Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon?
-
wrote on 9 Oct 2023, 12:08 last edited by
The movie is a bit over 2 1/2 hours long.
But, Ridley Scott plans to release a "director's cut" on Apple TV+ that will be about four hours.
https://9to5mac.com/2023/10/09/4-hour-napoleon-movie-apple-tv-plus/
Apple original film Napoleon hits cinemas in November, starring Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby. Director Ridley Scott has told Total Film Magazine that he is also working on an extended cut of the film, which will stream on Apple TV+.
The director’s cut currently clocks in at more than four hours, compared to the 2hr38m runtime of the theatrical version. Clearly, Scott is taking full advantage of the freedom of streaming compared to the constraints of theatrical distribution.
Napoleon tells the story of the ruler’s rise and fall, and the influence of his relationship with Josephine. The film features depictions of six epic battles — spanning cannonfire, horseback, and infantry — showcasing Napoleon’s superb warfare strategy. Ridley Scott previously mentioned that an extended cut would allow him to show more of Josephine’s life before meeting Napoleon.
Presumably, Apple TV+ will stream both the theatrical cut and the director’s cut, allowing viewers to choose how long they want to be immersed in the world of Napoleon Bonaparte. This would be the first time Apple TV+ service has offered multiple versions of the same title on its platform.
Napoleon is Apple’s second film to get a wide theatrical release before streaming on Apple TV+, as part of a new strategy that will see the company invest $1 billion annually on blockbusters. The first is Killers of the Flower Moon, which will be released in cinemas worldwide from October 20. Napoleon’s theatrical release date is set for November 22.
-
wrote on 9 Oct 2023, 16:34 last edited by Renauda 10 Sept 2023, 16:36
Looking forward to the movie. When I think of anyone around these days, Phoenix, despite his height, will do well as Napoleon. Am not too keen on whatever emphasis or undue attention will be paid to Josephine. Theirs was an odd relationship in which lovers and mistresses played an ongoing part. Nevertheless, her role in Napoleon’s life appears to have been one of slow and gradual diminishment until it ceased to be of any practical utility to either party other than a passionate memory of their respective past.
-
Looking forward to the movie. When I think of anyone around these days, Phoenix, despite his height, will do well as Napoleon. Am not too keen on whatever emphasis or undue attention will be paid to Josephine. Theirs was an odd relationship in which lovers and mistresses played an ongoing part. Nevertheless, her role in Napoleon’s life appears to have been one of slow and gradual diminishment until it ceased to be of any practical utility to either party other than a passionate memory of their respective past.
wrote on 9 Oct 2023, 17:13 last edited by@Renauda said in Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon?:
Nevertheless, her role in Napoleon’s life appears to have been one of slow and gradual diminishment
Yeah, that's one thing that came across in the biography that I read.
-
wrote on 9 Oct 2023, 17:16 last edited by
I look forward to the streaming version. Even four hours hardly seems like enough.
-
@Renauda said in Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon?:
Nevertheless, her role in Napoleon’s life appears to have been one of slow and gradual diminishment
Yeah, that's one thing that came across in the biography that I read.
-
Which biography was that? I have read a couple and have Philip Dwyer’s three volume on hand for reading. Was thinking of cracking Vol. 1’s spine sometime this winter.
wrote on 9 Oct 2023, 17:28 last edited by -
wrote on 9 Oct 2023, 17:35 last edited by Renauda 10 Sept 2023, 17:36
Yes, I know that one. I have it and read it a few years back. Here it is titled Napoleon the Great as was the UK edition. Andrew Roberts is a fine historian and his books are well researched and written.
-
wrote on 24 Nov 2023, 14:35 last edited by
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/11/ridley-scotts-napoleon-complex/
Scott is Ultra Hack because he reduces the moral complexity of his stories to the same easy consumption we get from a TV advert. But Napoleon is protracted, as if running time and rambling narrative incidents (the back-and-forth from battlefield to Josephine) amounted to substance. Napoleon parades an empty spectacle for a market uninterested in learning from history. And Ultra Hack’s indifference encourages that disinterest. He stages Napoleon’s legendary boast so that Phoenix lisps “I found the crown of France in the gutter and placed it atop my own head” to convey the same deadly egotism as the swaggering, drug-dealing protagonist of American Gangster. But then his battle of Austerlitz is an eyeful. In this large-scale set piece, the French army fires cannons at Russian soldiers on a field of ice, and the explosions plunge them into the water. Not a sustained feat of cinematic vision, as is Eisenstein’s battle on the ice in Alexander Nevsky; it’s just splashy.
History means nothing when its facsimile can be summoned up by Hollywood’s keyboard warriors. Not even Scott, an unemotional aesthete, can pretend that he cares about history. (Exodus: Gods and Kings was dazzling yet meaningless, and the Oscar-winning Gladiator was overrated for the beefcake-peplum genre.) Ultra Hack’s brother, the late Tony Scott, was so committed to genre junk that he frequently achieved effective narratives (Unstoppable, Domino). But Ridley is less successful with his own phase of lurid melodramatic trash such as The Counselor, House of Gucci, All the Money in the World. These spectacles of bad behavior misrepresent our anxieties about power, immorality, and national destiny. Abel Gance visualized those concerns in his 1927 three-screen silent film Napoleon, a movie so magnificent that its vision makes grown men cry. Ridley Scott’s Napoleon is just a Breaking Bad costume drama.
