Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon?

[Renauda]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon?:

@George-K said in Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon?:

Could have been a great movie.

Ridley Scott has made some great movies. As far as I'm aware, none of them were known for historical accuracy

Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven was such. A good movie script built around Saladin’s retaking of Jerusalem in the late 12th century. The general sense the historical narrative was there but there was plenty of artistic license regarding the specifics.

[Mik]

I'm not really a fan of directors taking much of any artistic license with historical fact. It turns fact into fiction and lends itself to all sorts of revisionist mischief.

[Renauda]

@Mik

It depends. No one who actually knows the historical narrative being depicted is going to be fooled. A director like Scott or the late greats Stanley Kubrick, David Lean and Sir Richard Attenborough would have known this and applied their respective talents to the production regardless of the liberties it would entail. They were after all, creating a 3 or 4 hour screen illusion not different from Shakespeare’s stage plays surrounding historical events and people. They did not set out to stage a history tutorial or lecture.

Unless it is a total distortion as in Braveheart or worse, Ken Russell’s Lisztomania, I am content to be entertained by the short lived spectacle of it all.

[George K]

@Renauda said in Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon?:

Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven was such. A good movie script built around Saladin’s retaking of Jerusalem in the late 12th century. The general sense the historical narrative was there but there was plenty of artistic license regarding the specifics.

I’ll have to check it out.

[George K]

@Renauda said in Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon?:

Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven was such. A good movie script built around Saladin’s retaking of Jerusalem in the late 12th century. The general sense the historical narrative was there but there was plenty of artistic license regarding the specifics.

He didn't like it - at all. And your comment about "plenty of artistic license" is like saying there was plenty of water in the Titanic.

Link to video

[Renauda]

@George-K

Ha, ha!

I note he didn’t say anything bad about or pan Eva Green’s character in the film.

Too bad he took the story line so seriously.

I should watch it again. It’s been a dozen or more years since I saw it. I remember my wife hating it.

[George K]

@Renauda said in Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon?:

I should watch it again.

Supposedly, the theatrical cut is not very good, and Scott has disowned it. Gotta watch the 3 hour director's cut.

[Renauda]

I think it is the director’s cut we have on DVD. Not sure.

[George K]

Oy...

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/12/08/ridley-scott-did-something-i-thought-impossible-he-made-napoleon-bonaparte-boring/

Having loved “Gladiator,” I mistakenly grasped onto the vain hope that my friends’ dire warnings that “Napoleon” had gone amiss. After all, how bad can it be? This is a movie about Napoleon, and I was doomed to watch it, no matter what anyone said.

Yet, a few minutes into the movie, I found myself hoping it would end.

Tragically, Scott seemed utterly disinterested in Napoleon, in giving a moral or political message, or even in giving audiences a reason to care about the multimillion-dollar spectacle before them.

He decided not so much merely to bite off more than he could chew, but to gobble down a skyscraper. “Napoleon” features Toulon, Austerlitz, Russia, and Waterloo, and somehow manages to make none of them mean anything.

Unlike “Gladiator”—which focuses on revenge, justice, and freedom, bringing ancient Rome to life—”Napoleon” merely tells most of Bonaparte’s life’s story without any clear theme or moral point.

[George K]

Anyone seen it yet?

Apple TV's gonna have it in about 3 weeks.

As I mentioned, Scott has a director's cut that's about 90 minutes (!) longer.

All of the reviews seem to say, "Nice movie. Imagine how much better it would have been if it were accurate." I rewatched the Critical Drinker's review and his comment that it would be better suited to a 10-part miniseries on Amazon, Netflix.

He's such an incredibly complex character that I don't see how it can be done in 2 hours or so.

[Doctor Phibes]

@George-K said in Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon?:

Anyone seen it yet?

Mrs. Phibes saw it at the cinema. She said it was a fun movie. She wasn't expecting realism.

[Wim]

@Doctor-Phibe It's a decent action movie. Some historical flaws, casting Phoenix as Napoleon wouldn't have been my choice.

[George K]

It was released to Apple TV+ a few days ago.

What.
A.
Waste.

It's truly spectacular, even on a small-ish screen.

But geez, talk about superficial. We learn almost nothing of his early life and his ascendency to power. His becoming emperor is "Oh, yeah, he did that, too." Even his return to France after his exile was skimmed over.

Whoever said this should be a 6-8 part mini-series was right.

And yeah Phoenix is too old.

[Copper]

That's about right.

The battles were nice. But even those felt a little rushed.

The wardrobe was nice, I can't say if it was accurate.

A mini-series that develops a few more characters would help.

Blame Mr. Bonaparte the scope of his life was too much for a 2 hr 37 min movie.

[Jolly]

But we still have mini-series...Most of the stuff on streaming is actually mini-series, if you consider a mini-series as a single character or ensemble of characters in a single story arc of eight hours or so.

[Renauda]

Still have yet to watch it but came across this critique which I thought was well presented:

https://screenrant.com/napoleon-master-and-commander-best-story-movie/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0QMjVZ9eIZeNaU6rK2q_nWLT59CzN7H_hBnkBwBgZgDKkThcG4dpcrr_c_aem_Af4K8KpFQ8OPelO2Y6U9Mr3a-N5WNofCQhfMyjU5Ga2l0aGmb47NfkL4KOt7zg3n54yngf8lybHSzDUs7tfIROHP

[George K]

Thanks for that, @Renauda .

We've commented on how Napoleon's life would be much-better suited to a limited mini-series. Imagine how Scott could have told the story over 10 episodes rather than 2 ½ hours!

Overall, I think this critique is spot on: Too ambitious, too compressed, too vague. Spectacular to watch but...where's the beef?

The History Buff's youtube channel sings the praises of Master and Commander. It was intended to be a series of films, but the project died because of poor revenues.

[Renauda]

Master and Commander is one my all time favourite films. Probably in second place behind Lawrence of Arabia

[George K]

Take an afternoon and watch Scott's Napoleon. I'd love to read your thoughts.

[Renauda]

Only if it’s the extended director’s cut version which I don’t think has been yet released