Movies Napoleon (starring Joaquin Phoenix, directed by Ridley Scott) - Official Trailer #2

[SoberChef]

I'm genuinely torn here. Like I legit want to support film as a whole, as well as theaters, atop of Ridley & this project. It's just that, hearing from other reviewers that the pacing is affected by the edit when we all know there is a Director's cut which will more than likely be put out after the theatrical run, I'm hesitant.

[TheLeon]

I saw it yesterday. I would wait for the longer cut. It felt like a loose series of scenes cut from a 10 hour miniseries. You don’t really get a chance to get to know any of the characters, even Napoleon and Josephine feel really hollow. The battle scenes are well done, but you’ve seen dudes in these old timey uniforms charge at each other before, right? 

[Air_Delivery]

Ridley Scott Tells Off French Critics Who Dislike ‘Napoleon’: ‘The French Don’t Even Like Themselves’

VARIETY.COM

---

Ridley Scott isn't letting any criticisms of "Napoleon" bring him down.

 

[Moa]

Was a decent 2/3 film elevated by Phoenix’s very frequent and believably awkward horny scenes. 

[UpvoteShittyTakesOnly]

this movie is harmed by sometimes wonderfully leaning into absurdist humor and other times being too serious

 

jacoocoo is excellent as usual

 

i kinda agree that there is probably a better cut of the film to come but kinda like fuck off ridley scott with your inability to make a worthwhile cut the first time

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I saw it this afternoon and thought it was "fine", but that's probably as far as I can reasonably go with any praise.

 

As @TheLeon and @UpvoteShittyTakesOnly stated, it very much feels like it was cobbled together from a far longer, more cohesive work, but even then I'm unsure whether a longer cut would necessarily elevate the material significantly beyond what is presented in the theatrical release (in contrast to the situation for Kingdom of Heaven).

 

I assume that this film features the same cinematographer as The Last Duel because I have the same complaints about the color grading in Napoleon as I had for that film in that there is none whatsoever.  The color grading was so very non-existent that I genuinely couldn't tell if Napoleon's tunic was blue, grey, or green.

 

Also, congratulations to Sir Ridley Scott for subjecting to us to what could very well be the most boring sex scenes ever committed to film!

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Oh, one positive about the film is that it thoroughly punctures the "Great Man" myth, but I suppose that's only natural for a depiction of Napoleon coming from a British filmmaker 

[TheLeon]

It just seems like a terrible idea to attempt to cover his entire decades-long career into one movie. I’m no expert, but it seems like he did a lot of shit . 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

45 minutes ago, TheLeon said:

It just seems like a terrible idea to attempt to cover his entire decades-long career into one movie. I’m no expert, but it seems like he did a lot of shit . 

 

You're absolutely correct, and that's why I'm not even sure that the four-hour cut will be sufficient to provide adequate connective tissue or character development for the main events depicted in the film.

 

Napoleon's story demands a miniseries, not a movie.

[Kal-El814]

On 10/11/2023 at 5:02 PM, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

FOUR HOURS-LONG DIRECTOR'S CUT INCOMING!

 

Ridley Scott has chopped down his Napoleon director’s cut, but it's still over 4 hours | GamesRadar+

WWW.GAMESRADAR.COM

---

Exclusive: Total Film speaks to director Ridley Scott

 

 

 

"Male auteurs stop making shit gobbling movies that kind of work better when you dedicate an entire afternoon to the affair" challenge.

 

 

Imagine being this fucking dumb.

[UpvoteShittyTakesOnly]

3 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

You're absolutely correct, and that's why I'm not even sure that the four-hour cut will be sufficient to provide adequate connective tissue or character development for the main events depicted in the film.

 

Napoleon's story demands a miniseries, not a movie.

you could probably chop it up into two 2 hour movies with the divorce of Josephine  being the the split and it work pretty well but is more suited for a 6-8 part mini

[thewhyteboar]

The multi-billion idea is to start with a young Napoleon under Pasquale Paoli. Then after a few seasons recast with an older actor, and go through Napoleon's rise to power. Eventually, when the timing is right, you create a spin-off about the Peninsular Campaign and center it around Wellington. Then, you advertise the final season as Waterloo, a TV event 10 years in the making. 

[Keyser_Soze]

42 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said:

The multi-billion idea is to start with a young Napoleon under Pasquale Paoli. Then after a few seasons recast with an older actor, and go through Napoleon's rise to power. Eventually, when the timing is right, you create a spin-off about the Peninsular Campaign and center it around Wellington. Then, you advertise the final season as Waterloo, a TV event 10 years in the making. 

