Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon.
Some interesting cav vs. square action in the trailer.
Looks worth seeing for sure.
It is an interesting role for Phoenix. However, he is an exceptional actor and given his method, he WILL become Napoleon. I'm sure his performance will be timeless.
The film technique is interesting, as well. It almost looks as if it was filmed in the 1970s era.
One question though...check out the 2:00 mark of the trailer. Would squares have been employed this closely together? The horses are running between the two squares with the infantry firing into one another. I would think the obvious risk of cross-fire would require different spacing and positioning. sq.jpg
:Dreamer: Can't wait. I think I saw a shorter version of this trailer about a year ago.
Agree with JH it's visuals remind me somewhat of Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon. Maybe Scott (one of my favorite directors) used some older cameras and equipment for some scenes and shots?
This film will probably be a visual feast for History Buffs but I doubt even Scott and Phoenix can make sense of the whole Napoleonic story to modern day audiences. At least not in one movie. Better to have been made into some kind of series so people could digest it bit by bit than to try to swallow it whole. My pick would be Wilford Brimley as Kutuzov.
The 1970s look is definitely aiming to homage Bondachunk's Napoleon films (War and Peace, and Waterloo).
^Never seen those. Better than Barry Lyndon?
Uh...that IS footage from Waterloo and the Duelists, not an homage.
Quote from: Gusington on April 27, 2023, 10:21:48 AM^Never seen those. Better than Barry Lyndon?
Waterloo is, in my opinion, the best and most accurate war film about the Napoleonic wars. It was one of the few movies I used to actually teach history.
It's flaws exist but are few, and a lot of historians list it in the top tier in terms of historical accuracy of sets, historical content and depiction of warfare.
And...it's free to watch. I just recently watched the fan cut, which restores a few scenes and upgrades the movie to full HD. It's not the theatrical cut, which is also easily found, but I really enjoyed it here...
Do yourself a favor and give it a watch to tide you over for the real Napoleon trailer that doesn't crib footage from this film.
Oh, and the other shots from the trailer are from Ridley Scott's first movie, The Duelists. That's also one heck of a Napoleonic era movie and fantastic in its own right.
WHAT
Really? Wow.
I have seen The Duelists and enjoyed it.
Quote from: Gusington on April 27, 2023, 10:38:18 AMWHAT
Really? Wow.
Yes really! And speaking of Barry Lyndon, Kubrick's film after 2001 was going to be a Napoleon biopic. He invested a lot of time and effort into it and it was nearly an obsession with him.
When he saw Waterloo he was crushed. He realized the film he wanted to do had already been made and he felt no need to go further with it. He trashed everything and went to work adapting Barry Lyndon instead.
^I see you too are a gentleman of wealth and taste :tophat:
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on April 27, 2023, 08:07:59 AMOne question though...check out the 2:00 mark of the trailer. Would squares have been employed this closely together? The horses are running between the two squares with the infantry firing into one another. I would think the obvious risk of cross-fire would require different spacing and positioning. [url="https://www.grogheads.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=17616;type=preview;file"]sq.jpg[/url]
The sequence looks like it is depicting Ney's ill-fated last-hurrah cavalry charge at Waterloo. In that case, the depiction of close squares is correct I believe.
By the Napoleonic Wars, squares were almost exclusively a defensive formation used to defend against cavalry charges.
The checker-board pattern and small squares were a deliberate tactic by Wellington. Other armies of the time deployed squares the same way. Defending against Ney at Waterloo, Wellington's troops formed over 30 squares in the checker-board.
Basically. the idea was to force the cavalry to ride around in a killing zone (the excellent book "The Battle" by Alessandro Barbero is a great source for this). Also, the squares were so close to each other so they could provide mutual support. Typical Napoleonic infantry doctrine was to allow 120 paces between squares.
I guess friendly fire was a concern, but when you have a few thousand French horsemen charging towards you, I think that would have been the least of your worries. Also, Napoleonic muskets also had a bit of windage (the bore gap kind), so shots past 30 yards would have been going pretty wide anyway.
