As soon as I saw the movie still of a baker rifle with a telescope strapped to the top of it, I realised that Ridley Scott does great comedy fantasy.

Warning! There are no spoilers in this review. This movie cannot be spoiled any further.

Joaquin Phoenix had a lot of 'ideas' and changes to the Napoleon script. And so Napoleon became an incarnation of Commodus from Gladiator and in the end of Joaquin Phoenix himself. With the addition of a toxic relationship with a superior cheating wife, our poor Napoleon was transformed into an avatar of Will Smith.

I walked out as soon as Napoleon joined the cavalry charge at "Waterloo". Must have been murder on his piles.

As a Frenchman: NAY. As a film lover who likes good films because he loves them: NAY. DOUBLE-NAY.

We agree with you here in France. Bof ! A film about bonaparte should choose what aspect or specific event to show. Who kiss to much miss the train

I was waiting for the Alien to burst out of Napoleon's chest, and put him out of his misery.

“Josephine” (and Some Guy Named Napoleon) would have been a more apt film title.

You don't even have to wait long for the first inaccuracy. The opening credits show "1789" and goes to display the arrest of the royal family in the Tuilleries which happened 3 years later 😂😂😂

Thanks for the review, you’ve saved me close to 40€ in tickets for me and the family that will be reinvested in wargaming stuff 😅

It would have been nice if they even mentioned Ney in this film or any other Marshall at that. The film was a hit piece on Napoleon and French nationalism brought to you by Apple and the British

It's such a shame as Napoleon is such an interesting man who for good or ill left his mark on history and instead of a charismatic man full of passion and drive we end up with him being portrayed as a fairly quiet and raspy-voiced lovestruck loon who has the occasional temper tantrum.

The casting was just wrong. Phoenix was too old for the role. The actor who played Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington) was too old for the role. I called the duo the "Old farts club." Kirby is 13 years younger than Phoenix. Josephine was 6 years OLDER than Napoleon. I would have cast: Timothee Chalamet as Napoleon and kept Kirby as Josephine. This way, the age range is more accurate and lends believability to the story of why Josephine could not produce a child. This movie 🎬 is a failure. If Scott was trying to make a love story, it failed. I give it 1 ☆ out of 5 stars possible. Terrible movie.

The moment I realized that Joachim Murat and most of the Marshals weren’t even mentioned…..that was it. Not one historian was on staff for this movie

Did they forget to tell Joaquin he wasn't playing Joker anymore???

Ah yes Napoleon leading the famous charge at Borodino and Waterloo

I've said this before, but for me the best film about Napoleon was Abel Gance's 1927 version. Sounds incredible, I know, but it was totally epic and awesome. I've never forgotten it. This was from some years ago when British TV still showed innovative stuff.

They spent a fortune on CGI and costumes but not a penny on light bulbs.

The fact that its subject had such a massive impact on European history for over 20 years being compresssed into a mere 2 and a half hours says it all - Like you say the film "Waterloo" starring Rod Steiger as NB and Christopher Plummer as Wellington was way, way better - It was filmed in Ukraine and the Soviet Army provided over 15 000 men as extras who all had to be taught the military tactics of the era - I shall certainly give a miss to this one, so thanks for your honest and sincere review

I Thought that having French, English, Austrians and Russians characters all have British accents was a joke. No immersion

Napolean meets Rambo when he charged at the cavalry……hahahaha. What a joke.

I'm really looking forward to Ridley Scott's upcoming film about Churchill. It departs from the usual narrative featuring much footage about him drunkenly making love with his wife, and focusing extensively on his liking for Brandy and cigars. Boring figures such as Anthony Eden, Charles de Gaulle, Stalin, Roosevelt, Atlee and Chamberlain are glossed over or not mentioned at all, and there is a nice little (but totally made up) scene of him shooting at some Zulu artifacts with his elephant gun. Boring irrelevancies such as proposing the European Court of Human Rights or leading the only major power fighting Nazism for over a year are likewise omitted. Title role played by Russel Crowe, with Cameron Diaz co-starring as Clementine Churchill. Oh, at the end, there is a subtext stating 'Churchill did and said some racist things ......

Thanks for the review. Pretty much as I expected. I am going to see it tomorrow - only because I have a free ticket and a free bus ride to reach the cinema. BTW, Napoleon's "takeover" was in 1799, and his coronation was in 1804, not 1805 after Austerlitz. In fact. his troops celebrated the anniversary of his coronation on the eve of Austerlitz.

I was also going to see it a second time and I just couldn’t do it.

Pheonix "acted", if one can call it that, exactly the same way in this as he has in every other movie he's ever been in. There's just no understanding his fans, so I've stopped trying.

