Joaquin Phoenix gives the absolute worst performance of his career as Napoleon Buonaparte, choosing to portray one of history’s most famously charismatic leaders, as a wooden cutout. No movie these days would be complete without Reddit/Marvel-tier quipped dialogue, and this screenplay provides it in spades. Many of the events that would naturally adapt to the big screen are skipped in favor of shots of Phoenix crawling under tables like some fucked up dog. No mention is made of Italy, and Spain and Haiti are skipped over as to avoid portraying the subject in any kind of negative light. Irresponsible and reactionary filmmaking shines through in a script that truly feels like it was written by chatgpt. The film concludes with him suddenly dying in a part that reminded me of the poochy “my planet needs me” bit. Do not waste your time. I was expecting a cheesy Hollywood retelling and it didn’t even do that, despite having more than enough source material to do so.
I lost all interest in the movie when Ridley Scott trashed historians for suggesting he might try to study history for his historical biopic. He had Napoleon shoot the Sphinx because it "was a quick way to show he conquered Egypt".
Fucking idiot
I lost all interest when Ridley Scott decided to cut the part where Napoleon falsely tries to convert to the true faith of the prophet Mohammed which led to his downfall in waterloo
A movie just on Napoleon in Egypt would have been more interesting. Its a less explored topic than say the battle of Waterloo.
or napoleon in italy. poor, badly equipped soldiers, little plucky nobody napoleon betting big AND ACTUALLY PULLING IT OFF.
and it's not fucking waterloo. who cares. most covered part of the whole thing, because the english were in it.
The Italian campaign would be AMAZING. Give us his speech to the Army of Italy dammit
Seriously, reading Andrew Roberts' biography of him, I came away thinking Napoleon had genuinely lost his mind when I read his writings from the period. It's been a while, but I recall that he harbored fevered fantasies of going rogue and installing himself as some kind of latter day pharoah or caliph in Egypt and creating some grand new society in his image. A movie about the Egyptian campaign would be entertaining as fuck.
Great concept. That is a movie I'd watch. One man's descent into megalomania, maybe foreshadowing his eventual seizing of power and turning his laurel crown into an imperial one.
Right? There's so much untapped entertainment value with Napoleon, but all that anyone seems to want to do is Waterloo, Russia, and Austerlitz
like Aguirre, Wrath of God by Werner Herzog
the proof of concept is there
But think of an alt history film where he actually does it and it goes to shit
We need more counterfactual history movies in this world, and I'd watch the hell out of that one
It’s even worse than that - they shoot the pyramids.
This part almost makes me want to see the movie ngl
Has this guy in fact been coasting off of the reputation of the two good movies he made for like 40 years?
It's incredible how much momentum he got out of those.
"Auteur" theory is fucking bullshit and it's ruinous.
Well it did give us Reds. So what I’m saying is it’s ok when we do it. Most of the time it just gives us dumb bullshit from long-past-relevant prehistoric filmmakers trying to relive their glory days by making shitty mobster films and casting their prehistoric actor buddies and deaging them so they look like an affront-to-god experimental lab creature that looks 35 but acts 100.
idk why you had to unload a mag into Scorsese but his films all kick ass even (especially) the one with de-aged grandpa De Niro
nooo deaged grandpa deniro dont toe me death! careful, you might lose your balance, fall, break your hip, and slowly decline. nooo, grandpa denirooooo
yeah that scene sucked but it was basically irrelevant to the heart of the film, which is about how life keeps going and you grow old, seeing all the high drama and intrigue and murder you destroyed your entire life over be rendered meaningless because everyone involved just decays & dies of old age. It was almost a response to film itself and an argument against seeing your life through the lens of having some sort of plot.
Some people are very good at specific things, and yes that includes being very good at directing movies, or acting in them, or writing them, or the like. What I say is bullshit is the "this visionary genius who has the most prominent name on this movie you like is implied to have singlehandedly made that movie and therefore unfettered control over an upcoming movie will surely be at least as good" belief that almost never goes as promised.
so like Nolan?
Oppenheimer's pacing was so weird that I fast fowarded the movie on some part
This movie and Oppenheimer had a lot in common, although this made Oppenheimer look like a masterpiece. Both films suffer because they’re both so obsessed with their subjects that they claustrophobically center the entire movie on them instead of exploring the interesting worlds they inhabit.
Oppenheimer is the ''I'm a genius but I'm stuck between 2 rocks'' -type movie. It is a movie made for NYC PMCs
"THIS IS NOLAN THAT MEANS THIS IS AN ADULT MOVIE FOR GROWN-ASS ADULTS. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT YOU ONLY LIKE MOVIES FOR BABIES, BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM" takes are all too common regarding Nolan and yes I count those as Auteur Theory
Disclaimer for readers: yes yes it is okay to enjoy the BWAAAAAAAAAAMS but please stop pompously assuming anyone not BWAAAAAAAAMING with you is some sort of barbarian, child, or barbarian child.
I lost all interest in the movie when Ridley Scott had Napoleon get infected by the magic black goo which turned him into a zombie.
That would make me watch, I enjoyed the vampire hunting Abe Lincoln movie