The use of squares to break up cavalry charges was a pretty reliable tactic, I think there were only a handful of cases where Napoleonic cavalry broke a square (Polish lancers broke a British square in Spain for example).
If anything, Ridley Scott seems to have had some very good historical advice on this point.
Still, I am far from an expert, and there are probably other folks who can comment more.
Quote from: ArizonaTank on April 27, 2023, 11:01:41 AMIf anything, Ridley Scott seems to have had some very good historical advice on this point.
Still, I am far from an expert, and there are probably other folks who can comment more.
Again, important to note that IS a shot from Waterloo, so lets not attribute that to Scott. The trailer listed made the rounds and is a fan made fabricated trailer, not a trailer for Scott's film.
If you watch the Youtube Fan Edit of Waterloo with the added footage the shot from the "trailer" can be found at the 1 hour and 43 minute mark.
Nobody sneaks past SirAndrew. :nono2:
Meanwhile, on War and Peace:
At the time he made it, Bondarchuk (who also stars as one of the main protagonists, Pierre) commanded something like the 5th largest military force in the world! -- namely over 120,000 Soviet troops busy not invading Europe. ;) So the Nappy war scenes are very, very decent (which was experience he went on to put to good use for Waterloo).
The rest of the film is a more-or-less faithful 4-part nearly 7-hour abridgement of War and Peace, mostly faithful to the original material where kept, minus any of Tolstoy's more specifically Christian thoughts (as you'd expect from a Soviet production) though keeping some of his more ideologically harmless spiritualistic musings, so.... y'know, all the pros and cons of W&P. :Nerd: It was released to be shown all on one 10-hour day, much like screening the extended versions of LotR all on one day.
Several years ago I bought the best available version new here https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/5489003219
This set is an official reconstruction which patches together footage from several Russian and international releases, as well as repairing (so far as possible) the crappy color film which had been recently created by Soviet scientists to be the best color film evar :Loser: , to recreate as closely as possible the original release. This results in rather spotty and inconsistent visual quality, but there's not much can be done about it anymore. Similarly, the audio is sometimes the original Russian with subtitles, sometimes an English dub, sometimes a French dub with English subtitles!
You will probably come out of the film despising everyone in it except maybe Napoleon (in his occasional cameos) and the peasants, which is probably what Tolstoy intended, so... faithful adaptation! :ThumbsUp:
another trailer released...looking forward to this even if not the most accurate or not...
Not bad! -- A Ridley movie can typically be trusted to look and sound good, so mission accomplished there!
I was admittedly hoping against hope that Scott was aiming to recreate and finish out Gance's crazy-detailed six-film biopic plan back in the silent era! Probably wouldn't be economically feasible today, but the first film still survives (I have it but haven't gotten around to watching it yet) in a six-hour cut from Nappy's boyhood through his 1797 invasion of Italy. :Dreamer:
Looks good to me.
Only concerns are, wow they're shoving a ton of history into this. It's going to be super hard to cover this in a traditional run time but I'm sure Ridley Scott in his "I DGAF" phase of his filmmaking will probably stretch that time out.
Second. Phoenix is one heck of an actor buy he's 48 going on 65. He's already older than Napoleon was at Waterloo, let alone at Toulon and boy he looks it. He will need to make up for it with a tour de force but the trailer didn't show off a ton.
Very much looking forward to it. We're in a golden age of Napoleon films now with Spielberg looking to adapt Kubrick's script into a streaming miniseries.
Can someone finally get off their butt and make a Horatio Nelson biopic now?
Great trailer. Maybe even great enough to get me to go out to a theater.
I see places say movie length around 3 hours and 10 minutes so plenty of time to cram things in:)
In addition Spielberg and Kubrick and Tarantino, Scott is one of my favorite directors.
I'm with SirAnrew, too much story to cram-in to too little film. But anything with cavalry charges...I'm in!
