It was alright, why did people hated it? I think they just hated it because they were self-inserting as Napoleon or something of the sort
It was alright, why did people hated it?
It was alright, why did people hated it? I think they just hated it because they were self-inserting as Napoleon or something of the sort
Not enough epic battles or Josephine mommydom scenes.
awful acting all around with inconsistent pacing. Amazing battles though
>why did people hated it?
Bloody sir frick you bloody sir
Re-watching it right now. It's pretty good, honestly. I think it would really benefit with big theater screen. Give that larger than life feel.
It's classic Ridley Scott, and I think he has become hit or miss recently. Dont know why people dont like it. Maybe they just dont feel for the characters?
Because they cast a guy who looks 60 to play roughly 25 years of a man’s life who died when he was 51. Instead of playing up his positive aspects and portraying him as a great man they just made him a fricking weirdo. It’s okay for movies like these to be a bit of a power fantasy. The best scene in the movie by far is the first battle scene where he takes the fort.
>The best scene in the movie by far is the first battle scene where he takes the fort.
I preferred his crushing of the Prussian army, maneuvering them onto the lake then smashing the ice under them. Seeing the infantry and horse charges are wonderful and the point of such movies to me.
But I get your critique.
>I preferred his crushing of the Prussian army, maneuvering them onto the lake then smashing the ice under them. Seeing the infantry and horse charges are wonderful and the point of such movies to me.
thats funny cause it literally didn't happen irl
they dug up two bodies from the lake after Napoleon had it drained
>thats funny cause it literally didn't happen irl
OH NOOEEESS!
I dont care. I'm watching a movie. I can read a book if I want real life.
Why does it bother you so much that the movie isnt factual? Did YOU think it was supposed to be?
>t. Jada Pinket smith
You keep my wife's girlfriend's name out your fricking posts.
It sucks because the shit he changed is for the worse. His movie would have been better because it would have filmed cooler scenes in a cooler way if it was historically accurate. So now all it's doing is reminding me of all this better material they decided not to use.
>His movie would have been better
Nah, Scott cant do realism.
>a HISTORICAL movie
Why did you ever think the British guy that did Kingdom of Heaven would make an accurate film about a great Frenchman?
Because of MARKETING???
lol
Cool. Have fun with your MCU. I prefer historical fiction and portrayals. It's fun to see people's takes on the past, especially when it's so obviously biased. And it's REALLY nice to see the sets and costumes and portrayals of battles.
I dont get a lot of enjoyment from CGI energy beams and explosions and save the galaxy with the power of love shit.
>Why did you ever think the British guy that did Kingdom of Heaven would make an accurate film about a great Frenchman?
who are you quoting? when did i say i ever expected it to be historical? i said if it's marketed as such it would've benefitted of being historical instead of being a dogshit amerishit capeshit tier schlock for low iq morons
>who are you quoting?
Exactly who I quoted.
>a HISTORICAL movie marketed as a biopic about napoleon
Here is where you say you expected it to be accurate, and not understanding immediately what Scott was going to put on screen with my weepy mommy issues himself in the lead.
>if it's marketed as such it would've benefitted of being historical
Pfft, why? Marketing is about money, not about reception.
So you got duped by the marketing, and you think that was unfair because you dont think marketing's job is to dupe as many people as possible.
Where were cgi ENERGY BEAMS in this movie? Dont remember that.
Or did you selectively read what I wrote so you can keep complaining and pretend I said I dont like cgi in totality?
>Here is where you say you expected it to be accurate
no, i said a HISTORICAL movie MARKETED AS BIOPIC ABOUT NAPOLEON
from the moment i saw the austerlitz dogshit cgi blue filter putrid pile of feces scene on youtube i knew it was gonna be a pile of hot shit for the avengers and shitskin audience, so which one do you belong to
>i said a HISTORICAL movie MARKETED AS BIOPIC ABOUT NAPOLEON
Yes, and that MARKETING duped you. Firmly established.
>which one do you belong to
Go back and read, I told you .
>I prefer historical fiction and portrayals. It's fun to see people's takes on the past, especially when it's so obviously biased. And it's REALLY nice to see the sets and costumes and portrayals of battles.
You somehow thought it was going to be something it had no chance of being, and that upset you.
Does this happen a lot?
He's really hit or miss, this one was surprisingly middling.
Sorry I got the army wrong. I hope you'll be okay if I continue to like the scene.
Go to sleep Ridley
>Cool. Have fun with your MCU. I prefer historical fiction and portrayals
>I dont get a lot of enjoyment from CGI energy beams and explosions
You literally watched 2 hours of cgi tho
>It's fun to see people's takes on the past, especially when it's so obviously biased.
