It's was pretty slapdash and confusing. I wonder if that was a result of it being cut down from four hours. Also at times it was pretty silly, like it was a parody of historical epics
The banter of the film is better than any of the banter I have seen in a Napoleon thread yet. The anti Napoleon autists have taken it upon themselves to flounder comedically and repeat themselves harder than Marvel and Barbie fans or Joker/Avatar 2 haters. A sad display indeed. 7/10 it’s like a mainstream Caligula, less edgy but just as schlockino.
I watched it earlier and the movie wasn't what I expected. I was hoping for more battles and action except all I got was Josephine... Josephine, my wife Josephine..
Yeah it's bad. I don't know much about history, but they made Napoleon into this autistic simpering cuckold. The battles and costumes looked interesting.
it's a disservice that such an interesting man has a movie with such a bad script
that said, it looks good and it's never boring although it has some silly scenes
Looking forward to normie morons forgetting this exists after slandering it for days with their dunning kruger takes while i enjoy my 5 hour long epic kino durectors cut in peace
The movie is really a mid. It's neither terrible, or worth a re-watch. I think the misstep is the scope of the film, maybe the four hour version will be better, but the pacing in this film is off and it's really not a great performance from Phoenix either. There are interesting elements, the film does well with the battle sequences, albeit they are so spaced out and hyphenated that they are more snippets. The rest of the general script is stale, you don't walk away knowing anything more about Napoleon or his actual character or ambitions. Any interesting moments are dampened by additional time wasted on very boring scenes, and that's about it. The scale would have been better served as a mini-series. The script wasn't very good, and it suffered from too much greyscaling.
If they had focused on one thing in particular, like Napoleons career, or his life with Josephine it might have been a serviceable script/film however it doesn't do any of these things. There are better Napoleon films, better Napoleonic epics.
>his life with Josephine it might have been a serviceable script/film
You stupid morons just do not get it do you?
The movie IS a josephine movie. It was cut down to a "Napoleon" highlights movie to make some money off stupid notmies like you who rushed to see this cut version in theatres. The real movie hasn't even been released yet.
News flash mongoloid I didn't pay to see it in cinema. I saw it for free, and did my duty as a man of culture to watch it.
As stated it failed in that respect as well, if they at least had a script mainly focused on his domestic life it might have worked, but again it went off like a damp squib.
>he doesn’t see his kino at the local Liemax or Dolby >he doesn’t listen to his tunes on vinyl and flac through a well curated hifi system
one cannot judge accurately what one cannot properly observe
>he doesn’t see his kino at the local Liemax or Dolby >he doesn’t listen to his tunes on vinyl and flac through a well curated hifi system
one cannot judge accurately what one cannot properly observe
That stinks. Hopefully you at least have a decently run theater nearby. A well calibrated normal theater is better than a poorly aligned premium theater, at the end of the day.
It's not outright awful but also not worth watching at all. It focuses way too much on lesser important aspects of his life and does a shit job at it too. Maybe just see some of the battle scenes on Youtube
Pros:
- Good photography
- Costume design is nice
- Battle choreography is good
- The opening scene (My favorite part)
Cons:
- It seems like the movie tries too hard to include every part of Napoleon's life into 2 and a half hours, not even the 4 hour cut will make it better because it's 4 hours vs 51 years lived.
I think it's better for a biopic to focus on one or two events, the less events there are, the more memorable they'll be. There's scenes that could've been very interesting, for instance, the scene where Napoleon "greeted" the mummy in Egypt, I'm pretty sure this was some sort of an important moment for him, but due to the fact that the movie tried to compress almost every event of his life, the scene ends quickly and it moves to another battle scene.
The biopic about Zucc doesn't try to explain all his life, instead, it focuses on an important event: The creation of faceberg and the lawsuits involved for "stealing the idea", all of this while showing us a different perspective on Mark's personality: How he acts as a manipulator at times. That would've been good for Napoleon, but instead it made me feel he was a 2 or even 3rd character in his own movie, the battle scenes and historical events seemed to be the main characters.
If you know nothing about Napoleon then I guess it serves as cliffsnotes, but it doesn't feel like a future classic like Blade Runner, instead it feels like Scott trying to give us a History class, with his style trying to make it interesting, and it works at least until the last 40 minutes of the movie.
It's not terrible, nor bad, nor good, it's like a very good looking dish, but tasteless after taking some bites.
