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

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Oh for the love of...

[Greatoneshere]

Just now, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

Oh for the love of...

 

I've never understood the "literally me" meme so my curiosity got the better of me.  

[Bacon]

4 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

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.

no no no

only Ryan Gosling

you only get 1 literally me

[Bacon]

 

But for real tho, I am just having fun. Ryan Gosling isn't literally me .

 

The whole meme is generally identifying as a social reject. Not the mental illness or violent tendencies, tho for plenty that is what they are going for, but just the depressed lonely guy stuff.

 

Like, you'll often see this image or one like it

when the is something like a cute girl who is "unobtainable" or when you see an attractive couple having everything you want. This image isn't you being angry at the girl or the couple, but an expression of pain from your unobtainable desire, the pain of never having what the couple has.

 

I see that image paired with such things like

 

There is one more video I was going to post but I can't find it.

 

Yeah, I don't get wanting to be Homelander or Joker or Christian Bale

But Ryan Gosling from Drive and Blade Runner

Yeah, he's literally me (not really, still joking)

[Greatoneshere]

53 minutes ago, Bacon said:

But for real tho, I am just having fun. Ryan Gosling isn't literally me .

 

The whole meme is generally identifying as a social reject. Not the mental illness or violent tendencies, tho for plenty that is what they are going for, but just the depressed lonely guy stuff.

 

Like, you'll often see this image or one like it

 

when the is something like a cute girl who is "unobtainable" or when you see an attractive couple having everything you want. This image isn't you being angry at the girl or the couple, but an expression of pain from your unobtainable desire, the pain of never having what the couple has.

 

I see that image paired with such things like

 

This actually helped a lot, thank you for explaining things, makes more sense now. A lot of depressed lonely guys out there if its become a meme I suppose.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

On 11/27/2023 at 1:33 PM, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

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 

did they at least refer to Belgium after 1830 or did they call it Belgium when the movie was supposedly in 1815? 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

did they at least refer to Belgium after 1830 or did they call it Belgium when the movie was supposedly in 1815? 

 

As best as I can remember, the movie showed the characters looking at a map that identified Waterloo as being in Belgium.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

Well, you weren’t there. Maybe the writing was on the walls that the country would be named Belgium so they updated the maps sooner than later so they didn’t have to reprint them so soon. Fiscal conservatism. 

[Jwheel86]

History According to Ridley Scott | The Nation

WWW.THENATION.COM

---

Ultimately what we learn in Napoleon says far more about the director than it does about Napoleon.

 

By Mike Duncan

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Quote

Ridley Scott’s Napoleon could have examined this paradox. To tell the story of the Age of Revolution, one must engage with its contradictions in one way or another. But Scott is not really interested in history. While fascinated by the great march of the past into the present, he is also relentlessly incurious about the historical causes and effects driving and sustaining that march. Ultimately what we learn in Napoleon says far more about Scott than it does about Napoleon.

 

Quote

Unfortunately, Napoleon is not Gladiator—or even on the level of Scott’s other historical films like Kingdom of Heaven, American Gangster, and The Last Duel. Far from helping make a more entertaining movie, Scott’s dismissal of the historical facts only makes it a slog. The lack of context, the absence of historical insight and understanding, means the viewer is given very little explanation for why things are happening. Events seem to follow in succession not because characters and events propel the action forward but because that’s what happens next. Why is Napoleon in Egypt? Why does he fight the Battle of Austerlitz? Why does he invade Russia? Because that’s what happens next. Nothing more is ever said about the wider political or military context. Nor—with one notable exception—are Napoleon’s own personal motivations and calculations mentioned. The advances and setbacks of his career are rendered dull and inert. There is no reason for the plot to follow the course it does other than the fact that it does. Scott simply takes the audience from one historical diorama to the next without bothering to bind them together with compelling narrative tissue.

 

 

Quote

Part of the problem is that, despite his film’s being stacked with great actors, his two leads do not add any energy or vitality to their roles. Joaquin Phoenix plays Napoleon as a fixed character who undergoes no growth, change, or transformation. The Napoleon we meet in 1789 is the same Napoleon we bid adieu in 1821. It is not just that 49-year-old Phoenix plays the whole course of Napoleon’s life with identical bearing and tone: He is taciturn, grouchy, and squirming with repression. It’s that nothing that happens in the movie seems to impact him in the slightest. His counterpart Josephine fares little better. Vanessa Kirby’s beguiling performance can’t avoid the fact that she too is stuck in a role without room for growth. When we meet Josephine, she is a scandalous libertine who needs the marriage to Napoleon to secure her position in society. This holds true for the rest of the film. For all that happens in the movie, the main characters remain unchanged.

