Napoleon: When a Masterpiece Fails
2024 ж. 22 Мам.
9 103 Рет қаралды
💸 Support the channel & get access to non-advertiser friendly videos: / @storytellers1
✉️ Email for business inquiries: lvdpstorytellers@gmail.com
💸 Support the channel & get access to non-advertiser friendly videos: / @storytellers1
Napeleon is the new movie by Ridley Scott. Although I was really excited. In the end it was a dissapointment. Not specifically because it was a bad movie, but because the subject matter deserved more.
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.
Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
💸 Support the channel & get access to non-advertiser friendly videos: kzhead.info/tools/bphDfwSJmxk1Ny_3Oicrng.htmljoin
2 mins in and I had to agree with the stagnant nature of thes movie cycles. The historical epic should shift the medium from the movie to the a television series or a limited series. What can also save not only the historical epic but movies in general would be to explore diverse histories and stories outside of the eurocentric or American central point of view.
South Indian movies should also not be South india centric, isn't it?
you can't expect an english man to do anything good with napoleon
Yes. Kubrick would have completely destroyed Napoleon altogether even with all the research he did documenting his whole life from cradle to St. Helena. It's not a good joke especially when you don't capitalize Napoleon's name.
Because the French did wonders with Napoleon, ending in total defeat, with the juggernaut French military in shambles, a generation's worth of French boys in mass graves, as enemy troops marched down the streets of Paris shoving the Monarchy right up France's as...... That was certainly a triumph, if you lie about it, right France.
@@nellgwenn Do you really think that, destroying Napoleon what, his legend, just because he would have shown how he was really? I think it would have humanized him better, and a better demystification, at least it would be more accurate.
@@jesustovar2549I apologize. I should have used a snark label. I just hate that pathetic joke about how can you trust a British person to make a good movie about Napoleon. It's not funny. Especially when a Russian made 2 excellent movies about Napoleon.
Ridley Scott’s films can be summed up with one word: “Sloppy”. The writing is sloppy, with stilted dialogue that betrays the charisma of the actors on screen. The filmmaking is sloppy, with disregard for the spectacular of the real and instead a fixation on imaginary hollywoodization. The storytelling is sloppy, with disjointed scenes and no clear theming or structure. The audio is sloppy, there’s not a clear direction applied to the sound design in concert with the music. Historical stories are exciting because they show the remarkable reality of our world. They explain where we’ve come from and inform where we are going. Yet Ridley Scott somehow turns every historical into cliffnotes of a wikipedia article.
The fact they tried to fit almost Napoleon's whole story in one movie is insane and immediately made me lose interest. Love your pitch on Nolan directing Caesar. That would be awesome!
If he cant, leave it to Godzilla
I thought the same when I was watching the movie. I absolutely thought that the movie missed what it could have been and it felt like Scott didn't have time to actually put in that much time and effort into it. The "scene by scene" with Joaquin really does show for reasons stated in the video. However, after coming back from the screen, and reading into Napoleon, I felt like watching it again. I felt like the movie did show us Napolean. It showed as to how much self advertising he was doing (especially at the end where he is trying to explain to the kids that he burnt Moscow). How much of a grey character he was. And how desperate he was for Josephine. It almost felt like a mockery of his achievements especially when before the end credits the stats were rolled. It made me think in the lines of, "All of this name, all this glory, in exchange for what?". It felt more of a mockery and bringing Napoleon down from the status of emperor, tyrant, genius, rebel, etc to the status of a human with insecurities (?). He almost had Europe. But he couldn't let go of his "whore". He was shown trembling before going into the battlefield himself on two occasions (at the end, and in the beginning). Another example of Napolean being mocked was him pulling a trunk to look the mummy in Egypt. Even the scene where he escapes from exile and kisses the land upon arrival. He wipes the sand from his lips. Why show that scene? In my understanding, to bring Napolean to a status of human. I don't know how accurate the depiction of him was and how accurate the epic battles were, but if the point of the movie was to mock Napolean and provide a human side to him, it did that for me.
Nolan's Caesar - fuck yeah. That's all I can say. I never knew I could want films this much.
The best comment i saw before the movie was "it's a movie about one of the biggest enemy of the British by a British director" and i think i didn't as bad as an experience of the movie because i know of his history so my brain could make some connections to events but other friends ended up confused and asking why even make a movie? His history doesn't look that interesting
That’s a really stupid comment to make about a film that didn’t mention the word “Trafalgar” once and made up a completely fictional reason for Napoleon’s fleeing from Egypt.
Τέλειο, ευχαριστούμε πολύ!
I haven't seen Napoleon yet, but I am sad that it has disappointed so many. I was hoping it would be of similar quality to Oppenheimer, which you happen to mention and compare it to in this video.
I just think its morphing. We had a spat epics set around First World War (1917, All Quiet on the Western Front) and/or Second World War (Hacksaw Ridge, Dunkirk).
