UKH

Who’s seen it? Is it good? Did the alleged historical truth bending make any difference to the experience?

It’s dynamite.

I haven't seen it but if they'd put some dinosaurs in I'd definitely watch

Honestly the reviews have put me off somewhat. I normally a Ridley fan.

It looks dull, N.D. is surely still the winner of any Napoleon based films?

https://youtu.be/r0NEkCKYarc?si=FcN10nyxxq2VXRB5

Honorary mentions however for the first Bill and Ted movie and the Red Dwarf episode “Meltdown”.

Would a Solo viewing be worth while?

my loyalty card for our local would let me free it

there you are - three allusions for the price of two!

I went last night with three other people, two of whom were most definitely cineastes. All of us thought it was dire. The aforesaid two wanted to walk out after twenty minutes but didn't like to appear rude. (It didn't improve.)

I have huge respect for Ridley Scott but so wish he hadn't made this film. Hard to believe the studios let him. And didn't he have a mate who could whisper in his ear, "Forget it!"

Sorry this is so negative. On a more positive note, we saw it in a little place called Cine Roma, in Alfas Del Pi, which is brilliant, a tribute to the spirit of cinema. (Think Cinema Paradiso.) For people climbing on the Costa Blanca, it's well worth a visit (not far from Calpe, Altea or Benidorm). 

Wrong film... but great venue. 

Mick 

I'd be interested to know why you think it was dire, Mick? I know lots of films take liberties with historical accuracy. Braveheart and Gladiator (that Scott man again) spring to mind. I'm interested in history but I think both those films are very good in an entertainment sense. Is the Napoleon film just boring and naff?

A good question! Re Braveheart, I tried to watch it recently and just couldn't. Thought Mel Gibson was too old, miscast and plain ridiculous. Some scenes were perilously close to farce. Though Patrick McGoohan was brilliant, as ever.

Re Gladiator, I quite liked it. Maximus seemed a decent guy, doing his very best, in a shitty world. I love the part just after he dies, where Lucilla stands up and berates the Romans for having lost their way. 

So I could take Maximus seriously but couldn't take Wallace seriously. Napoleon? Great man and utter nutter. The film presented him as a dour git with acute marriage problems. People would die for him (they did, in large numbers), yet he couldn't give a shit. 

The fatalities are presented numerically at the end. There should have been a sense, all the way through, that they were getting bigger and bigger, his monstrous ego creating and destroying. 

Reign of terror, overthrow, emperor, exile. Little historical context. Had the French gone bonkers? A bit like us, now??

Did he really love Josephine? At one point, he slaps her. Did she love him? What did she think of his monstrous ego? Was she bothered about the ever-growing bucher's bill?

Everything just seemed all over the place and confusing. When he opens a sarcophagus and touches the head, what's that all about? By then, you're past caring anyway. 

I'll stop. Clearly I'm no film critic. Best for others to see this and make up their own minds. Hopefully they'll like it!

Mick 

Thought Rupert Everitt was very good indeed as Wellington, instilling a sense that the grown-ups had arrived and the lunacy was finally coming to an end.

His palpable relief at Waterloo. Battles can so easily go the wrong way. 

Mick 

For those interested in the historical context, but with little time for reading, I would recommend the BBC 4 'Dictators' series.

Napoleon gets a 6 episodes.

Here's the first.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0g83pwm

I have found the entire series very compelling. 

So many lessons from the past, we ignore them at our peril.

Yes. I've been listening to Real Dictators almost daily for months now and it's been fascinating and horrifying in equal measure. As you say, a lot of the episodes are on BBC Sounds but many more/all are available free on Apple podcasts. Every dictator is a compelling case study in megalomania and Paul McGann is an excellent narrator. I've just finished the episodes about Tojo and never realised just how little regard (as with Napoleon, Mick) he and his regime had for human life. Racism and nationalism in a horrendous cocktail of death.

Thanks for your review, Mick. It sounds like a bit of a chore as films go. I do like a few aliens and dinosaurs rampaging through films but I suppose that would be stretching the historical envelope to breaking point. Another Scott film I enjoyed was Alien which I saw in a large cinema back in the day. I thought his most recent revivals of the theme (Prometheus etc) were dire. Back in the 'historical' genre another film I found hugely enjoyable was Troy even though I'm sure they used a llama in one of the scenes!

