scenes with any real accuracy and number of extras. It's all about the numbers really.

not just any extras, an entire soviet cavalry regiment (in the 1970’s the soviets still had active horse mounted cavalry on the far eastern steppe), thats just amazing.

@@bigsoap186 Manstein notes that the hardest Soviet units to deal with were the cavalry, particularly in the marshes. He notes that they could shift position by sixty miles overnight. They were basically just mounted infantry, but they could easily carry a lot of heavy machine guns and plenty of ammo.

woke agenda destroyed another movie that could have been Amazing. they showed way too much women that were IRRELEVANT! they could put at least 1 or 2 more important battles in that time wasted

@@user-hl3qv8qg2s Wow. That is by far the most ridiculous comment I have read today. But, just the same, now I realize that Playboy and Hustler magazine were part of the woke agenda...

There actually is a great miniseries called Napoleon, that will always be the real Napoleon to me.

It could maybe have been done it it was made like Oppenheimer, you would have to be very creative with time to contrast the beginning with the end in which case you're taking advantage of the limited timeframe to show what you may have forgotten from episode 1 of a multi-part series. But who else other than Christopher Nolan could pull it off?

​@@Metaphix Steven Spielberg is doing just that. Look up Speilbeg and kubricks Napoleon Hbo.

​@@TreblaineYeah, Oppenheimer was phenomenal and somehow compiled his whole life in a movie and made it work.

One of my favourites.

I still watch waterloo great movie 1970 @@JenniferM13

That film was the finest epic ever filmed

You betcha

Probably an attempt to get women and normies and all of those who slept thru history class to buy tickets.

meh i think movie was better than anything last 20 years we've had then again critics are usually lying

True enough why emasculate him ? I asked myself the same question,

​@@LadyVixenGameseverything woke from Hollywood flop's including this fake history load of trash. Hollywood deserves to go under.

@@LadyVixenGamesi guess if you didn’t watch anything the last 20 years this statement can be true

​@@LadyVixenGames2002 Napoleon is way better than that

Totally agree , terrible editing, and no characterisation of the main players , something went terribly wrong in this film , could apple executives who held the purse strings have too much say ?

we are still lucky that Hollywood didn't race swap Napoleon

Same as with Waterloo with Rod Stieger's Napoleon you had a good actor and director invested in the character's and the battle it portrayed.

Phoenix is a terrible actor. He can do three emotions: dour, laughing mockingly, and extra dour.

My grandmother always told me; I don't care what they told you in school but Napoleon was Japanese. @@fajarkurniawan9434

Bondarchuk's "voina y mir" is a total bore...the guy was completely clueless with the camera...

What a joke of a movie.

Even the 2002 Napoleon Series (which in my opinion was good showing his life but not his battles) was way better than this.

@@dukekevy6650 I haven’t watched so thank you for sharing. I’ll try to find it available for streaming somewhere.

that very thing is coming later (the movie made as a mini series with ALOT of scenes that didnt make the theatrical version)

exactly!!! imagine making a 2 hour movie... about entire ww2. it would be a disaster! this is how napoleon feels like. everything is rushed and horrible done

Right on

Typical wife. Her husband knows everything about history, not her. Same with music, movies, sports, etc.

@@schrisdellopoulos9244is a troubled individual 😅

@@schrisdellopoulos9244 you good?

@@schrisdellopoulos9244 Not true about my wife.

I wasted $100 on this garbage.

​@@EHou01hahaha that's on you

we will probably never have good history movies anymore.. until the woke agenda is gone.

There have been sooo many good movies since Kingdom of Heaven 😂

Damn I left the theater because it was too boring for me. First time I ever did that

My brother and I went to see Gladiator after a hard days work and we both fell asleep.

@@williammartin2593 you go watch movies with your brother?? haha what a loser.

Yes I totally agree Steiger portrayed him as a man that was losing it and new it .

Rod Steiger captured late Napoleon, but Albert Dieudonné in Abel Gance's epic perfectly captured the energy of young Napoleon

I loved it but there was so much to be shown and the film was all over in terms of timelines

I've always felt the same way about Steiger's Napoleon's portrayal.

I have watched countless times the scene where rod steger as Napoleon is yelling at his staff who was becoming demoralized. He says " Wellington is beaten! Do you call yourself soldiers? at the battle of such and such. I had lost it by 5:00 but I had won it back again at 7:00!!!"