Great news abot films and I really enjoyed your opinion. 🎉 📽️ Filmmaking needs to make script and a good narration, hopefully with so much budget they will make finally a good Tv serial or film.❤
When you make a four hour film for the streaming market and then release a reduced version for the cinema it will always be undesirably reviewed
A Nolan Julius Ceasar movie is intriguing, cautiously optimistic with it. I think for me, the movie would be not only about Ceasar but also the rise and fall of the Roman Republic and the Birth of the Roman Empire. Politically it will be nuance and has to be all because Ceasar as well as the republic has a lot of gray areas that would be great to go. I do hope that for the movie they make it so that Julius Ceasar's ultimate villain is himself.
Glad to see this, I was disgustingly disappointed by the same points. The source material is so much greater than what was made of it
The film is pure bollox!
Napoleon was not a movie, but the character assassination of a national hero.
Napoleon was still an amazing movie i saw last week. While i understand it wasn't perfect, i asked people to see it still, which also includes if you missed it... also see Oppenheimer if you havent it left me shocked and scared and horrified its a masterpiece that showed me the horrors and the burden that man went through and had
Oppenheimer has quippy dialogue, the main character lacks a belief system, way too frequent cuts and too many one liners and a bunch of characters with no emotional depth. Rdj's rant at the end and Rami Malek coming out of nowhere as a plot twist were horribly written. It's like Nolan knows the audience won't pay attention to how bland the story is if he kept the non linear thing and just kept quickly cutting stuff with music in the background.
@@manikn4585 But at least, it's more historically accurate than Napoleon, also there's a video of a man who edited the movie in chronological order and said it didn't work, also the ending wouldn't have that much of an effect. RDJ still did a good job, proably his best acting in years (since Chaplin I say), and did you know that the lines of Rami Malek are exaclty what the character said in real life during that jury, now, do you think that was horribly written, or delivered? is just like Gary Oldman reciting same lines as Churchill in The Darkest Hour (which funnily enough, I read a post, a guy commented it was like it was written by a child, but then someone told him it was actual Churchill's speech, that was funny).
@@jesustovar2549 my point isn't that Rami was horribly written. It's that there was no set up for it. He had 3 seconds of screen time and he exerts so much through that speech. It came out of nowhere Also regarding cuts I am not talking about the scene cuts. I am talking about excessive cutting in editing. There's a cut every 2.5 seconds in the movie. The train conversation had 14 cuts....
Fuck, the ending of this video is just phenomenal!)
Btw, your video on Collateral is fantastic! Among the best I've seen. Such a powerful and important messages were made throughout the video. Very unique opinions and style of storytelling in your video's. So much wisdom in them! Good luck to you!
That's correct about Napoleon. He was a military genius. He won battle after battle. He was a legendary leader. And the movie should portray exactly that. Who cares about his private sex life? It's absolutely the fault of the director and the script writer. And logically, the movie fell through. Serves them right! 🎉
oh, can Nolan maybe make a standalone Hamilton movie before that? That would be so awesome.
Shoulda had Joaquin do a French accent. that totally brings me out of the movie.
Napoleon spoke French with an Italian accent.
@@nellgwenn but he speaks american in the trailers
@@bradebronson8835 That is a pickle
Napoleon must have been destroyed in the cut. It didn't even feel like a movie. It was just a string of scenes, although some very good ones (the lake battle was fantastic), put together; but there was nothing at all when it came to the story. It also didn't help that Phoenix didn't show up this time. His Napoleon is simply a caricature
Yes, the storytelling was way too fast. It's incredibly damaging to a movie. No way to relax, no way to get to know the characters and no way to appreciate fine nuances in the story because it's rushing so much. Almost the feel of a compilation or a trailer.
Spielberg will make a napeleon series
An 84 year old Director just loses a step or two. Much like politicians
"saved" cinema from what exactly? Not everyone hate the current state of cinema if you're talking about content. But not every film has to be something stamped with approval by Cahiers Du Cinema. If you mean financially, the issue is 3 fold. 1) People are really poor now and can't afford to go out to the movies very often. 2) Movie budgets are out of control. You have to make insane numbers now just to break even. 3) A lot of the industry still hasn't recovered from COVID yet. So if you want to save Cinema, you need to get the price of movie ticekts and concessions down and you need smaller budget filmmaking.
This, especially if you have a family. You either have to spend over 100 dollars. Or spend even more to get a baby sitter.
Het verbaasd mij dat jij Oppenheimer wel prijst. Ik vind beide films namelijk een bonk van informatie die totaal niets toevoegen aan het plot. Kijk hier in dit jaar gebeurde dit - maakt niet uit want we zijn nu weer een paar jaar verder - maakt niet uit we zijn weer ergens anders.
Oppenheimer vond ik een bom (pun intended) aan historische informatie verwoven in het dialoog. Ik vond Napoleon juist een gebrek hebben aan historische informatie. Ik moet wel zeggen bij Oppenheimer was het makkelijker voor mij doordat ik veel weet van de periode (heb mijn Master thesis geschreven over jaren 50 en een minor gevolgd in nuclear weapons & international relations.) Dus was al bekend met de geschiedenis wat zeker hielp tijdens de film.
I thought the Northman was one of the best films I've ever seen in my entire life. My husband loved it too.
