Napoleon (2023)

[Deniz Zagra]

I, personally, liked it. It really felt like the historical epics from the 60s, of course, with added Ridley Scott scenes and concepts. I understand and agree with the criticism that it left out a lot of stuff; I would have loved to seen the politics a bit more like him accepting the emperor title or his opinions on the republic. However, Ridley Scott did a good job at making the character feel real and believable. The fact that Scott was more focused on Josephine and his relationship with her is no surprise; I think he always liked female characters a bit more. It was interesting seeing her struggles as well. The war scenes were great: not only emotional but also thrilling!

So what did you think of the movie? How would you compare it to Scott's last historical epic "The Last Duel" (2021)? I'm personally more hopeful for the director's cut. Ridley Scott always excels in the alternative cuts/dvd region.

I would also like to add that the opening scene with Marie Antoinette is one of my favorites this year. I love when movies can make us feel what the characters are probably feeling, especially those who lived centuries before us. I think that's one of the things that makes cinema so powerful. The way she walked through the courtyard and the long-lasting shot of her resisting to bend over her neck by blocking it with her shoulders were magnificent. The shallow depth-of-field and the subtle slow motion served that scene really well. I love it when slow motion is done in an elusive way (David lynch does it in "Blue Velvet" (1986) a lot).

 

Edited December 14, 2023 by Deniz Zagra

[Aapo Lettinen]

I think it was a great sarcastic comedy with some dark twists and most of the fight scenes were excellent! some minor cgi flaws like the Moscow scene but overall pretty well made cgi too

[David Mullen ASC]

I felt it should have been a mini-series if it was going to cover the entirety of Napoleon's career. Imagine the screenplay that Robert Bolt could have cooked up if the timeline were restricted to a few significant years. I also had trouble identifying some of the other historical figures in group scenes; it was like Napoleon had no other generals...

The photography was great.

[Deniz Zagra]

2 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

I felt it should have been a mini-series if it was going to cover the entirety of Napoleon's career.

Hopefully Spielberg's Napoleon mini-series will accomplish that. It's based on the research and the screenplay layouts of Kubrick, and apparently Ridley Scott based his screenplay on that version as well.

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I have no interest in seeing it for two reasons. One, I find that dramatising history is redundant. I already know some of the history of the French Revolution, anyway. Two, the trailer put me off.

[David Mullen ASC]

“My Darling Clementine” is redundant? All of Shakespeare’s Histories are redundant?Historical fiction is a pretty huge sub-genre of fiction to dismiss! I mean, that’s a lot of movies alone — everything from “Reds”, “Saving Private Ryan”, “Schindler’s List”, “Lawrence of Arabia”, “Oppenheimer”, “Raging Bull”, “Bound for Glory”, “Glory”, “The Aviator”, “Joan of Arc”…

[Joerg Polzfusz]

Don’t forget Cameron‘s „Titanic“! How long did it take the ship to finally collide with the iceberg? Yikes!

(Just kidding!)

[Joerg Polzfusz]

7 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

I also don’t like the trailer as it shows Napoleon as a genius (while in reality he was just another wacko causing the death of millions of people, reigniting the rivalry between France and German that resulted in two world wars (together with other factors like the collapse of the Austrian Empire, …))

So: Is the movie as bad as the trailer? (Glorification of a wacko combined with brainless, brutal action scenes to make the TicToc-generation look up from their phones?)

If yes: What’s next on Hollywood‘s plate? Adolf Hitler? Josef Mengele? Adrian Dietrich Lothar von Trotha? 

[Brian Drysdale]

Unfortunately, history is full of such characters, although if wacho is a term to cover them is another matter, and they still exist in various forms today. A number of films do feature the darker characters from the past, some of whom still have an affect on life today.

Don't watch feature films to learn history, but care has to be taken not to mythologise these people, as happens in some cases. 

[Stewart McLain]

I thought it was good.  Definitely better than I expected given the number of poor reviews I read about it going in.  It kind of feels to me that  people are judging it less for the film it is and more against an imagined film that they wish it was.  Which is fine up to a point but the film that actually exists has merit.  Perhaps the judgments would be less harsh if the film had been titled something like "Napoleon and Josephine" to better indicate the angle that this movie chose to view his life from rather than just "Napoleon" which leads one to expect a more traditional sort of biography.   

Edited December 15, 2023 by Stewart McLain
clarification

[Joerg Polzfusz]

So the film doesn’t match the trailer?

[Karim D. Ghantous]

19 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

“My Darling Clementine” is redundant? All of Shakespeare’s Histories are redundant?Historical fiction is a pretty huge sub-genre of fiction to dismiss! I mean, that’s a lot of movies alone — everything from “Reds”, “Saving Private Ryan”, “Schindler’s List”, “Lawrence of Arabia”, “Oppenheimer”, “Raging Bull”, “Bound for Glory”, “Glory”, “The Aviator”, “Joan of Arc”…

The two Spielberg films you mention are great. But his best films are fiction. I have no interest in Civil War movies - just watch a documentary, you know? Arguably, Shakespeare's greatest plays are Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, and Hamlet. More or less fiction. 

