Napoleon film

[bluedonkey]

Went to see this recently.

Negatives:
-too long
-battle scenes were largely nonsensical
-no character development
-acting was flat
-one reviewer made a telling point: this is Ridley Scott's "Heaven's Gate". Not quite an exact parallel but you get the point, Phoenix and Scott being allowed to self indulge.

Positives:
-[insert here]

[Tedx]

In days gone by I would have gone to the pictures to see this....but there's just too much risk involved these days.

The risk being it's 3 hours of garbage that numbs my bottom and relieves me of many, many British pounds. AND I'll probably wake up the next morning with someone elses infection that they decided to bring into the cinema with them.

[Laughton]

In days gone by I would have gone to the pictures to see this....but there's just too much risk involved these days.

The risk being it's 3 hours of garbage that numbs my bottom and relieves me of many, many British pounds. AND I'll probably wake up the next morning with someone elses infection that they decided to bring into the cinema with them.

Well I know that many cinemas now have super comfy seats and often "doubles" in the back row. But, really?

[MaraMan]

I went to a very comfortable everyman cinema in which there were probably 6 other people, and I enjoyed the film. Sure it has flaws, few films don't. I thought it was beautifully shot, as Ridley Scott's films usually are. The battle scenes were immense and I would think pretty realistic. The one thing that particularly irked me was Joachim Phoenix's yankee accent. I know it was a difference representation of NB's strong Corsican accent, but it did get on my t**s. Other than that I thought it wasn't a bad way to spend two and half hours. I will watch the four hour directors cut when it comes out on Apple TV.

Just for balance.

MM

[Gerry557]

So you liked it then

I was looking forward to this but probably for a watch at home. I've heard that the history is a bit suspect although I need to up my own knowledge a bit more.

Roll on 2024 and some really good films coming out. Or 25 or 26......

[MaraMan]

I was looking forward to this but probably for a watch at home. I've heard that the history is a bit suspect although I need to up my own knowledge a bit more.

I think there are some historical liberties taken but I prefer not to go down that rabbit hole. People will be telling me that Gladiator wasn't historically accurate next

[Tedx]

Yes, but we were entertained.

[MaraMan]

Yes, but we were entertained.

Absolutely and that's the point

[CliffEdge]

Didn't appeal to me so I didn't go and see it. I went to see Barbie which was a hoot.

[bluedonkey]

My wife found it boring.

[bluedonkey]

The Guardian review gave it five stars. I'll just leave that comment there, it could be taken as an endorsement or a warning!

[Gerry557]

I was looking forward to this but probably for a watch at home. I've heard that the history is a bit suspect although I need to up my own knowledge a bit more.

I think there are some historical liberties taken but I prefer not to go down that rabbit hole. People will be telling me that Gladiator wasn't historically accurate next

Yes the Romans invented jeans and gas cylinders

I can't remember if they did digital watches too or if that was a different movie.

There are websites dedicated to mistakes, continuity errors and factual inaccurate things. It's already started with Gladiator 2. Apparently Hannibal was in his 20s and light skinned but is being played by a black 69 year old.

Still if anyone can pull it off Denzel can. Does he do bad films.

Still gonna give Napoleon a go especially now I'm not expecting greatness.

[moorfield]

I was looking forward to this but probably for a watch at home. I've heard that the history is a bit suspect although I need to up my own knowledge a bit more.

I think there are some historical liberties taken but I prefer not to go down that rabbit hole. People will be telling me that Gladiator wasn't historically accurate next

Oh absolutely. We took my father in law to see it today - he is a military historian with many Napoleon books on his shelves, so we made sure to read him the riot act before we went. I'm a fan Joaquin Phoenix, he almost played it for laughs. It was good fun, entertaining, and nice to be back in a big screen cinema again post-covid. Wonderful cameo from Miles Jupp. Suspend disbelief, and you'll be fine.