>biopic about Zucc
That WAS his whole fricking life. Also aaron sorkin could not write a napoleon script and if he did it would be even more compressed. Entire wars would be just a couple lines of hastily spoken dialogue
>That WAS his whole fricking life
Except it wasn't, a lof of things hava happened, there's no meta, there's no Priscilla, there's not any scene where he's in the congress, in fact, the movie was made 1 year after the lawsuits.
They could've focused the Napoleon movie on one or two events that were important to him, instead it's just battle scenes, yes, they have a good choreography, but I got bored of them after a while.
Your "argument" is so idiotic it is self evidently self defeating. I'd say you're trolling but I doubt it at this point.
5 months ago
Anonymous
How am I "trolling"? You don't need a lot of locations or expensive battle scenes to make a good movie, The Breakfast Club takes place mostly in a detention room yet the movie holds its ground, how? Because of the characters, same thing happens with 12 Angry Men.
I wanted to see a movie about Napoleon, instead I got a history lesson. That's the best description I can make of that movie: "A history lesson from a textbook, with your teacher giving the class one or two curious details about Napoleon after reading a paragraph"
5 months ago
Anonymous
It's not even a good synopsis of his life or history lesd, you don't get his motivation, what revolutionary France was like etc etc.
Egypt campaign would be perfect story for Napoleon movie, it shows how important propaganda was for him, how instrumentally he treated his people, how he would succeed despite failures...
I listened to french military autist podcast about it, they said uniforms were cool but movie didn't know what story it wants to tell, in many scenes mumbling Napoleon acted as if it's an Italian Mafia movie.
You end up leaving theatre knowing nothing about Bonnie's character of life path, you just learn he was pathetic manlet alcoholic who shot at pyramids. They don't even explain why was he in Egypt in the first place
I didn't even go to see it despite having a free ticket. (I am a Mubi Go Subscriber)
It is
midge
no trans representation in the movie, completely took me out of it. There were definitely trans people in France during that time
It's was pretty slapdash and confusing. I wonder if that was a result of it being cut down from four hours. Also at times it was pretty silly, like it was a parody of historical epics
The banter of the film is better than any of the banter I have seen in a Napoleon thread yet. The anti Napoleon autists have taken it upon themselves to flounder comedically and repeat themselves harder than Marvel and Barbie fans or Joker/Avatar 2 haters. A sad display indeed. 7/10 it’s like a mainstream Caligula, less edgy but just as schlockino.
I watched it earlier and the movie wasn't what I expected. I was hoping for more battles and action except all I got was Josephine... Josephine, my wife Josephine..
Yeah it's bad. I don't know much about history, but they made Napoleon into this autistic simpering cuckold. The battles and costumes looked interesting.
>hmmmmmmhmmhmmmmmmm horny hmmmmhmmmmmm
>my hair is set napoleon
>mMHMMMHMMMMMMMMMMMMM WANT FRICKIES MHMMMMMMMMMM
>fine....make it quick
The movie fricking sucked. This is the only thing I took away from it aside from Napoleon being a fricking moron.
it's a disservice that such an interesting man has a movie with such a bad script
that said, it looks good and it's never boring although it has some silly scenes
Looking forward to normie morons forgetting this exists after slandering it for days with their dunning kruger takes while i enjoy my 5 hour long epic kino durectors cut in peace
are you gonna use AI to make Joaquin look thirty years younger?
>this is the 26 years old captain I was telling you about
The movie is really a mid. It's neither terrible, or worth a re-watch. I think the misstep is the scope of the film, maybe the four hour version will be better, but the pacing in this film is off and it's really not a great performance from Phoenix either. There are interesting elements, the film does well with the battle sequences, albeit they are so spaced out and hyphenated that they are more snippets. The rest of the general script is stale, you don't walk away knowing anything more about Napoleon or his actual character or ambitions. Any interesting moments are dampened by additional time wasted on very boring scenes, and that's about it. The scale would have been better served as a mini-series. The script wasn't very good, and it suffered from too much greyscaling.
If they had focused on one thing in particular, like Napoleons career, or his life with Josephine it might have been a serviceable script/film however it doesn't do any of these things. There are better Napoleon films, better Napoleonic epics.
>his life with Josephine it might have been a serviceable script/film
You stupid morons just do not get it do you?
The movie IS a josephine movie. It was cut down to a "Napoleon" highlights movie to make some money off stupid notmies like you who rushed to see this cut version in theatres. The real movie hasn't even been released yet.