 

Sounds too historically accurate. They should just release a 90 minute version of your pitch with Vin Diesel as Napoleon.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Upon further reflection, I think that the fundamental flaw of the film in its current form is that it doesn't adequately illustrate what I believe to be its central theme: the sharp contrast between Napoleon's command and dominance of the battlefield and his seeming powerlessness in his relationship with Josephine.

 

The film certainly provides brief glimpses of those aspects of Napoleon's home life although they're certainly not particularly insightful and he comes off as little better than a petulant brat, but the representation of Napoleon's military "prowess" really lacks any significant on-screen depiction.  Time and again, it seems that he "blunders" into military success rather than it being the natural outcome of well-planned, well-executed decision-making.

 

These are probably issues that can (and should) be addressed by the extended cut, but in its current form, the theatrical release is significantly underwhelming in its thematic presentation.

[Keyser_Soze]

So how are we feeling about this crossover?

 

[Greatoneshere]

On 11/25/2023 at 5:33 PM, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

I assume that this film features the same cinematographer as The Last Duel because I have the same complaints about the color grading in Napoleon as I had for that film in that there is none whatsoever.  The color grading was so very non-existent that I genuinely couldn't tell if Napoleon's tunic was blue, grey, or green.

 

It's the same cinematographer Ridley Scott has used on all of his films since Prometheus - Dariusz Wolski. I personally love his style, but it's absolutely true that they drained the color from The Last Duel and Napoleon, which seems to have been an intentional creative choice.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

18 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

It's the same cinematographer Ridley Scott has used on all of his films since Prometheus - Dariusz Wolski. I personally love his style, but it's absolutely true that they drained the color from The Last Duel and Napoleon, which seems to have been an intentional creative choice.

 

I have no doubt that it's very much an intentional creative choice - it just happens to be one that I find boring, if not outright distracting.

[TwinIon]

On 11/25/2023 at 2:33 PM, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

I saw it this afternoon and thought it was "fine", but that's probably as far as I can reasonably go with any praise.

 

As @TheLeon and @UpvoteShittyTakesOnly stated, it very much feels like it was cobbled together from a far longer, more cohesive work, but even then I'm unsure whether a longer cut would necessarily elevate the material significantly beyond what is presented in the theatrical release (in contrast to the situation for Kingdom of Heaven).

 

I assume that this film features the same cinematographer as The Last Duel because I have the same complaints about the color grading in Napoleon as I had for that film in that there is none whatsoever.  The color grading was so very non-existent that I genuinely couldn't tell if Napoleon's tunic was blue, grey, or green.

 

Also, congratulations to Sir Ridley Scott for subjecting to us to what could very well be the most boring sex scenes ever committed to film!

 

I also disliked the color grading and had the same issue with Napoleon's tunic, though I would consider the failure to be an excess of grading rather than a lack of it. They've got some hard core tone curves going on and it always felt excessive and degrading. The French flag is only three colors, the white was so cool it was almost blue, the red was unrecognizable, and the blue was apparently exiled. Poor choices all around.

 

On 11/26/2023 at 8:18 AM, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

Upon further reflection, I think that the fundamental flaw of the film in its current form is that it doesn't adequately illustrate what I believe to be its central theme: the sharp contrast between Napoleon's command and dominance of the battlefield and his seeming powerlessness in his relationship with Josephine.

 

The film certainly provides brief glimpses of those aspects of Napoleon's home life although they're certainly not particularly insightful and he comes off as little better than a petulant brat, but the representation of Napoleon's military "prowess" really lacks any significant on-screen depiction.  Time and again, it seems that he "blunders" into military success rather than it being the natural outcome of well-planned, well-executed decision-making.

 

These are probably issues that can (and should) be addressed by the extended cut, but in its current form, the theatrical release is significantly underwhelming in its thematic presentation.

 

I think Scott didn't know how to play with the ambiguity of Napoleon's power or his "goodness." Scott's success in his historical epics has been in their clarity. Maximus and Balian are such pure characters in so many ways, and the evil they faced was so obvious and brutish. Even with Frank Lucas in American Gangster I feel like Ridley loses his way a bit and isn't able to cleanly put forward an anti-hero with the same gravitas as he can an outright hero.

 

The the ending title cards reveal how this film views Napoleon. Here's a list of battles he took part in, and here's how many died. It sets aside the winning and losing, the brilliance or the bumbling and reduces it only to death. I think that outlook on the man dooms much of what might have made for a complex an interesting take. It could have read something like "Napoleon fought in 61 battles; he won 50 and is considered one of the great military commanders in history. Six million people died in his wars."