There's already more than enough bias in what a historical epic chooses to focus on, because obviously you can't even come close to giving every aspect of the real events fair coverage in a 2-3 hour movie, so just making shit up on top of that is completely superfluous. Nobody's donutsteel fanfiction is gonna be better than what really happened, especially when you already have so much to pick and choose from. It's not like Troy where the only source is an ancient poem about gods and shit, it's an extremely well documented period.
>Nobody's donutsteel fanfiction is gonna be better than what really happened
Disagree.
> it's an extremely well documented period.
Which is why getting mad that some Brit shit on him - and because MUH MARKETING wasnt truthful - is silly. It is trivially easy to go find out the truth and find accurate portrayals if that is what you want.
I want Scott's eye for set and costumes and spectacle, and I found his pissing on Napoleon funny, and the things I wanted well done.
As I said - was surprisingly average as the acting was not there and the moments meant to be fast often dragged. Usually Scott is either really good or total shit.
>is just wrong.
Nope. Seethe more.
Would make for a great movie.
>i need to see gay sex and all historical figures be faaaaags
No, I need weak impotent men being cheated on and having sex with coerced teenagers. Didnt you watch the film?
If you like fanfiction then alright. I'm alright with changes like side-characters being merged for simplicity and so on, obviously a movie has limitations, but fundamentally changing the subject of the film and then still playing everything else with regards to the real events completely straight just feels incongruous and dishonest to me.
>why do you care that a HISTORICAL movie marketed as a biopic about napoleon is about as historically accurate as fricking avengers endgame
take your (you) and picrel
And if I wanted fantasy I'd watch a fantasy movie instead of a shitty "historical" epic.
>the Prussian army
They were Austrians. Either you’re a fricking moron or the film was so poorly put together you couldn’t tell who they were (or both)
Don't call him a moron, nothing in the movie indicates ANYTHING.
You aren't shown uniforms, or the year, the names, the language, what "napoleon" is thinking, planning or even trying to convey. it's a massive clusterfrick of a film.
You couldn't get a historical scholar to figure out what battles are happening because all of them are made up.
>all of them are made up.
AHH just the way i like my HISTORICAL FILMS. I did miss the iron man but maybe he will make a napoleon 2 with Thanos crossover, THAT'D BE HECKIN COOL
Now if you'll excuse me Ridley wants another blowjob so im off to suck and frick him, see you in the marvel threads tomorrow! XD
>AHH just the way i like my HISTORICAL FILMS.
It's like getting mad at his portrayal of Commodus.
In fact, it is quite literally the same portrayal again.
Dont remember all this hate for Gladiator.
There's historical canon and interpretations that you shouldnt' frick with.
Gladiator being a badass and Aurelius being a wise old man? that needs to be on film. reinterpreting the events is ok as long as you don't frick with the idea or spirit of the tale.
Trying to make a movie where Alexander the Great is a wienersucking gay who cries over his boyfriend is just wrong.
making Napoleon a b***h just looks like pathetic Anglo seething
It's ok to have a nuanced or even subversive film of a character...but It should be done in good taste or be honest that it's a parody, like the death of stalin.
nta, but when I learned about the real Commodus, I immediately questioned why we didn't get half of the insane bat shit stuff he did in the movie.
Battle scenes were kino, but was pretty forgettable for the rest.
The battles were fricking crap
I thought it was pretty boring and I didnt like the characters, and this is coming from someone who loved the Alexander movie so its not like a just hate long historical movies.
It honestly has a shitty pacing + editing. Can't wait for the 4 hours version.
Really shit pacing.
Too much screentime devoted to anglo cuck propaganda in a biopic of the most important man of his century.
Nappies was a cuck in real life though
I didnt come away from this movie thinking he was some military genius. His tactics in the movie were
>Attack at night
>Secretly flank enemy
Most basic shit.
Then he got fricked by britbonger box formations.
And guess who directed the movie
>Most basic shit.
They have him say in the movie his "genius" is he knows how to point a canon, and he's so arrogant to think that the only reason he ever fails is he cant get other people to point them as well as he can.
Did you morons seriously fall for an Englishman's ahistorical innacurate hit piece of a French General and take is as gospel truth?
Did you get all your historical knowledge from movies?
Its a critcism of the movie you idiot. Thats why it said "his tactics in the movie were" not "his tactics in real lfie"
my bad fellas
What part of "they have him say" made your fancy city brain think I took it as historical, sneed?