News flash mongoloid I didn't pay to see it in cinema. I saw it for free, and did my duty as a man of culture to watch it.
As stated it failed in that respect as well, if they at least had a script mainly focused on his domestic life it might have worked, but again it went off like a damp squib.
Way to ignore all the pertinent information I just gave you.
Cope and seethe.
>he doesn’t see his kino at the local Liemax or Dolby
>he doesn’t listen to his tunes on vinyl and flac through a well curated hifi system
one cannot judge accurately what one cannot properly observe
i'm from mexico and we don't have that
not at least in my state
That stinks. Hopefully you at least have a decently run theater nearby. A well calibrated normal theater is better than a poorly aligned premium theater, at the end of the day.
It's not outright awful but also not worth watching at all. It focuses way too much on lesser important aspects of his life and does a shit job at it too. Maybe just see some of the battle scenes on Youtube
Its kino but people need to shit on scott
i loved the battles in imax yes I will watch the 4 hour ectendee edition
Saw it today, it's fine
Was only bored during the Josephine scene. Like who cares
Pros:
- Good photography
- Costume design is nice
- Battle choreography is good
- The opening scene (My favorite part)
Cons:
- It seems like the movie tries too hard to include every part of Napoleon's life into 2 and a half hours, not even the 4 hour cut will make it better because it's 4 hours vs 51 years lived.
I think it's better for a biopic to focus on one or two events, the less events there are, the more memorable they'll be. There's scenes that could've been very interesting, for instance, the scene where Napoleon "greeted" the mummy in Egypt, I'm pretty sure this was some sort of an important moment for him, but due to the fact that the movie tried to compress almost every event of his life, the scene ends quickly and it moves to another battle scene.
The biopic about Zucc doesn't try to explain all his life, instead, it focuses on an important event: The creation of faceberg and the lawsuits involved for "stealing the idea", all of this while showing us a different perspective on Mark's personality: How he acts as a manipulator at times. That would've been good for Napoleon, but instead it made me feel he was a 2 or even 3rd character in his own movie, the battle scenes and historical events seemed to be the main characters.
If you know nothing about Napoleon then I guess it serves as cliffsnotes, but it doesn't feel like a future classic like Blade Runner, instead it feels like Scott trying to give us a History class, with his style trying to make it interesting, and it works at least until the last 40 minutes of the movie.
It's not terrible, nor bad, nor good, it's like a very good looking dish, but tasteless after taking some bites.
>biopic about Zucc
That WAS his whole fricking life. Also aaron sorkin could not write a napoleon script and if he did it would be even more compressed. Entire wars would be just a couple lines of hastily spoken dialogue
>That WAS his whole fricking life
Except it wasn't, a lof of things hava happened, there's no meta, there's no Priscilla, there's not any scene where he's in the congress, in fact, the movie was made 1 year after the lawsuits.
They could've focused the Napoleon movie on one or two events that were important to him, instead it's just battle scenes, yes, they have a good choreography, but I got bored of them after a while.
Holy jesus you are a moronic dumb moron
So no arguments? Gotcha
Ridley is a good director, but he needs to be able to tell good scripts from mediocre ones
Your "argument" is so idiotic it is self evidently self defeating. I'd say you're trolling but I doubt it at this point.
How am I "trolling"? You don't need a lot of locations or expensive battle scenes to make a good movie, The Breakfast Club takes place mostly in a detention room yet the movie holds its ground, how? Because of the characters, same thing happens with 12 Angry Men.
I wanted to see a movie about Napoleon, instead I got a history lesson. That's the best description I can make of that movie: "A history lesson from a textbook, with your teacher giving the class one or two curious details about Napoleon after reading a paragraph"
It's not even a good synopsis of his life or history lesd, you don't get his motivation, what revolutionary France was like etc etc.
Egypt campaign would be perfect story for Napoleon movie, it shows how important propaganda was for him, how instrumentally he treated his people, how he would succeed despite failures...
Should have used Kubricks script, the writer of this, David Scarpa, was a very mid choice
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0769227/
any decent torrents, frens? all i can find is hdts
I listened to french military autist podcast about it, they said uniforms were cool but movie didn't know what story it wants to tell, in many scenes mumbling Napoleon acted as if it's an Italian Mafia movie.
You end up leaving theatre knowing nothing about Bonnie's character of life path, you just learn he was pathetic manlet alcoholic who shot at pyramids. They don't even explain why was he in Egypt in the first place