 

That diminished and simple view of the man is obvious in those ending title cards, but it's felt throughout the film. There's a sequence when Napoleon had left Elba and was marching to Paris and he runs into his first bit of resistance. Soldiers take up their places against him to stop his march, but he approaches them and convinces them to join him. That should have been such a powerful moment, but it ended up falling so flat. I know that both Scott and Phoenix have within them to make me believe that this is a man who inspires and aspires to greatness; a man for whom his former army would gladly forget their new oaths in order to follow once again, but I didn't get that at all. It felt perfunctory.

 

I don't think this is a movie that would be saved by another hour or three. I think it's a director that isn't interested glorifying his subject even in the interest of telling a better story. I'm not arguing that there isn't room for a dour look on Napoleon or that this film should be exulting the man, but it didn't show a very convincing or interesting portrait. It makes me think about how another octogenarian director might have handled the same material. I don't think Martin Scorsese is terribly sympathetic to Jordan Belfort or Ernest Burkhart, but he makes you understand how Belfort got people to buy into his schemes and that Ernest really did love his wife. Which is all to say that there's room for a Napoleon who both a sad sack and a convincing military leader.

 

 

[Kal-El814]

1 hour ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

I have no doubt that it's very much an intentional creative choice - it just happens to be one that I find boring, if not outright distracting.

 

Excuse me, were you there during the Napoleonic era? Maybe colors were muted then. Who can say?

[Kal-El814]

lol

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

36 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

The French flag is only three colors, the white was so cool it was almost blue, the red was unrecognizable, and the blue was apparently exiled. Poor choices all around.

 

As someone on ResetERA posted, this film effectively rendered the French tricolor indistinguishable from the Italian tricolor.

 

36 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

There's a sequence when Napoleon had left Elba and was marching to Paris and he runs into his first bit of resistance. Soldiers take up their places against him to stop his march, but he approaches them and convinces them to join him. That should have been such a powerful moment, but it ended up falling so flat.

 

For me, a large reason why that scene lands with a resounding thud is because up to that point, we're never shown a reason as to why he would command such a high degree of loyalty and devotion from his soldiers.  Sure, he references their victory at Austerlitz -- an event that happened an entire decade ago by the time of his return from the exile on Elba -- and we did see him handing out some (very) small pieces of bread to his troops during the ill-fated invasion of Russia, but that's all the evidence the film provides to justify their sudden treason against the new Royalist regime.  For me, that just ain't enough!

 

The adage of "show, don't tell" can't even really be applied to large sections of this film because it simply doesn't do either.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Of all this film's historical flubs (and believe me, there are MANY), the one that elicited an outright chuckle from me was when the film referenced Waterloo as being located in Belgium (which it is).

 

However, the Battle of Waterloo took place in 1815 while the political/national entity known as "Belgium" didn't exist until 1830 

[Bacon]

Not sure how anyone had faith in Ridley Scott after his director's cut of Balde Runner. Specifically and only the Unicorn nonsense.

 

I have no faith in that man.

[TwinIon]

44 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

For me, a large reason why that scene lands with a resounding thud is because up to that point, we're never shown a reason as to why he would command such a high degree of loyalty and devotion from his soldiers.  Sure, he references their victory at Austerlitz -- an event that happened an entire decade ago by the time of his return from the exile on Elba -- and we did see him handing out some (very) small pieces of bread to his troops during the ill-fated invasion of Russia, but that's all the evidence the film provides to justify their sudden treason against the new Royalist regime.  For me, that just ain't enough!

 

The adage of "show, don't tell" can't even really be applied to large sections of this film because it simply doesn't do either.

Exactly. We see some of what made him an effective military strategist, but nothing about what made him an effective commander to his troops. Did they follow him because he had won victories? Did they love him or simply put up with him? Did he just represent an idea of France they yearned for or was he connecting directly with them? There's barely anything to go on and I don't think Scott even cares.

 

By contrast we see Maximus win one battle to open Gladiator and the film ends before he's reunited with them, but throughout the film you're shown why he's an effective leader of men and you understand why they'd choose to follow him should he return.

[UpvoteShittyTakesOnly]

the turn-saturation-down-to-10%-and-call-it-a-day grade is perfectly emblematic of what a lazy effort the whole thing is from scott

 

 

 

look how good this looks

 

the entire art department must have been furious with the final images because it wasted their tremendous effort

[Greatoneshere]

4 hours ago, Bacon said:

Not sure how anyone had faith in Ridley Scott after his director's cut of Balde Runner. Specifically and only the Unicorn nonsense.

 

I have no faith in that man.

 

That's a very hot take as it's pretty universally agreed upon that Ridley Scott's director's cut of Blade Runner, more specifically his most recent "The Final Cut", is the absolute best version of that movie. And he's made a couple bangers just this past decade including The Martian and The Last Duel. All the Money in the World and House of Gucci were also handsomely made and solid, just not great.