 

Quote

The lack of meaningful interactions with other characters leaves the film emotionally empty. Napoleon’s marshals demanding that their beloved emperor abdicate at Fontainebleau would have hit hard had the audience ever been told who these marshals were. Napoleon’s dramatic reunion with the Fifth Regiment during the Hundred Days might have stirred tears had the bond between Napoleon and his common soldiers been established earlier in the film. The Duke of Wellington’s speech before the Battle of Waterloo might have had real dramatic weight had the scene not doubled as Wellington’s very first appearance in the movie. Despite his “get a life” attitude, we find Scott not all that interested in the actual lives of this subjects.

 

Quote

So what does that leave us? Unfortunately, not a lot. As a movie, Napoleon suffers from a lifeless plot, wooden characters, and thin worldbuilding. As an exploration of the life and times of a great historical figure, Napoleon suffers from Scott’s scorn for history. What’s the point of making a movie about a historical figure when every single fact has been replaced by fiction?

 

No arguments from me, Mr. Duncan.  None whatsoever!

[Jwheel86]

Finally saw it on Apple+

 

Sucked. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I kinda get that Ridley Scott was probably going for a deconstruction of the tired "Great Man" theory of history surrounding Napoleon and wanted to cut his historical reputation down to size a bit (pun fully intended), but the problem was that the film simply didn't commit to the bit hard enough to effectively pull it off.

[Greatoneshere]

It figures that right after I said in the Gladiator II thread that I didn't think the Napoleon: Director's Cut was coming, it's just been rated R, indicating that it's very likely coming out, and relatively soon. I'm glad I waited. 

 

Ridley Scott's 4-Hour ‘Napoleon: The Director's Cut' is Coming Soon — World of Reel

WWW.WORLDOFREEL.COM

---

It's just been rated R for strong violence, grisly images, sexual content, some nudity and language. This signifies clear intent on the part of Apple TV to make it available on their platform.

 

[Kal-El814]

Contemporaneously released Director’s Cuts piss me off so much, I have no idea why  

[SoberChef]

@Greatonesherego ahead & let the rest of us know how that cut is, because it better be a revelation if it's worth a slog going through again. 

[TheLeon]

The 3 hour 24 minute Director’s Cut is now available. I’m curious, but not curious enough to dedicate my entire evening to it. 

[Greatoneshere]

3 hours ago, TheLeon said:

The 3 hour 24 minute Director’s Cut is now available. I’m curious, but not curious enough to dedicate my entire evening to it. 

 

I'll watch it either Friday night or Saturday night and let y'all know how it is. I have not seen the theatrical cut, knowing this was coming out and that a lot of movies, especially ones like these, benefit from more footage rather than less.

 

It didn't help Rebel Moon (I'm sure it was better than the theatrical cuts but still terrible), but it has sometimes helped Ridley Scott in the past (Kingdom of Heaven, Blade Runner, Legend, The Counselor, etc.; Scott has a lot of director's cuts) so we'll see. If it's even close to being as amazing as The Last Duel was I'll be impressed. 

[Greatoneshere]

I was curious which of his movies actually have director's cuts and whether they made the movie better or not:

 

-Alien (a minute shorter, basically a wash, equal with the theatrical cut)

-Blade Runner (The Final Cut version from 2007 (not the 1992 "director's cut" version) is the only version that matters, this is the ultimate version of the film)

-Legend (I know people who grew up with the Tangerine Dream theatrical cut score think that one is better, but as an overall film you get nearly 20 more minutes of footage and Ridley Scott's intended vision, as the theatrical cut is a result of stupid test audiences making him feel he needed to cut it down)

-Gladiator (I grew up with the theatrical version, which I love, but the 15 minutes of extra footage do help the film breathe and take time with things, a wash but director's cut is overall better)