Edit: It has made me realise I know very little about this period of post-revolution French history, we just aren't/weren't taught it here. Maybe I'll read up on it over Christmas.

[bungeejumper]

I can't remember if they did digital watches too or if that was a different movie.

That was Zulu, I think? The African extras were paid at least partially in wristwatches, and some of them took the opportunity to show them off on their arms during the filming. They wouldn't have been digital in 1964, though.

Speaking of which, I quite enjoyed the Grauniad's piece on historical accuracy in the cinema. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/m ... -mythology

BJ

[Gerry557]

Sir Michael Caine is furious at the news that Zulu, the 1964 film about the battle of Rorke’s Drift that made him an international star, has been named as something that could encourage far-right sympathies by the Research Information and Communications Unit

I remember when there was just a few "far right" now even Jeremy Corbyn is classed as far right. It won't be long before 99.99% are far right and the most leftest person only is classed as left wing.

Anyway I always thought historical facts were those made and told by the Victor.

[Arborbridge]

I initially went to see it out of curiousity because one of the battle scenes was filmed on Kettlebury Hill - an area I know well. And there it was! - quite recognisable to those alert to it.

Anyhow, I enjoyed the film with all the reservations about historical "truth". Like the French not knocking chunks out of the pyraminds with artillery. The resume of Waterloo was pretty good as I remember from reading about it. Nice that the Austrians received the credit which was due to them - which is more than we did in paintint at the time. And Rupert Everett was a good likeness for Wellington.

I agree with my wife's assessment, though, that there were many characters who sort of flitted through and one didn't know who they were meant to be and they had no particular character. Apart from Napoleon and Josephine, what did we know about anyone else? But then, I suppose it was called "Napoleon" rather than "A History of the Napoleonic Wars".

PS: concerning Everyman. Yes, they seem to have nice seating, from what I see - but so far I have shrunk about from paying their premium.



Arb.

[Nimrod103]

The resume of Waterloo was pretty good as I remember from reading about it. Nice that the Austrians received the credit which was due to them - which is more than we did in paintint at the time. And Rupert Everett was a good likeness for Wellington.

Were the Austrians at Waterloo?
I might watch this film, but I think historical accuracy is more important than anything else, unless it really is intended to be fiction set against a historical background.

[bluedonkey]

Blucher at Waterloo was the general in charge of the Prussians. They swung what would have been a draw.

[Arborbridge]

The resume of Waterloo was pretty good as I remember from reading about it. Nice that the Austrians received the credit which was due to them - which is more than we did in paintint at the time. And Rupert Everett was a good likeness for Wellington.

Were the Austrians at Waterloo?
I might watch this film, but I think historical accuracy is more important than anything else, unless it really is intended to be fiction set against a historical background.

Were the Aurtians at Waterloo? The need to ask this question does point to how biassed the English view of history could be. Yes - without Blucher and the Austrians turning up just in time, Waterloo would not have ended in the French losing. Napoleon thought he could quickly finished the battle before reinforcements arrived, but the English held on just long enough. The great English paintings of the time (one famous hanging in Hamptom Court, for example) relegates the Austrians to a bit part and Wellington as the great saviour. Quite unfair, but such is the propaganda countries indulge in.

One outlier here (of the subject of veracity) is the crazy series called The Great - about Catherine of Russia. Subtitled "occasionally true" - it really is a fiction with a general ethos which is not that far from the truth. One might say satire, I think. However, as a rough sketch of history done in such a way as it might whet someone's appetite to learn more, it was excellent. But at least they were honest in not claiming it to be a true account.

As ever, the second series was not nearly as good as the first.

Arb.

[gvonge]

Were the Aurtians at Waterloo? The need to ask this question does point to how biassed the English view of history could be. Yes - without Blucher and the Austrians turning up just in time, Waterloo would not have ended in the French losing.

Er, no. It was the Prussians who managed to get to the battle in time to swing it. The Austrians weren't present.