Napoleon - Apple TV+ - Ridley Scott & Joaquin Phoenix

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121400610#Comment_121400610

They probably did. I was referring to stuff like the Battle of Stirling Bridge being moved off the bridge being in the way. A local apparently asked why and the filmakers told him this to which he responded that that was the point.

Biopics are difficult, sure. But there's no need to add superfluous, immersion-breaking nonsense like Napoleon attacking the pyramids.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121400821#Comment_121400821

That does seem like an odd choice 'cos IIRC Napoleon was absolutely obsessed with ancient Egypt, right? Seems like the very last person who'd attack the pyramids would be someone like him.

Definitely not justifying major swings, just more a commentary that it's an impossible task and perhaps always demonstraets that movies aren't necessarily the right fit for historical epics of certain stripes - or indeed lifetimes of "Great Men" of history.

johnny_ultimate

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121400814#Comment_121400814

I've never had any issue 'enjoying' silent films - indeed, Buster Keaton films are basically my cinematic comfort food, as I find them so delightful. But yes, there is a brain adjustment needed as they're a very different experience to watching a modern film. The main blocking point with Napoleon thus far has been mainly its running time, as opposed to it being silent.

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121400837#Comment_121400837

I think in the trailers it just appears the pyramid is hit by a stray cannon ball not that they are aiming at it. I believe the battle of the pyramids was miles away from the pyramids but I dont really care, it does look a bit cool. Someone mentioned Braveheart and Michael Collins, both films had inaccuracies but both films are enjoyed by the respective historical people's country men. If Napoleon is skewed to be anti French and Pro British (as in the brits are saving the world from a tyrant and protecting freedom) i may give it a miss under until it is on streaming.

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121399955#Comment_121399955

Napoleon would wipe the floor with Hitler. Allowing of course for similar era weapons.

pixelburp

In fairness, most notable historical figures would probably beat Hitler at "war"; christ most 4x gamers these days would. Monster as he was, one thing Hitler most certainly was not, was militarily minded or intelligent. And thank fúck for that, I might quickly add, that his stubbornness caused so much self-sabotage of his own war effort.

TinyMuffin

He went to the pyramids but had to leave in a hurry.

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121400821#Comment_121400821

I think it was the British that used them and others for their pot shots.

head82

Speaking of authenticity in films. Anyone else remember the lad that rang into the Joe Duffy show to complain about the lack of authenticity in The Banshees of Inisherin? His main gripe was the character of an Irish guard in a film set in 1923. Joe responds with.. "but the Irish Gardai were established in 1923". Yer man replies with "yes, but not until September 1923, there was a calendar on the wall of the guards office that showed 'June' 1923. How did you not see that Joe?". Him and his mate walked out of the cinema as a result!

He had other gripes.. something about the breed of cattle in the film that weren't introduced into Ireland until many years later.

Now that's a level of nitpicking to aspire to!

I'd be surprised if this fella could last more than 10 minutes at Ridley Scotts 'Napoleon'.

niallpatrick

Joachim Phoenix damn fine actor, really got me in 8mm then in Gladiator absolutely brilliant. I'd love to see joker but can't watch it due to Gary Glitters music being used as a backing track during the steps scene. Nothing to do with the actor or the director producers but somebody messed up.

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121401376#Comment_121401376

Impressive, I thought I was fussy but not to that standard..

winstonia

Complete garbage. Do not waste your time

Aurelian

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121400728#Comment_121400728

I've had the Blu Ray sitting here for about 5 years too! Never watched it.

I've a soft spot for Gance's 1960 film Austerlitz about the battle.

ancapailldorcha

In short, it feels very much like a film made by a man who responds to criticism with crude remarks like "You weren't there".

I posted this at the beginning of the thread:

This was a disappointment I have to say. There are two main problems with the thing. The first is that there's too much to cover in 2.5 hours. While that was obvious, one might think that the film makers might have focused on one or two things. Instead, they cram far too much in. Secondly, there's no real examination of the man himself here. There's no exploration of his motives, his genius, his actions or anything. We don't know why he's doing what he's doing or why he's able to command the loyalty of his men such that they execute a coup on his behalf and return to him when he escapes his first exile.

I've not seen a lot of Scott's work but this is definitely at the Alien: Covenant rather than the Alien side of the quality spectrum. I actually found myself noticing the inaccuracies but not really caring because everything just happened so fast. It's a bit like the MCU where you're waiting for the next bit and then the next bit. That said, I did enjoy the treatment of Waterloo at the end though the poor Prussians get once again pushed to one side.