[Bacon]

2 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

That's a very hot take as it's pretty universally agreed upon that Ridley Scott's director's cut of Blade Runner, more specifically his most recent "The Final Cut", is the absolute best version of that movie. And he's made a couple bangers just this past decade including The Martian and The Last Duel. All the Money in the World and House of Gucci were also handsomely made and solid, just not great.

I mean, I said I was specifically and only talking about the Unicorn shit/is he a replicant. I absolutely despise that take. Anyone who thinks Deckard is a replicant should be beaten, starting with Ridley Scott.

[Greatoneshere]

33 minutes ago, Bacon said:

I mean, I said I was specifically and only talking about the Unicorn shit/is he a replicant. I absolutely despise that take. Anyone who thinks Deckard is a replicant should be beaten, starting with Ridley Scott.

 

I'm not sure what the issue is if he's a replicant but okay. That specifically doesn't speak at all to the other films he's directed either way.

[Bacon]

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

That specifically doesn't speak at all to the other films he's directed either way.

it does for me

 

Also, I think the first BR sucks overall, even if replicant references were removed. I only watched it so I could watch 2049 with context. 2049 is top 3 movies for sure, and not just because K/Gosling is literally me. 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

[Greatoneshere]

3 minutes ago, Bacon said:

it does for me

 

Also, I think the first BR sucks overall, even if replicant references were removed. I only watched it so I could watch 2049 with context. 2049 is top 3 movies for sure, and not just because K/Gosling is literally me. 

 

I've never understood this "literally me" stuff. How are you like K?  

 

[Bacon]

Just now, Greatoneshere said:

 

I've never understood this "literally me" stuff. How are you like K?  

 

Bro, he just like me frfr. He can't even get a GF and dies alone. Just like me. He is literally me.

[Kal-El814]

Hard Drive on point as usual.

 

Ridley Scott Defends Decision to Have Napoleon Constantly Ripping a Juul

HARD-DRIVE.NET

---

“I’m sorry, were these critics alive and walking around in post-revolutionary France?” complained the octogenarian filmmaker.

 

 

Quote

“Who’s to say that Napoleon wasn’t excusing himself to the bathroom every few minutes so he could hit his Juul, or putting his hand to his face in a mock-thoughtful expression while taking a sneaky pull right in the living room? Are they suggesting Napoleon Bonaparte couldn’t zero? These guys act like they were there to hear him explicitly say that, ‘whiff of grape,’ was referring to cannons rather than his favorite flavor of juice. I honestly hope these assholes die.”

 

[Greatoneshere]

44 minutes ago, Bacon said:

Bro, he just like me frfr. He can't even get a GF and dies alone. Just like me. He is literally me.

 

Not having a girlfriend and dying alone are very broad facts about a person which doesn't make you like them, you would need to share actual personality traits for you two to be considered similar. Unless I'm missing something. Not having a girlfriend and dying alone is the case for a lot of people. A better compariison would be: "am I a quiet, badass detective who does their job stoically and looks like Ryan Gosling?".

 

It's like when I saw people on the internet going: "Christian Bale in American Psycho is literally me" which, first off, not a good thing, and secondly, I'm doubtful.

[Bacon]

5 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Not having a girlfriend and dying alone are very broad facts about a person which doesn't make you like them, you would need to share actual personality traits for you two to be considered similar. Unless I'm missing something. Not having a girlfriend and dying alone is the case for a lot of people. A better compariison would be: "am I a quiet, badass detective who does their job stoically and looks like Ryan Gosling?".

 

It's like when I saw people on the internet going: "Christian Bale in American Psycho is literally me" which, first off, not a good thing, and secondly, I'm doubtful.

Literally Me Guys

KNOWYOURMEME.COM

---

Literally Me Guys refers to a loose group of fictional characters, usually outsider figures with certain redeemable qualities, whom people, typically social

 

Quote

The character's traits such as "lonely type," "socially maladapted," "silent," "punished by fate"

 

BRO THAT'S LITERALLY ME THO

I'm Ryan Gosling

He is literally me.

[Greatoneshere]

45 minutes ago, Bacon said:

Literally Me Guys

KNOWYOURMEME.COM

---

Literally Me Guys refers to a loose group of fictional characters, usually outsider figures with certain redeemable qualities, whom people, typically social

 

 

BRO THAT'S LITERALLY ME THO

I'm Ryan Gosling

He is literally me.

 

Are you saying you're like the Joker and Travis Bickle and stuff? That's not a good thing - I can't tell is this supposed to be like a good thing to be like violent anti-heroes in fiction at best? Sociopaths at worst? I'd be worried if I was relating to these characters in any sort of literal as opposed to metaphorical way.