Damn this really turned into horrible Nolan shilling
Well firstly Gone With the Wind set the precedent
No. One of the worst movies ever made, for some it tops the list set the precedent, Birth of a Nation.
Both are masterpieces. You can’t appreciate either because you have an anti-Southern hatred.
@@thomaswatson1739 You changed the subject. This wasn't about masterpieces it was about blockbusters, or epic movies, or epic blockbusters. I'm on a tablet. I can't get back to the comment you responded to. You said Gone With The Wind set the precedent. I said no Birth Of A Nation did. For Christ sake it was a silent movie, of course it set the precedent. It came before Gone With The Wind. Just because a person hates Birth Of A Nation does not make them anti-Southern. There are plenty of people in the South that despise that movie, even white people.
i will assume the movie is like 1492 and thus that you do not get it and until i watch it i will not budge.
I honestly interpreted Phoenix's portrayal as somewhat autistic
Flaws and all, I like most of Ridley Scott's films. I admire him for still making films at 86 years of age.
Is that a good enough reason to watch his movies tho?
Imo, his last great movie was American Gangster
@@danfromtheburgh I personally just like his unique filmmaking vision. I know that his films aren't perfect, but I still find enjoyment in them.
We need am alexander the great trilogy
*an
Very intresting suggestions. In my humble opinion, if anything, "Napoleon" truly lacked emotion for the audience...
We should do octavian instead. The first roman emperor. Cesar was fine but it was Octavian that brought in the pax romana.
Napoleon the movie felt like a brittish propaganda movie, it was just utterly meh. I feel its a 4/10 movie.
I say we just let Nolan do his thing, so we get more movies with original stories and with the interesting topic of time. Just doing stuff about history doesn't need a big name director, it mostly needs a good and accurate enough script and budget.
Historian(s) are of the opinion, that of the 158 minutes of Napoleon, only 38 mins were the correct depiction. And 120 minutes were bullzhidt!!! So, go figure!!!
Not dying, it's dead. But not just historical epic... Hollywood today is not capable of creating anything worthy, or anything at all except endless recycling, remakes, reboots, and of course comic book bs. In the last 10+ years Hollywood made only 2-3 half-decent movies... There will be nothing from this generation to remake one day....
During this movie’s press tour, Ridley Scott has definitely become a pretentious & selfish filmmaker. It’s disrespectful the way he has responded to negative comments about the movie such as: “The French don’t even like themselves” to French critics. Or when he responded to historians criticizing the movie: “Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the fuck up”. I was really excited for this movie, but I was also prepared to be let down this way given Scott’s track record. I love Ridley Scott’s work as a filmmaker, but so far right now, I don’t like him as a person, I’ll keep watching his movies (the good ones) and I’ll look forward to a new movie of his, but this is the most disappointing movie of the year.
Saying that "The French don't even like themselves" it's a bad way to promoting your movie, especially since lots of french people is going to watch it because is one of their most important figures (tho Napoleon hated France during his first years).
Heh, second
I'm sorry dude, but what did you expect from one of the most generic/boring trailers and the most boomer director of our time
The movie was absolutely awful and, to be honest, I don't see how such an experience can be improved with 6 extra hours of dread.
I honestly would give the film a solid B. Could it have done some things better? Almost every film can, but I still throughly enjoyed it. People who complain about historical accuracy are, ironically, ignorant of the history of Hollywood epics. Most of the sword and sandal films of the fifties were even more historically inaccurate than Napoleon. Do you think Braveheart was accurate? How about Richard the Third? Most classical historical films are inaccurate to some degree. The only difference is in the past, the internet wasn’t around to bitch about it. Most people who complain don’t even know the history of Napoleon; they’re just repeating what they’ve been told. Honestly, I think this film will be looked upon more favorably in a few years. I remember being disappointed by both Kingdom of Heaven and Robin Hood the first time I saw them, but they grew on me over time, mainly because I adjusted my expectations to the intentions of the filmmaker.
You'll better wait for the extended edition, to see if it can get better, just as Kingdom of Heaven.
Ridley Scott lost his touch decades ago. And Joaquin phoenix has always been overrated, if not untalented and stupid
I disagree with your comment that the MCU is not dead on the water, it’s in better shape than the DCEU. But yes, Disney is embarrassingly loosing billions.
The French being as upset as they are about this movie was worth it being mid.
not only the french are upset
@@alexn5501 I see. That’s not what I said. Dork.
@@trillcrunk I didnt say you said that. I just commented.
@@alexn5501 lol scram
No one cares about a longer cut. Write a good story and don’t cast Joaquin phoenix. Jesus. Don’t give these clowns any money. It’s so obvious how and why this failed.
Napoleon Bonaparte is not a figure that deserves to be remembered , really .And Ridley Scott has an infamous track record of making the most historically inaccurate movies , you should know .
Really? Do you know how many civil rights exist now thanks to man, the currency of France, the Louvre, and so many other things? You may not like him, just like Hitler for obvious reasons, but I remind you that the Volkswagen (which means "people's car" in german) was born because of Hitler's intentions.