Yeah, the effects were really good. Some of the battle scenes were really good. The scenes with all the horses charging were epic. Unfortunately, that only amounted to a few minutes out of two and a half hours. I would have liked to see a lot more emphasis on the battles. They never established that Napoleon was a great general. They never established that he was feared by all of Europe. Instead, he came across as wimpy, sometimes cowardly. I was mostly feeling sad for Napoleon, how his wife was treating him, how pathetic he seemed.

You should watch the Duelists. Somehow he forgot how to make a good napoleonic movie.

The issues people have are literally just people who want an entirely different Movie 😂 y’all expect something else when going in or won’t go in bc it’s not how you want it. Whatever, better to be the latter

Wyattcole. I wanted a movie that wasn't boring and disjointed. Does that make me a bad person?

@@fatdaddy1996 no, I didn’t say you’re obliged to like the movie at all, didn’t say you’re bad if you didn’t

That's because this was another woke movie, which requires that a white man, no matter how important, be subordinated by a female. Every movie today is like this.

​@@ChatGPT1111Or it's really just bad writing. Not necessarily because of political motivation.

@@applesandgrapesfordinner4626 you can be a Pulitzer award winning writer and get zero social credits or equity points (aka Gov't Grants) to be able to move forward with a film project.

The Sharpe series is hilariously bad and inaccurate. Its like historical fanfiction

@@ghostie7028Still more respectful to the history than Scott’s messy speed-run of the Napoleonic Era.

It's free on KZfaq

I'd recommend to just re-watch Steiger and Plummer's very good performance and avoid this tripe.

Exactly, where was Marengo!

exactly where is our Siege of Toulon's screen adaptation???

No doubt...

Napoleon described Saint Helena as an "unlovely place" so that should capture his view of the island that would be his prison and grave.

From a storymaking perspetive it makes sense to make Saint Helena gloomy, since Napoleon was sentenced to exile there.

Three movies as slow as this one would have been the end of Hollyweird.

@@EHou01 I don't think so. I think the Marshals alone could've carried the first film, perhaps only focusing on a couple of the major ones and not all 20 odd. It would help them to get the audience to actually invest in the cause and the people's who's lives were at risk rather than just doing 5 minute battles and 20 minutes with boring Josephine. The Napoleonic era to me is almost like a drama, its much more about the characters and the heroics rather than purely the action scene battles. But even with 3 movies its unlikely they could do the battles justice where hundreds of thousands perished and so many destinies were changed.

​@@EHou01This movie isn't slow what the hell

I enjoyed the movie; just saw it two hours ago. Josephine was beautiful and interesting but I am much more interested in the battle strategy which I give only a B+. Bonaparte was never in a full horse charge. As well Wellington sure wasn’t the fun Christopher Plumber version from “Waterloo” 1970. One of the most interesting part of the British strategy was having the Brits lay down on the far side of the ridge then suddenly standup, fire, and surprise as the French came close. Sending the French Imperial Guard at the last was also missed. As well I don’t think that the lake scene was such a big part of the Battle of Austerlitz.

exactly... is like making a movie about the entire ww2... it would be a complete disaster. you cant make a movie and portray everything. thats why the best movies of ww2, ww1 etc. only portray 1 campaign (max), even 1 just battle is enough to make a entire movie. napoleon life deserves a entire serie... and that would need at least 3-4 seasons. this movie is a complete joke for anyone that knows basic history.

Title: The Motherf*ckin' Führer 'n' Shiet

Steven Segal as Goering

😢

The Royalists are protesting. For the restoration of the monarchy. The Movie tells so through dialogue

@@taka2517 I get that the movie was covering a lot of ground but they could’ve added in more exposition than just calling them royalists. I wouldn’t say that’s hardly context given someone watching doesn’t know very much about the topic beforehand. Could’ve been as easy as “we finally have given the public the freedom they wanted for so long and now some want to revert back to kings and queens who only serve their own interest” or something like that. Literally like 1 or 2 sentences would’ve been enough for me to shrug my shoulders and say good enough

No he was a killer. In Every country he conquered all citizens lost every right. He reinstalled slavery in every country.

Please no, 2.5h of this massacre were hard enough to watch xd

@@marione2490 lol. Point.

At least the battle scenes on the movie Alexander were quite realistic and good.

The french are extremely regional, anyone from Corsica is Corsican first, French second.

There is no way Gladiator us an over rated film, fist time I have ever heard someone say that,

IMO it is. The whole ending was as cringy as it gets, right down to the whole slow clap to the fallen hero. the whole premise of the gladiator restoring the Republic is ridiculous and just the kind of cheezy, unoriginal writing that plagued it, IMO. @@robanks3895

Outside of the battle scenes, the movie was slower than watching water drain down a clogged sink.