Napoleon - the movie

[Harry von Fleischmann]

As a spectacle, yes, good. Very. B
As an insight into Napoleon’s ego? Does the job. B
As an accurate depiction of his career. It covers a lot of ground but I’d give it a D.
As a portrayal of fashion c1805? A
Battle scenes beyond Toulon are abject failures.
I’m not sure quite why the Prussians were at Waterloo because they’d been clearly unaffected by the wars until then and I’m sure the Spanish welcomed the unexpected peace!
Finally, Phoenix was, I think, very good. Everett? Not a touch on Plummer or even the guy who played Wellington in Sharpe. Or even Steven Fry.

[vtsaogames]

...I’m not sure quite why the Prussians were at Waterloo because they’d been clearly unaffected by the wars until then and I’m sure the Spanish welcomed the unexpected peace!
Finally, Phoenix was, I think, very good. Everett? Not a touch on Plummer or even the guy who played Wellington in Sharpe. Or even Steven Fry.

Other Waterloo films show the Prussians arriving after Wellington has beaten the French. At least this shows them falling on the French flank while the issue is still in doubt, an improvement. Yes, that guy playing Wellington was like a limp balloon.

[Fred Mills]

I saw the film with a yaffle of mates. Half, including me, utterly hated it; two professed to having been entertained in places, and one actually mildly liked it. The haters all admitted that we did not expect a historically accurate biopic (the controversies on this were just too fiery not to have read or seen before we watched the film), but we were just floored by precisely how needlessly bad the history actually was. These are not minor gaffs. There's a point where the dialogue says that nothing happened in Italy. Nothing? And another, right after Russia, where Nappy is forced out, but the years 1813 and 1814 have not happened - at ALL. And why Austerlitz exactly? The battle nonsense others have commented on already. Just rubbish, from start to finish.

The real surprise and disappointment was the film as a film: dreadful, stilted script; wickedly wooden acting, especially by Phoenix; ponderous pacing; endlessly repeated setpieces, almost like a B-roll loop or the same building Spiderman swings past in his first cartoon series (carriages pulling up to Malmaison every few minutes); flat and undeveloped characters (Josephine is maybe the most interesting, but only just); lack of drama or high points in most vignettes.

There are notable exceptions. Loved the uniforms, especially Scott's cavalry fixation. Loved the coronation sequence. Loved the depiction of the army in Egypt, brief though it was. Toulon was good. Loved the penultimate sequence of Nappy on St. Helena, speaking to the kids. Some of this was dead-on from the historical record, and much not, but here were a few points that were not risible, dull as dishwater, fantastically inaccurate, or all of the above. There were just not enough of them to make an enjoyable film, much less an epic. Only one of our six viewers actually liked it, and he was not a slam dunk.

Glad I went. Will watch it again in the longer iteration, with the family, and with much lowered expectations. It isn't exactly a stinker, but it is very, very close, IMHO.

[Harry von Fleischmann]

I agree completely; what I am struggling with is that this is the guy who created The Duellists.

The thing with Wellington is that you don’t really need to write his dialogue as his quotes (real or apocryphal) are more or less all you need. Everitt is a good actor, this was a clunker of a performance.

It’s also been pointed out to me that the Prussians arrived from the wrong flank; I did wonder at the time.

Toulon was indeed good and an opportunity was missed to bookend the film with the poor showing there with the Allied performance at Waterloo.

[vtsaogames]

On the topic of historical accuracy in cinema: re-reading my history of the Teutonic Knights, I note the battle of Lake Peipus, AKA the Battle on the Ice saw few if any of the Order knights at the battle. And the ice didn't break. Won't stop me from seeing Alexander Nevsky again some time.
Also note the part early in the film where he tells his men they'll deal with the Tatars later. A couple generations later, to be precise.

[Basementboy]

I feel it’s somewhat ridiculous to expect historical accuracy in films though. These things are made to entertain wide audiences, not a few grognards like ourselves
What really did it for me was how disjointed the whole film felt. Individual scenes were mostly fine, but Scott is trying to cram nearly two decades into a couple hours, and most of the plot lacks the context to make sense. The four-hour director’s cut could solve the issue though, will be watching thar when I can, though my hopes are staying low.

[carlos marighela]

I love your optimism. 'It's a shit film so doubling its length will make it more watchable'.

Worth noting that the bloated and meandering directors cut of Apocalypse Now is  a lesser film than the version that was released. Sometimes scenes get cut for good reasons. As Scott is, for the most part a fairly pedestrian director, I wouldn't pin my hopes on the extra two hours. Four hours of Joaquim Phoenix looking mildly constipated seems like a cruel and unusual punishment. 

[Tommy20]

Saw it last night.

Wish I hadn’t.

I can forgive a lot of bad history if it’s a good film, but this wasn’t even a good film.  Just a lot of bad history.

[Swampking]

Saw it a couple of weeks ago and I echo Tommy20 - wish I hadn't. My wife was even more upset - she was happy for me to see it but we sat there (in an almost empty theatre) riffing on it, MST3K style.

Taking the historicity (or, lack thereof) out of the equation; I'd also argue that the movie was misnamed. It should've been titled "Josephine and Her Simp Napoleon". Seriously, I wanted and expected to see a movie about Napoleon, not his simpy relationship with his wife.

Some scenes were just weird - the scene of Napoleon with the mummy was particularly cringe-worthy. Was unrequited necrophilia implied in that scene? I could've done without the sex scenes as well - what was the point of including those? To satisfy the purient interest of a few?

As a movie - was it entertaining? To me? No. The battle scenes were 'interesting', to be generous. The story itself was horrible and the acting was as if someone told Joaquin, "You are the terror of Europe but the chick playing your wife is the true star of this movie. If you want your paycheck, remember that!"

[AKULA]

Haven't seen it yet, but judging by the comments I suspect that this thread is more entertaining than the film 

[Harry von Fleischmann]

Do films need to be historically accurate? It depends. “Prisoner of Zenda” or “39 Steps”, say have specific historical settings but are fiction and a few liberties can be taken. You could set “39 Steps” in the summer of 1939 and the plot wouldn’t break. But history is different and enough people know the basics to make errors (or simply not caring  about fact) laughable.

To me, a fact is that at Waterloo, the Allies did not use trenches. Napoleon did not take part in a cavalry charge. To suggest that that happened is bad history. The lack of coherent history makes a hash of the story - why were the Prussians at Waterloo? Were they just a bit bored and fancied a ruck?

I honestly think you get a better feel for the Napoleonic era from “Duellists” and I can’t see the directors cut making any difference to this.

[has.been]

Got to see it, wished I had not bothered. 
More shagging, divorcing & moping over Josephine than anything about military history.
True a film doesn't have to be historically accurate, but at the very least it should be entertaining.
Good examples of entertaining but not historical:-
Errol Flynn as Robin Hood,
Russell Crowe in Gladiator and
Mel Gibson in Braveheart.

Napoleon leading a cavalry charge at Waterloo    and fighting a melee too 

Waterloo with Rod Stieger was far better.

[peleset]

Good god man, you've just pulled the scab off!

[has.been]

Good god man, you've just pulled the scab off!

 
Sorry.