I'm glad I didn't fork out BFI IMAX money for this. I saw it in the 4DX at Cineworld and it was grand. I haven't read the biography I purchased yet as I didn't want my mind getting contaminated by the inevitable departures from history and that turned out to be a wise decision. It feels like a hatchet-job but a hatchet-job executed by someone who started and then got bored very quickly. Napoleon is depicted as crude, lustful and little else and there's no real context or explanation as to why this is. If you are interested in the man, there's virtually nothing here. Even Joaquin Phoenix seems to have been fed up since signing on.

There's no reason to see this latest instalment from the "You weren't there" school of historical epics.

winstonia

I've a limitless card so will watch anything.

Hank the DJ

If it was just a story, as in not based on a real person, would you have enjoyed it as a movie? I want to see it but if its just grand, I'll wait for it to pop up on Apple.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121404134#Comment_121404134

No. If it was a story, it'd have been structured properly from the ground up around the world and character development. Game of Thrones is based on the Wars of the Roses from fifteenth century England but this only made the narrative stronger. Nothing is rushed as a result. Perhaps the real takeaway here is that Napoleon's life could have been made into an epic, albeit potentially ruinously expensive TV series.

Hank the DJ

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121404172#Comment_121404172

Well that made my decision a lot easier, thanks.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121404223#Comment_121404223

My pleasure.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121404172#Comment_121404172

Given this is gonna appear on Apple+ and the rumours that that runtime will be 4 hours, there's probably an argument this already could have been a mini-series and not a film. If the rumour's true there's a good chance the 4 hours isn't even the sum total of the shooting!

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121404266#Comment_121404266

Just what you want when you pay cinema prices, "I can't wait to see the good version on a streaming service".

head82

According to a comment on the radio yesterday.. the 2 hour 30 minute theatrical version is Scotts preferred cut. Which is a little surprising considering the current trend for directors wanting the running time of their 'Directors Cut' to last for almost half a day!

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121404303#Comment_121404303

As I said it is a rumour, unless it has been confirmed elsewhere so I'd say you still made the right choice; a Ridley Scott movie has always looked better on a cinema screen.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121404359#Comment_121404359

Thanks. I saw both Justice League and Batman V Superman in the cinema. Never got round to seeing the full cuts of either. That said, I think I can live with 2.5 hours of this.

johnny_ultimate

Going by one interview I read where Scott said he isn't meant to talk about the director's cut, it gives the impression someone in Columbia Pictures pulled him aside and politely told him to stop promoting the 'better' version that's coming down the line while they're trying to make money from the theatrical release.

As much as Scott's body of work commands respect given the bonafide bangers in there, his career is all over the gaff quality-wise - especially from the 90s onwards. I can't call the director of Alien a 'hack' or anything like that, but certainly a lot of his films have been lazy, workmanlike or half-realised, with only the odd title like The Martian really hitting for me. He also doesn't - in his late period, anyway - have much of a style to call his own, even compared to his late brother (for better and worse in Tony's case). So when I hear 'four-hour director's cut' in Ridley's case, I'm not sure whether to expect 'better' or just 'more'.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121404172#Comment_121404172

Yes, I think when you are constrained by film runtime it is better to illustrate the essence of the character \ person by focusing on one particular event or period. Oppenheimer though at times brilliant for me suffered from trying to cover too much ground.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121404481#Comment_121404481

Yeah. Braveheart is, as I said, almost a fantasy film. However, it has a tighter narrative, significantly better pacing and it makes perfect sense that a nobleman like William Wallace whose wife was murdered by the English to lead a resistance against them. Again, the film is almost entirely fictional but that doesn't mean it can't be entertaining, even down to Patrick McGoohan hilarious butchering of King Edward I.

Gibson's performance as Wallace, flawed and ahistorical though it is, remains as captivating when I rewatched the film a few years ago as it was when I saw it a decade ago. At no point over the film did I wonder why Wallace was bothering to do what he did.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121404430#Comment_121404430

I've somewhat cheekily, but almost somewhat earnestly, speculated if Tony Scott was the more consistent director of the two brothers; his highs came close to Ridley's own, but never hit the trough so hard as RIdley has done.

winstonia

Also I couldn't believe someone brought his 10 year old daughter with him to see it. Poor kid jumped during the sex scene.

silverharp

I only go to movies where I expect an 8/10 or more experience, seen to many poor reviews to go watch this in the cinema