I think you have to wait for the Directors Cut for extra dinasaurs…

And does one eat its way out of Napoleon's chest?

A bit entertaining reading all this kerfuffle about the movie. There was similar, especially in my professional circles (I'm a Roman historian with a specialism in the Roman army) when Gladiator came out. There's history and then there's Ridley Scott the story-teller. Whilst the history is generally good enough not to need embelleshing, Holywood for some reason has to embellish it. I can watch and enjoy Gladiator as a blockbuster movie that the historical consultant subsequently distanced themself from but that created the 'Gladiator effect' on university admissions for studying Ancient History, I can lambast it from an historical perspective, and I have a fun seminar with my students critiquing the opening battle scene.

If it encourages people to find out more about the past, that's a bonus!

The reviews I have looked at suggest that even if you know or care nothing about historical accuracy it's just not a good film, especially considering the talent involved and the money spent on it.

Please don't tell me that Spartacus never rolled burning logs down onto the Romans!

Sorry! No rolling logs.

Well he should have thought of it! 

If you want something cool from Roman warfare, after the Carthaginians lost the second Punic war, Hannibal became a military consultant for Antiochus III in Turkey. In a naval battle, he filled terracotta pots with snakes and shot them from catapults at the enemy fleet.

Snakes on a Trireme!!

Just seen it and I enjoyed it. I'm no film buff and haven't been to the cinema for ages. I left knowing more about the campaigns than I knew before, together with the military tactics. I'm sure it had its flaws as a film, but they went over my head.

Ridley Scott directed two of my favourite movies of all time, Alien and Blade Runner (Blade Runner especially is probably my favourite movie), but aside from those two I find he's a poor director. Gladiator was decent and enjoyable, but it's not a movie I've ever wanted to re-watch. The rest of his catalogue is dross. I don't think I've ever been so gutted leaving a cinema as when I'd just watched Prometheus - I mean Scott, returning to the franchise he created, it had so much promise with it being a prequel set in the same universe, as opposed to a direct prequel, and it was just awful. I'm just glad he didn't direct and ruin Blade Runner 2049 (I loved it, a rare sequel that lives up to and builds on a classic original). 

As above however The Duellists, Someone to Watch over Me and Thelma & Louise are pretty good. And the Hovis advert.

Totally agree with you about Prometheus. What pish! But Thelma and Louise, dross?

I must have watched Gladiator dozens of times.There are no dinosaurs or tanks, so it seems believable to me even though I am sure lots of it is historically inaccurate. Don't care. I know almost every line. Crowe and Phoenix are just magnificent in it.

The truth is, he’s old (85) and tired. Overlying problem is that he’s a workaholic (I know, because I worked for him in the mid 80s.)

It seems like Napoleon may be in need of a Director’s Cut (by another director)?

Ah yeah, I actually forgot about Thelma & Louise! That's is a good movie. I've heard the directors cut of Kingdom of Heathen is quite good too, although never seen it.

I know that gladiator is historicaly silly, but a friend who studied classics thinks that your everyday roman would have loved the story. Any truth to that?

I kind of always like that idea

Close to walking out last night after 20 mins ISH of viewing, not great

Actually went to sleep and missed the last 30 mins

Would it be worth seeing it at an Imax cinema, if you enjoyed it?

Ridley Scott's Napoleon goes pretty much like this:

1 - at the start Ridley tries to pass 48-year-old Joaquin Phoenix off as being 23 years old whilst still insisting on pin sharp cinematography and shooting in IMAX

2 - And quickly we are into "epic battle scene" mode with an almost Joel-Silver-esque (ships totally going on fire the instant a single cannonball hits them) taking of Toulon.

3 - Then sumptuous interiors and Vanessa Kirby's wonderful frocks. Bit of romancing.