17 hours ago, Joerg Polzfusz said:

Don’t forget Cameron‘s „Titanic“! How long did it take the ship to finally collide with the iceberg? Yikes!

(Just kidding!)

That film wasn't great. It's a good setting for a fictional story, though.

15 hours ago, Joerg Polzfusz said:

I also don’t like the trailer as it shows Napoleon as a genius (while in reality he was just another wacko causing the death of millions of people, reigniting the rivalry between France and German that resulted in two world wars (together with other factors like the collapse of the Austrian Empire, …))

So: Is the movie as bad as the trailer? (Glorification of a wacko combined with brainless, brutal action scenes to make the TicToc-generation look up from their phones?)

If yes: What’s next on Hollywood‘s plate? Adolf Hitler? Josef Mengele? Adrian Dietrich Lothar von Trotha? 

He was a genius. There is no way around that.

And the trailer just showed the typical affectations that instantly put me off. Underexposure, awful colour, and who knows what else.

[Jon O'Brien]

They say if you can't say anything good then say nothing at all. But I thought I'd say that this is the first example I can think of in my life where a trailer put me off seeing the film. I don't think I will go to see it. I love going to the movies and keep looking for good opportunities to go to the cinema. I don't like the look of the movie from what I saw in the trailer. It looked like a made for TV video on the trailer. I like the gritty look of film for period pictures. To each their own. I think Scott should go back to film for his productions but that's his choice.

I'm sure it's a very well made movie, with great acting and camera work and everything.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Jon O'Brien

[Deniz Zagra]

On 12/15/2023 at 2:53 PM, Joerg Polzfusz said:

I also don’t like the trailer as it shows Napoleon as a genius (while in reality he was just another wacko causing the death of millions of people

He was the reason for many many deaths, but his vision for state regulation is undeniable. Many of his reforms are the base for most countries today (centralized administration of government, higher education systems, etc.)

[Deniz Zagra]

21 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

Underexposure, awful colour, and who knows what else

I can see why that can be off-putting, but it really worked well on the big screen. The film is very contrasty but somewhat bleak as well. The colors are very muted which I quite like (I also think they made it work on 1The Last Duel1 (2021) and "Robin Hood" (2010)). I don't know ut a lot of the senes had that milky contrast as well and maybe a bit of smoke.

 

1 hour ago, Jon O'Brien said:

It looked like a made for TV video on the trailer. I like the gritty look of film for period pictures. To each their own

The look is very digital, but I think Scott and Wolfski are one of the few that can make it work for period films. They don't even try to emulate the film look; they straight out go with the digital image, including very heavy filters for certain scenes, but it somehow works. I don't know how though, but unlike films that were shot digitally and made to look like film, this looked a lot better and was very effective.

[Karim D. Ghantous]

3 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

I think Scott should go back to film for his productions but that's his choice.

I thought that Prometheus looked really good. That was shot with Red EPIC stereo rigs. So, it's having a sense of taste and allowing light to speak for itself. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should...

[Joerg Polzfusz]

11 hours ago, Deniz Zagra said:

He was the reason for many many deaths, but his vision for state regulation is undeniable. Many of his reforms are the base for most countries today (centralized administration of government, higher education systems, etc.)

Napoleon is the perfect example for the human nature: Give a human too much power and he/she will pretty soon turn from a genius into a villain (misusing the power, e.g. by turning a republic into a monarchy with yourself as head) and then into a wacko (being so obsessed by the power that he/she will do wacky things like trying to invade Russia or not staying on Elba). … If Nappi would have stayed in the throne a little bit longer, he would have probably appointed himself as a god (like the emperors of the Roman Empire).

But let’s come back to the movie: as it’s reported to be not as bad as the trailer, I might probably watch it. ?

[Jon O'Brien]

On 12/17/2023 at 11:03 AM, Deniz Zagra said:

The look is very digital, but I think Scott and Wolfski are one of the few that can make it work for period films. They don't even try to emulate the film look; they straight out go with the digital image, including very heavy filters for certain scenes, but it somehow works. I don't know how though, but unlike films that were shot digitally and made to look like film, this looked a lot better and was very effective.

Hi Deniz,

Thanks for your comment on what I wrote. It's good and interesting to get feedback that is fair and reasoned. I think a lot of people will love the look of this picture. One of my brothers in law said to me the other day he loves a certain videographer's work because his shots look "so clean." I think he was referring to that ultra clean video look so many seem to love. I'm not into it myself but that's just me. I like a grungy arty look. Don't even know why! Something to do with painting I think. My mum was a painter and steered clear of a 'clean' look so maybe that's got something to do with it. Anyway, I wish the filmmakers every success with this new movie. And hope that other big names in filmmaking continue to make their feature movies on film, to help keep Kodak and real film alive ?

Jon