...... did Napoleon really shoot the Pyramids with cannons? :yikes:
Quote from: al_infierno on July 12, 2023, 01:13:47 AM...... did Napoleon really shoot the Pyramids with cannons? :yikes:
I don't think there is any damage from cannon balls on the pyramids, so probably not. See https://www.polygon.com/23789626/napoleon-trailer-ridley-scott-joaquin-phoenix-pyramids
for a similar opinion.
Damn I was hoping it was true.
It was generally understood, however, up through WW1, that Nappy's forces had used the face of the Sphinx for cannon target practice. No idea if that has been debunked.
Update: sketches of the Sphinx shortly before Nappy's arrival show the nose already gone, so also not true.
It looks like Scott may be over-dramatizing some history, and that is sad, but also typical Hollywood (and Scott for that matter).
The Pyramid scene is an example. But also the trailer seems to show an incident at Austerlitz. The trailer makes it look like the French artillery firing at the Russians on a frozen lake during the battle was devastating. Napoleon certainly presented it that way. But sober analysis, and archeology have shown that while the incident did happen, casualties were probably low, and the effect on the battle was mostly hyperbole.
https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2023/07/11/did-napoleon-fire-cannons-at-the-pyramids-and-trap-enemies-on-a-frozen-lake/ (https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2023/07/11/did-napoleon-fire-cannons-at-the-pyramids-and-trap-enemies-on-a-frozen-lake/)
Scott has never been shy about twisting history to tell a good story (exhibit one: "Kingdom of Heaven"), so its not surprising that we may see the same thing with "Napoleon."
But as a movie I still liked "Kingdom of Heaven" despite its sins against 'history.' So I will go see "Napoleon" for the visuals alone and will burden my poor wife with explanations on how the story differs from real history.
^Are you not entertained?
I am with you - I love Scott's movies. But I do not go to him to be a history professor.
Same with games. The old arguments about historical authenticity just get me down.
Just make me giggle with delight, please. And if things are not precisely, 100% historically accurate, let me discover for myself.
Nowadays, we can at least look forward to thorough historical analysis on Youtube sometime after release. The "Real Crusades History" channel has an excellent discussion, as long as the extended cut of the movie, of the things "Kingdom of Heaven" got right and (mostly) wrong -- and they're still rather fans of the film.
Although I know not by same director, Patriot is a perfect example....I know it isn't very historic, but every time I run across it on TV, I re-watch it over and over....it seems to capture the spirit of the time period and I find it entertaining, it not being historic doesn't make me enjoy it any less. I suspect this movie will be the same and that is perfectly fine for me...just entertain me:) My biggest issue will be whether I can sit in a theatre seat for 3+ hours :)
^I'm the same way with The Patriot. That movie is another good example of just wanting to be entertained because when Mel Gibson was being accused of being a nutter, I was basically like 'who knows what is true and what is not here' and decided to try to still enjoy the movies. In just don't have the mental capacity to investigate every claim anymore.
You can definitely add Braveheart to that list of significantly inaccurate but awesome historical films, also involving Mel Gibson. :ThumbsUp:
The basic truth of what happened with him is that he is, or was, a very angry drunk with a drinking problem, and said some anti-Jewish things against people in Hollywood while angry-drunk that he quickly regretted as unfair (at least in regard to Jews as a whole). What more is true there, I don't know.
I agree, we don't need to investigate every claim to be just plain-old entertained. Anyway, that's what the world has the Grogheads for. Does it not? Still, I can already hear the sound of many snide grumblings with a French accent coming.
I'm a history nut but I don't demand everything being totally exact to the very letter of history.
I especially don't mind a bit of puffery around this period. Propaganda was in full swing during the Napoleonic Wars, both on the part of Napoleon and against him. I like some of the stories being represented on screen even if they don't match the letter of history, but at least its spirit.
I actually went over a lot of British Propaganda about Napoleon written at the time, and he was portrayed as a spoiled, incompetent dwarf who was utterly incapable of waging war effectively and shot off the nose of the Sphinx out of anger that there were monuments to men greater than he. Clearly untrue but fun to sometime represent ala Terry Gilliam's segment in Time Bandits with Ian Holm in the role.