Thank you for this. Much appreciated. I suspected that the story would not focus on the brilliance of Napoleon's strategic skills on the battlefield. Instead we got a dull rambling story about Josephine and bizarre depictions of war. I studied Napoleon and Waterloo for my Masters. Napoleonic Warfare was my Doctorate. I fell in love with Napoleon era Warfare as a small child. I spent my youth playing Table Top Wargames. I have no desire to see this film, based on the reviews.

I'll wait for the inevtiable Director's Cut. Modern films be like "Oh, a great figure of history? Yeah but what about his gf?"

Thank you for the heads up. Spent a big chunk of my life reading about the Napoleonic wars and I'm terribly picky to annoying with regards history so will save myself some money

A real wasted opportunity of a film it seems. But thanks, you've saved me a couple of hours of screen swearing.

This film was like having sex with a beautiful woman you have admired from afar for sometime, but you can’t have a happy ending. Very frustrating but not completely un-enjoyable.

Thanks for the review Alex. I haven't watched it yet. Think I'll watch it at home, with low expectations

Oh dear. I was looking forward to see this film, then the trailer dropped. My heart sank even more when I saw the interview with Ridley Scott where he basically binned all history because we weren't there 🤦‍♂️. I'm going to see it on Wednesday with the wife. I've seen enough reviews to go with my eyes open and my expectations tempered.

So, how many decades later and Waterloo, the movie, still holds up! Mr. Scott is definitely faltering in his golden years. Unfortunate.

It needed more work.

The aim was never to make a historically accurate movie, but to reflect Ridley Scott's view that Napoleon was equal to Hitler.

i have yet to see a review that thinks this film is great. i will miss this one for sure.

but phoenix is only good at playing emotionally disturbed psychos.

Its a shame that the battles didn't reflect the history and hus personal valour os overplayed ... if you really wanted to show that, the Italian campaign and Arcole should have been included.

A brilliant fusion of Napoleon and Forrest Gump.

It sounds incredible that Ridley Scott could not have employed a military history advisor with such a big budget movie. In fact, an hour of any Napoleonic military historian's time would have been enough. Someone would have probably done it for free just to get the credit in the film. Unbeliveable how Hollywood cannot be bothered to do this. It would have not changed the film as scott wanted it to be either, but just got the military aspects correct.

As much as I like Ridley Scott historians need to give these filmmakers an earful for such diverging so far from the actual history which keeps happening over and over again. The rare times you see a film actually make an effort to be historically accurate we are usually treated to a real treat.

You got it all about right. Confusion, boredom, clock watching.

The film is complete rubbish from start to finish.

They should have used Abba for the theme tune !

I think the biggest problem is that it's boring. We all know the history is a joke, but so was the historical aspect of Battle of the Bulge - but BotheB is entertaining as a film experience. Given the money Scott had, the resources, and his own talent, to produce something dull and tedius is unforgivable.

Update. Well, I saw the film. One review described it as boring. It was, I nearly went to sleep. I have been studying the Napoleonic Wars for more than 50 years. I have walked battlefields, visited museums, read many books, etc. It takes something pretty soporific to make me fall asleep where Napoleon is concerned. This film did it! [I DID wake up suddenly, when Napoleon's divorce of 1809-1810 was swiftly FOLLOWED by the 1807 meeting between Napoleon and Alexander at Tilsit !!] Gah ! 😱

A very fair review. The film is a series of disjointed cameos, nothing is put in context and some characters are never introduced so we have no idea who they are. For example, I noticed in the credits that Jean-Andoche Junot features in the film somewhere, so I deduce he may be the bewhiskered bloke with little or no dialogue who pops up several times as a stand-in for all 26 marshals (none of whom appear at all). Perhaps some of the gaps are due to the cinematic release having been incredibly badly edited from the four hour director's cut but after sitting through it I have no great wish to find out. The Waterloo sequence is a travesty, apart from the howling inaccuracy of the battle scenes the film's portrayal of Wellington seems to be based on Stephen Fry's interpretation in "Blackadder". One piece of incidental music has been recycled from "Pride and Prejudice" (the film version, starring Keira Knightley). Once you realise that, you can't unknow it. I half expected Mrs Bennett to burst in on Napoleon and Josephine shouting "Oh, Mr Boney! Whatever will become of us?"

The only nomination this deserves is Best Supporting Exploding Horse.

Great vid! I've completely lost interest in seeing this British hit-piece on Napoleon. If I can offer any advice: consider writing a script. You could come off much more authoritative without the "Ums" and "errs" and edit out the big breath-sucks. Anyway, whatever. You've got lots of subs. Great job!