-Black Hawk Down (at only eight more minutes, the director's cut doesn't change much, but the film feels even more unflinching in the director's cut version, so while they're close, the director's cut wins out)

-Kingdom of Heaven (not much needs to be said; the theatrical cut is anemic and the director's cut is one of the best movies ever made)

-American Gangster (I've always found this movie to be pretty mid despite the prestige but the director's cut is uniformly better, but doesn't save the movie)

-Robin Hood (the director's cut adds 16 minutes but doesn't save another mid Ridley Scott film - it is better though)

-The Counselor (this movie is very divisive but while the theatrical cut is bad the director's cut adds 20 minutes and the movie becomes a really good film in the nihilism genre, the Cormac McCarthy screenplay makes much more sense in the director's cut)

-The Martian (the director's cut adds 10 more minutes of footage, which does fill out the movie some more, but this is just a fun, solid, enjoyable film, both versions are good)

-Napoleon (all we know is the film adds 45 more minutes of footage, the same amount that Kingdom of Heaven had added to it)

 

So there you have it, ten director's cuts (well, eleven now with Napoleon). I'd say that some of his director's cuts improve already decent/good movies to greatness (Blade Runner, Legend, Kingdom of Heaven, The Counselor (despite not being a movie for everybody)) while other directors' cuts don't mess with already great movies and don't add much footage as a result (Alien, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down and The Martian). And two movies whose director's cuts do not save them from their continued "mid" status (American Gangster and Robin Hood). That's a pretty good average for Ridley Scott; 4 massively improve their movies, 4 slightly improve already amazing movies so Scott doesn't mess with them much, and 2 where the director's cut doesn't improve their respective films that were only decent to begin with. 

 

I'm hoping for a Kingdom of Heaven situation given the massive amount of footage being edited back in compared to most of these director's cuts. Here's hoping.

[Greatoneshere]

So, I watched the director's cut of Napoleon this past weekend and the movie is . . . fine. I'd give it a 6/10 or a 6.5/10. It's not a good movie but it's also not a bad movie by any means. The film is gorgeously shot, I couldn't get over how beautiful and practical the film was and how good the battle scenes were done, yet each was also made unique. The acting is excellent across the board and I was particularly impressed by the constant use of strings and classical music throughout the film. The film is also definitely intentionally darkly comedic, with Phoenix's performance really emphasizing the small, pathetic man that Napoleon was which was a refreshing take, I thought, and not nearly as "comedic" and off putting and silly as reviewers claimed. With an additional hour, Josephine (Vanessa Kirby) gets a lot more screen time and she does a great job with selling just how little she really cares for Napoleon.

 

That all being said, the movie fails on a screenplay level throughout. This movie feels exactly like Ridley Scott's other "mid" films American Gangster, All the Money in the World and House of Gucci, which are all handsomely made, wonderfully acted films but they have no staying power. They come and go, and don't reach the greatness of Scott's best work like Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, The Last Duel and Kingdom of Heaven. You don't like or care about any of the characters, and the only ones to receive enough screen time to bother with are Napoleon and Josephine, everyone else comes and disappears for large swathes of time and then reappears, but there's no depth, no emotionality to them, you barely know who anyone is, much less care about them. It's kind of strange to spend 3.5 hours with Napoleon and Josephine and feel like you still don't understand either of them that well (and certainly don't empathize or relate to them) despite all the acting on display. It's just a heartless, empty movie, which sucks because it's so damn impressive and beautiful on other levels that I still think people should watch this at least once for the incredible cinematography and battle sequences.

 

Also the film slides through time to try and cover Napoleon's whole life like a biographical film from the 1990's. As a result, the first 40 minutes are incredibly compelling and then suddenly we're conquering Italy and then battling in Egypt and we have no idea why or who ordered this or what France's interests are in these places. The film just ends up being a sequence of wonderfully made non sequitur scenes with no real connective character tissue between them.

 

TL;DR: Ridley Scott remains an amazing visualist and director, but like Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese and other great directors who are not also writers (basically, not auteurs) live and die by the screenplays they are given. Scott does the best he can but the writing just isn't there. David Scarpa wrote this, who also wrote Scott's All the Money in the World (which was better than this) and wrote Scott's upcoming Gladiator 2. I'm thinking Gladiator 2's blockbuster action will suit Scarpa much more than these real world stories did.