Its so bad 
But also really, really funny, albeit unintentionally (pyramids go boom boom scene melted my sides). Also love the liberal shithousery of portraying napoleon as some sort of proto-Hitler or something, but apparently a couple of advisors and the director himself are anglo and some are ex-british military so can’t say im surprised. The politics of the era are barely touched upon too even though they were such an important aspect of Napoleon’s life like ???
it’s a really weird, aimless and incredibly bland movie, about a man who was certainly none of those things. I wasn’t expecting accuracy but at least a pretty spectacle, but instead got served a 2h long sleeping pill…
Wish I would’ve torrented this thing instead of wastkng money on a pricey cinema ticket (why has the cinema become so expensive what the fuck)
Is this the Joaquin Phoenix movie where he plays a weird loner who is isolated from the rest of society? I really like that one.
I haven't seen a single still of this movie where Joaquin Phoenix is wearing anything other than a contemptuous frown. Wasn't napoleon supposed to be charismatic and funny and shit? Who would follow this dour asshole into battle
Yeah thats another point i hadnt thought off, Joaquin phoenix seems bored as fuck even when in battle, its fucking bizarre
Ridley Scott perplexes me. I like a large portion of his movies (I even liked the "The Last Duel") but the dude also puts out some just really D-grade stuff. I haven't heard many good things about Napoleon from the Internet nor my movie friends in real life.
I remember this movie's cultural impact was huge. It took a decade for society to stop quoting it, but only a week for the quoting to start.
It took a decade for society to stop quoting it,
the movie just came out??
I saw it a few days ago. It feels like a really long series of sketches/short films. There is like no coherent plot to the movie as a whole. They try to shoehorn in way too many historical characters/events, which is weird because they really do not care about historical accuracy. If you do not already know a lot about Napoleon it will be impossible to follow the plot. If you do know a lot about Napoleon you'll just notice how the movie is wrong all the time.
It's pretty funny, sometimes even intentionally, but I can't remember the last time I saw such a mess.
Also: minus points for making Waterloo so boring. It didn't have to be, regardless of the movie's other faults, but it was.
Supposedly there's a four and a half hour cut coming out on some streaming service in a few months.
I'm not sure what the movies like since I haven't seen it and might not at this point, but it could be another Kingdom of Heaven situation?
isnt it already like 3 hours?
"auteur" directors stop releasing longer cuts. please trust your editor.
I don't mind some stories taking longer to tell, so long as it's good.
I preferred the prequel where everyone voted for Pedro
tbh the pro-hitler shit is not that new, Waterloo (1970) portrayed Napoleon as some Mussolini figure
Was it better than Oppenheimer? Because I can't believe that trash was critically acclaimed, well I can but I don't want to.
I never understood that comparison to be honest, i really can’t see any similarities between the two of them. To me it seems like a really weird anglo-saxon post ww2 academic invention.
I think it's definitely overstated, but I think there's something to it. It's not unassailable, but "Bonapartism" seems like a useful analytical concept.
No youre right bonapartism is an actual field of study, i actually find it quite useful to understand early 19th century western europe.