>we aren't going to show the levée en masse, the mass national conscription and mobilization of the French citizen population via nationalism in the face of invasion by the coalition
>we aren't going to show the mass restructuring of Ancien régime Europe along different borders and adoption of the Napoleonic code and the Continental system
>we aren't going to show Napoleon leading his troops over a bridge over stubborn Austrian resistance at the Battle of Arcole
>no instead we are going to have Napoleon make "mumumumum" noises and say "YOU THINK YOU'RE SO GREAT BECAUSE YOU GOT BOATS!"
It's an ahistorical hit piece written by english boomers trying to make fun of a historic rival they disliked.
Literally nothing in the entire film was accurate, from Napoleon's personality, age, attitude or aptitude for war. or any characters...or any details of the battles. Most scenes were just to paint napoleon in the worst way possible, or to just be pure bullshit that never happened, like the part wherre the pyramids were shot at by a canon.
The only people defending/liking the film are Americans who don't know history and just enjoy mindless spectacle. and the English who somehow hold onto 200 year grudges as a joke.
All I can personally say, is that my opinion on the Engurlish has changed.
On one hand, I hate historically inaccurate shit like netflix's Cleopatra...on the other hand, making a 2 hour hitpiece on your neighboring country's historical icon for no reason other than to make him look like a whimpy gay is...dare I say...very based
t. Froggies and affiliated wogs seething that a big movie reminded the world that their national hero was a literal horn-haver.
Is there a single Anglo as accomplished as Napoleon?
The ones who beat him.
Anglos founded the only remaining superpower as well as cozy countries like New Zealand and Australia.
people wanted Napoleon to be the next sigma male chad they could self insert into like the Joker and and see his battles and conquest glorified, but they forgot to account for the movie being directed by an old British guy. so they all seethe cause it's taking the piss out of Napoleon instead.
Reminder
>Scott was appointed Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire (GBE) in the 2024 New Year Honours for services to the UK film industry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridley_Scott#Honours_and_awards:~:text=Scott%20was%20appointed%20Knight%20Grand%20Cross%20of%20the%20Order%20of%20the%20British%20Empire%20(GBE)%20in%20the%202024%20New%20Year%20Honours%20for%20services%20to%20the%20UK%20film%20industry
homie made a film making fun of Napoleon and King Charles gave him a fricking medal of honor.
That's how petty the English royalty are
>Scott was appointed Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire (GBE) in the 2024 New Year Honours for services to the UK film industry
You can't make this shit up. Britbong is truly the most evil nation on earth and needs regime change ASAP.
cry about it taco bell
>make a movie about a young man who's an immensely charismatic natural leader
>cast a 60 y/o grandpa and make the movie about all about how he's an autistic incel chud
>add a grey pissfilter because you're a senile hack and think this is what makes films epic and serious
It seems to me like people are just sick of spectacle movies. If you're not following history, this is just any big blockbuster with a Napoleon coat of paint. Doesn't matter if you're watching Batman or Napoleon when it's all made up cgi fighting. You gotta bring something these days, whether it be good writing, actual historical accuracy, practical effects, some gimmick, something you know?
It wasn’t perfect but was fun with good action choreography and I knew the whole time that it would make history autists ears shoot steam.
I did not enjoy the editing.
It pairs well with a bottle of wine. In fact, i'm pretty convinced Ridley was wine drunk filming it or at the very least he was wine drunk in the editing room. Either way, great costume design, sets, cinematography, and acting but goes from a 7/10 to a 9/10 if wine drunk by the halfway mark. Great film.
I should add phoenix's performance makes alot more sense too, he's basically wine drunk with you through the whole film.
Austerlitz battle was great, but the ones after felt meh. Story kind of sacked after the Russia bit.
I get that some people expected him to be more of a chad when it came to women, but he was a bit of a cuck, some of the deliveries almost seemed comedic in a sense such as the luring noises to let Josephine know he wanted sex, or the whole "between my legs is a present" or the "They cried less, which made them considerably more attractive". It all played kind of save and on one tone and pace and after a while that kind of burns you out.
>Austerlitz battle was grea
No it wasn’t. It was muddled, stupid nonsense. Didn’t even look like a major battle, it looked small as shite.
>why did people hated it?
Nothing is conveyed about Napoleon through this movie other than he's an autist. Literally nothing else. No context, no insights, no struggles, nothing.
Same thing consequently with Josephine. She just exists so that Napoleon's autismo stuff bounces of her in a few scenes and that's that. Nothing else is conveyed about her whatsoever.
Same with the battles, the political context is entirely missing, characters pop in and out with no context just to, again, be there for Napoleon to bounce his autismo stuff off of.... just a big nothing.
You’re not very good at thinking.