Well...
I'll still watch it. I might even go to the theater just for the spectacle.
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/11/ridley-scotts-napoleon-complex/
Scott is Ultra Hack because he reduces the moral complexity of his stories to the same easy consumption we get from a TV advert. But Napoleon is protracted, as if running time and rambling narrative incidents (the back-and-forth from battlefield to Josephine) amounted to substance. Napoleon parades an empty spectacle for a market uninterested in learning from history. And Ultra Hack’s indifference encourages that disinterest. He stages Napoleon’s legendary boast so that Phoenix lisps “I found the crown of France in the gutter and placed it atop my own head” to convey the same deadly egotism as the swaggering, drug-dealing protagonist of American Gangster. But then his battle of Austerlitz is an eyeful. In this large-scale set piece, the French army fires cannons at Russian soldiers on a field of ice, and the explosions plunge them into the water. Not a sustained feat of cinematic vision, as is Eisenstein’s battle on the ice in Alexander Nevsky; it’s just splashy.
History means nothing when its facsimile can be summoned up by Hollywood’s keyboard warriors. Not even Scott, an unemotional aesthete, can pretend that he cares about history. (Exodus: Gods and Kings was dazzling yet meaningless, and the Oscar-winning Gladiator was overrated for the beefcake-peplum genre.) Ultra Hack’s brother, the late Tony Scott, was so committed to genre junk that he frequently achieved effective narratives (Unstoppable, Domino). But Ridley is less successful with his own phase of lurid melodramatic trash such as The Counselor, House of Gucci, All the Money in the World. These spectacles of bad behavior misrepresent our anxieties about power, immorality, and national destiny. Abel Gance visualized those concerns in his 1927 three-screen silent film Napoleon, a movie so magnificent that its vision makes grown men cry. Ridley Scott’s Napoleon is just a Breaking Bad costume drama.
Well...
I'll still watch it. I might even go to the theater just for the spectacle.
-
wrote on 24 Nov 2023, 22:16 last edited by
Well... slightly disappointed.
Spectacular battle scenes, nice camera work and after all not too long for a historic movie.
But...
Napoleon speaking English? American production, I know, but the Russians spoke Russian and the Germans spoke German, so it would have been nice to hear a francophone Napoleon and compatriots.
The fact that Scott cherry picked the savoury details of the relation between Napoleon and Josephine didn't really bother me (he's director so he can choose whatever he wants).
CGI was sometimes too obvious, but probably inevitable.
Characters sometimes gave a dull impression.
Lots of (minor) historical errors, e.g.: Napoleon mentions the Belgian frontier. Belgium was born in 1830 and was never called like that before.
Joaquim Phoenix is too old for this role, wrong typecasting.
Bad movie? No, but I expected something better.Too late now to elaborate (11.15pm), going to bed now.
-
wrote on 24 Nov 2023, 22:26 last edited by
Thanks for your thoughts.
Worth seeing on a big screen, or will it be good enough for a reasonably-sized TV?
-
wrote on 24 Nov 2023, 22:38 last edited by Renauda
As much I anticipated Joachim Pheonix in this role, he had an impossibly hard act to follow from the onset against Rod Steiger’s portrayal of Napoleon in Waterloo (1970).
I’ll wait for the Blu-ray.
-
As much I anticipated Joachim Pheonix in this role, he had an impossibly hard act to follow from the onset against Rod Steiger’s portrayal of Napoleon in Waterloo (1970).
I’ll wait for the Blu-ray.
wrote on 24 Nov 2023, 22:46 last edited by@Renauda said in Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon?:
Link to videoRod Steiger’s portrayal of Napoleon in Waterloo
-
@Renauda said in Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon?:
Link to videoRod Steiger’s portrayal of Napoleon in Waterloo
-
Thanks for your thoughts.
Worth seeing on a big screen, or will it be good enough for a reasonably-sized TV?
-
wrote on 25 Nov 2023, 17:39 last edited by
I agree cinema is better. I just find the cost of going to the cinema has gotten out control. Besides that I dislike crowded venues such as cinemas, concerts and sport events and try to avoid them whenever possible. I am the sort who goes to the grocery store 5 minutes before they unlock the doors at 7 am. on Wednesday or Thursday mornings just to avoid other shoppers (and take full advantage of soon to expire mark downs of perishables).
-
I agree cinema is better. I just find the cost of going to the cinema has gotten out control. Besides that I dislike crowded venues such as cinemas, concerts and sport events and try to avoid them whenever possible. I am the sort who goes to the grocery store 5 minutes before they unlock the doors at 7 am. on Wednesday or Thursday mornings just to avoid other shoppers (and take full advantage of soon to expire mark downs of perishables).
-
I agree cinema is better. I just find the cost of going to the cinema has gotten out control. Besides that I dislike crowded venues such as cinemas, concerts and sport events and try to avoid them whenever possible. I am the sort who goes to the grocery store 5 minutes before they unlock the doors at 7 am. on Wednesday or Thursday mornings just to avoid other shoppers (and take full advantage of soon to expire mark downs of perishables).
wrote on 26 Nov 2023, 17:09 last edited by RenaudaHarumpff.
-
wrote on 26 Nov 2023, 20:08 last edited by
I’m not a big fan of crowds either.
-
wrote on 26 Nov 2023, 21:52 last edited by