4 - Then a battle

5 - Then more romancing (depicted as rapid anal sex)

6 - Joaquin gets to look a bit closer to his actual age

Repeat steps 4-6 several times for about 90 minutes

7 - march on Russia, a bit less epic cos we need to save a bit of budget for Waterloo

8 - about 1 minute at Elba

9 - boo hoo Josephine died

10 - Rupert Everett magnificent as an unflappable Wellington

11 - THE END

12 - composite in loads of dead horses in post production

I rather liked it but then with it being post-1991 Ridley(*), I expected nothing better than rich spectacle (if lucky) and an empty episodic experience with zero character development. And he can get away with this very occasionally (Black Hawk Down)


* there ARE exceptions. e.g. All The Money in the World and to some extent Matchstick Men

I think so. I saw it at the Sheffield IMAX which is 24 metres wide

the music (contemporary score in classical piano style, plus choice of actual classical pieces) was excellent 

Hard to tell, I think. Yeah, battles against 'barbarians' and in the arena probably, killing Commodus perhaps less so - he was fairly popular as emperors went.

Totally unrelated, but elite / literate Romans of this period might have been reading one of the first surviving pieces of science fiction, Lucian's True History in which the protagonists travel to the moon, meet aliens, and engage in inter-planetary warfare. No idea what Lucian was on, but it sounds good!!

they did that thing where when you have a non English nation speaking English, and then bring in English characters, they have to exaggerate the English

so, near the start with the siege of Toulon the English are all Eastenders accents “Oi fackin you fackin daaahn fackin there, move them fackin goats”

and then Wellington and his officers are ludicrously plummy much later. Great stuff. Even better than in Enemy at the Gates 

Agree with Mick.

Wasn't expecting a weak, confused comedy.

Pretty naff really.

as each hour passes in the wake of my viewing, my opinion becomes more harsh. I may end up left with “only Vanessa Kirby comes out of this with any credibility and a lot of that is for her ability to keep a straight face while reciting weak dialogue” (see also: Gladiator) 

Ah yes, that would explain why he did that thing with his right hand. Always good to tie up the loose ends of history!

I've only seen clips but I keep seeing Nero from Gladiators with Joaquin Phoenix. 

Curious how some actors make a habit of playing egotistical and slightly deranged dictators. 

Judging by the comments on here I might give it a swerve until it hits TV. 

Twice in 23 years, with lots of other diverse characters in between, hardly counts as a habit!

So I could take Maximus seriously but couldn't take Wallace seriously.

It's Grommit who's the serious one

I'm hoping to go see it this week and I'm quite excited by the prospect.

I really don't care about the historical truth bending, it's a film and I just need to be entertained.

Thanks for your reply. The science fiction story sounds great. Gladiator 3 perhaps.

Was there a Gladiator 2? Have I missed something?

It's in the pipeline. Due for release next year I believe.

It follows the story of Lucius Verus, the son of Lucilla (sister of Commodus).

Paul Mescal will fight a CGI baboon , all Sands of the Kalahari style 

Time Bandits with the superlative Ian Holm, surely.

I thought Gladiator was everything a modern blockbuster should be, and berating it for lack of historical accuracy seems totally beside the point. 

Must have missed that one. Did he fight Cobra with the Pugil Sticks?

I've said I can enjoy Gladiator as a blockbuster movie. I can also criticise it because it has inauthentic helmets and anachronistic military equipment in it. It's like filming Saving Private Ryan with 19th century rifles instead of WW2 rifles, and with totally invented helmets instead of the classic American WW2 helmets. Yeah, play with the story, have genuine historical characters do stuff that they never did because it contributes to an effective storyline. But there's no need to manufacture a load of equipment for a movie and not bother to make it reasonably authentic?

otoh, we did use a few bits of kit from the movie on a BBC documentary about training the Roman army I did shortly after Gladiator. But we used the authentic stuff

Ian Holm who of course played Napoleon again many years later (and 7-8 years earlier too.....and who was under consideration by Kubrick for his planned film) Is this thread eating its own tail?! 

Unless you really want to support your local independent cinema, wait until it is available to stream. 

I think Mick summed it up well. My partner and I tried to work out why it was so bad but couldn't. It's just really not very good.

For context, I watched Gladiator and enjoyed it. Went to watch it again and realised it's bloody awful and turned it off after 40 mins. Could have easily left the cinema after the same amount of time watching Napoleon. The fact that there was going to be a Waterloo battle scene and Miles Jupp and Kevin Eldon making an appearance kept me seated.

Edit; Blue Straggler's description sums it up perfectly except I had higher expectations.

I can recall reading a book not so long ago, that detailed all the evidence that the French could dig up to emphatically prove that they had actually WON the battle of Waterloo. They probably also think they licked Henry V at Agincourt!