Ridley shouldn't be allowed to make historical movies anymore. This movie was hastened too quickly during the story telling, the relationships, and the development of the main character. Not to mention that Phoenix at 49 is playing Napoleon from the transition of a teenager and onto his 20s, which made no sense until much later on at the end. Even the lack of Napoleon's character direction, his behavior and education throughout the years, accents being over and under played, understanding and evolvement from Ridley has made Phoenix limited in his performance. And it's annoying at this point with the lack of historical knowledge considering that it shouldn't happen in 2023 when it's much easier seeking historical references and facts. Not to mention that Ridley was born in 1937 and should understand this more than anyone else. And there's much more to Napoleon's life and legacy than some love letters and his relationships with woman, which is the only thing that fascinates the filmmakers for some reason... I think that the movie would have worked much better if they had edited out all the battle scenes and instead focused on his personal life or edited out his love life and concentrated on his military career along with the battle scenes because it all happened too fast the way this movie was presented in this shorter version.

Pretty much sums it up, I dozed through bits of it.

trying to cram Napoleon's entire career into a 3 hour film is ludicrous. You would have an easier time condensing the entire Lord of the Rings Triology into an hour long movie.

I looked at my watch ⌚️constantly for it to be over

I knew I wasn't going to see it at a movie theater after watching the trailer a couple of times. It just didn't portray Napoleon the way I have come to know him through many books on him, paintings, movies (Able Gance's "Napoleon" ) and re-fighting many of his campaigns and battles. I may watch it when it comes up for free on KZfaq some day. I would enjoy the sets and costumes, as I paint Napoleonic miniatures. Thanks for the great review!

Waterloo was a total joke, the battle made no sense and even the bits that did happen, happened in the wrong bloody order. From the outset of the battle the Prussians were mentioned all the time but nobody actually mentioned why they were mentioning the Prussians and why the Prussians were significant. The British and French lined up in WW1 bloody trenches well before the American Civil War which was the first major modern war to have trenches in it. Who the hell was Ney and where was he? D'Erlon's Corps were the first lot to advance... no Hougoumont to be seen. Napoleon did not have to rest as it was not shown. D'Erlon's Corps was not beaten back by the British Heavy Cavalry. Ney's ill fated Cavalry charge was not made clear. The British marched forward not backwards... which is the reason Ney charged with Cavalry in the first place. The British Heavy Cavalry met the French Cavalry... by this time they had already been defeated in their ill fated charge. To top it all off... Napoleon charges into battle and is nearly shot in the head. What a joke. Ridley Scott can say anything he wants... this movie was a joke! Even the basics were done wrong!

Film is an epic fail - they did the great man Napoleon wrong. Think they owe an apology to the French.

So wait until it's on Netflix and then watching it while painting nassau troops for quatre bras scenario and yelling at the phone how inacurate all is😅

I agree Alex, I felt some of the Cinematography was ok but on the whole a missed opportunity. The biggest issue I felt apart from in inaccuracies was the pacing of the film, it must have been bad as Mel fell asleep halfway through 😂

My wife and I watched it. She’s not into the napoleonic wars at all but she felt this film just reinforced the napoleon presented in Bill and Ted. Says it all really

At least they got the hat right.

You can't hide bad writing behind fancy sets and A-list actors.

They made him a hitler parody when he was nothing like Hitler. The only 2 things they had in common was attacking Russia and general insecurity. Napoleon wasn't an evil man, and he wasn't a good man but he was a military genius who the troops loved, loved France and was a reformer.

A well-worded balanced criticism. Next weekend I'll probably see the film, warned and ready. The music was by the way a good choice. 👍 At least this video is a real masterpiece.

I will be seeing Napoleon at the local cinema this Saturday. Fortunately, they serve alcohol.

I'm glad you said that about Killers of the Flower Moon, which is the best film I've seen this year by far. 3.5 hours flew by when compared to Napoleon. To me, I don't mind artistic license as long as it benefits the film. Here, it did not do that. Like you, when Waterloo began I was glad that the movie would soon be over. Disappointing.

Couldn't have put any of this better myself. I was extremely disappointed in the lack of interest of getting this film right on ridley part just a mockery really

Your kitty is not happy at all at how much attention she isnt getting. Looks like a sweetheart. One of the big problems with the Waterloo squares scene is how they face. They have them facing parallel to each other, so that each square firing at the enemy is also firing into the next square. They would actually form point facing point (as viewed in 1970s Waterloo) so that they could avoid friendly fire. These SNAFUs arent artistic choices, they are just easily corrected and historically ignored errors that have no value to the story (other than to distract)

Fully concur with the review. Saw it last weekend here in NZ. I really struggled with the transition from Russia to Waterloo. Just did not flow. Yes, the trenches at Waterloo - WTF !!!!!??? Where was the La Haye Sainte farm house??? It was an iconic battlefield item!!!! Vanessa Kirby did a great job, her role and performance felt relatively on point. I'll watch it again on apple TV in January and see if I can critique it more.

At least he gives the audience a chance to feel like Napoleon, 3 hours of that and you know about piles!

Thank you for the review. I think I’ll give it a miss and wait for the extend one on Apple.

I haven't heard a good thing about it. I was so hyped but now I couldn't care less.

I saw it. All I can say is: oh dear. Just - oh dear.

Saw it last night, was mighty disappointed with it, even trying watch it as a movie was hard going. Vanessa Kirby was really good as Josephine i felt but Joaquin was all over the place as Napoleon. I think the best bit was the horse getting hit by a cannon ball, oh and the gorgeous uniforms throughout.

Ridley Scott version of ABBA Waterloo

I fell asleep during the film idk if it was the weed or themovie

Unfortunately i think it trivialised a very complex character.

The best thing about this vid is the delightful fantasy BGM 😅

I was looking forward to it so much... thanks for the honest review

Just saw the film today and managed not to watch your review until now. I think you're being rather kind in your review Alex. I went into the film without expectations. From what little I read, it was a film about Nappy and Jo. That's what I expected. The acting was passible simply because the script and editing was terrible. I am not a Joachim fan and he didn't fail me in this either. I noticed he's listed as a producer. The Waterloo sequence seemed to be shot with the same feeling you and I had... thankfully we'll be done with this shortly.

I see what you did there! I say "Ney", as their depiction of Napoleon makes me feel very "Grouchy"!

It's a typical Ridley Scott movie of the last decades. The Romans in "Gladiator" are not fighting like Romans of the period (don't throwing spears etc.), the French are landing in "Robin Hood" with boats from "Asterix in Britain"... It's a shame that Ridley Scott once produced a nice movie with believable characters such as "The duellists" but later completely lost his interest in history ... in some view... In Germany we have a word for the colours in "Napoleon" which is "Mittelalterfilter". That means that every movie is shown in grey and brown and you rarely see a blue sky. That seems to happened to "Napoleon" too which doesn't has the "sun of Austerlitz" - by no way. I never thought to get a nice movie which makes sense in any way and Scott didn't surprised myself. He just don't cares about history and sometimes I have the impression that he puts a lot of effort into a way to make as many as possible scenes into his films to enoy fans of history. I did like most of the uniforms - although I asked myself why Napi has the Republican uniform at Borodino. But I think if most of the battletactics are just wrong - then good uniforms are somehow pointless...

Thank you for saving 2 hours of my life, this movie is a joke.

Is the entire movie shot in blue light? I heard the movie can't decide what it wants to be, a love story or a military movie and fails at both.

pay day movie for Ridley not a work of art

Drunk History would have done a better job than this.

If something is worth doing, it's worth doing well.

After I left the theatre, I knew that, as a good Englishman, Ridley hates Napoleon and will do all he can to destroy his image...

How can a film have no plot when the story has been documented in thousands of books. A vague stitching together of seemingly unrelated events in Napoleon’s history with absolutely no context, no character development, no exposition. One minute the man is in Paris, next second he is staring at the Sphinx, then he’s back in France. The Russian campaign is mind numbingly stupid, brushed over and entirely confusing. The only thing that stands out is that Napoleon makes a weird quacking noise when he wants sex.

Its amazing that the best the movie has are the fantástic costumes and decorations, but that is because costumes, uniforms and locations of that time were just fantástic! The movie is an absolute fiasco from begining to end in all senses.

So….it were bobbar ….oh well….another 50 years for the next Napoleon flick…hmmm….I might not be here….

It stunk from a distance first clue is Phoenix Yikes - I would have loved to focus on Talleyrand and the Generals

Excellent review

This review was spot on this movie was a huge disappointment. Wish somebody would continue making the master and commander movies.

There are way too many flags in the battle scenes.. Just an obvious observation

As a history fanatic - I am truly hurt, disappointed. Heads-up for future Apple Studios, films.

After seeing it, this is the only thing I have to say about the movie: "Never interrupt a movie director, when he is making a $200 million mistake" 😏😏😏

It seems to be the general agreement. This movie is a missed opportunity.

Succinct but with detail. Super review thanks. 😀

It just had no heart. I don’t mind the historical inaccuracy. Compare it to Gladiator. Equally inaccurate but you left wanting more. An hour into napoleon I was looking at my watch.

Sooo, not a fan then...