I mean, I used to show Gladiator in my World History class, not because it was an accurate representation of the historical figures it claimed to follow, but because it was a good movie and it fit the spirit of Roman history if not the letter. It got kids interested and they then listened to me when I told the real story.
This film might be too much for a class in school, but I can tell you it'd have a much better chance of engaging people and getting them interested than the hyper-accurate Bondarchuk Waterloo film will ever do.
Was Napoleon really a monster?
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20230818-ridley-scotts-napoleon-was-the-french-leader-really-a-monster
Oui, oui, oui, all the way home.
The Poles love him though, and bonus points for enabling am Anglo/Prussian dalliance.
The Corsican Ogre, man! -- I know one writer from the period who regarded him as the final Antichrist for sure really! (This was despite Israel not having returned and rebuilt the Temple yet, which this author knew very well was supposed to happen first.)
That Anglo/Prussian dalliance was regarded by Chesterton as disastrous, btw: on his reckoning (in the midst of WW1, and in the interwar period) the British should have allied with Nappy. But then, the Hanover dynasty had been invited onto the throne earlier (also regarded as a disaster by Chesterton, ofc). So no way was Britain ever going to ally with Napoleon.
I think Napoleon's conduct during the Siege of Jaffa in 1799, would have gotten him the rope had the incident happened during WWII. His troops were enraged at the Ottomans, and Napoleon basically oversaw the wholesale slaughter of the populace of the city.
I suppose some might say he wasn't able to control the situation, but that same argument didn't stop a few Japanese generals from swinging after war crimes tribunals at the end of WWII.
Fortunately in Napoleon's long military career, what happened at Jaffa was an aberration.
(https://i.ibb.co/2PxqHrs/pntob.jpg)
It would depend on your definition of a, "Monster" wouldn't it? England, yes. France, no. Russia, yes. Poland, no. Prussia, yes. Everybody threatened by Prussia, no. His second wife, yes. His first wife, no. Every royal family in Europe, yes. Every commoner in Europe, no, unless he invaded their country and despoiled everything and everyone in it, then yes. The army that he loved, loved him back. The navy he hated, hated him back. Are we still talking about just one guy here? :undecided:
I studied Revolutionary and Imperial France under Dr. Mike Fitzsimmons.
Thing about Mike, he was as hardcore a leftist as they came. He absolutely thought and argued Reagan and Nixon were "monsters".
He also had a secondary PhD in the Holocaust and he was someone that was a straight up and down black and white as they came.
Great guy, my academic advisor and mentor. Was a patron of me back when I was still in the history world.
All of that is to say, when anyone asked him if Napoleon was a monster, he answered the same as I did above, a simple "No".
Let him go and he got complicated about it, but I can tell you what, that man forgot more about French History than I'll ever know and he said he wasn't a monster, I'm not going to argue with him.
How did your professor reconcile the fact of Napoleon's continual wars of conquest?
As one professor states in the BBC article he wasn't like Hitler or Stalin, in a genocidal manner.
However millions ranging from 3.5 to 7 million died during his wars and lets not forget the atrocities directed at guerrillas in the Peninsular war and at rebelling Caribbean islands. Goya is most famous for his art depicting such atrocities.
We are all part monsters and part Saints depending on environment we're in and the circumstances. And absolute power tends to bring-out the, 'monster' part more readily. Probably all of us would become Napoleon to promote our vision of Justice and the Greater Good for, (Fill-In-The-Blank) if given the same level of total control he had. Monsters are easy to see when looking into the past, but much harder to see in the present. Who are today's Heros that will be seen as Monsters in a generation?
Quote from: SirAndrewD on July 12, 2023, 03:43:10 PMI'm a history nut but I don't demand everything being totally exact to the very letter of history.
I especially don't mind a bit of puffery around this period. Propaganda was in full swing during the Napoleonic Wars, both on the part of Napoleon and against him. I like some of the stories being represented on screen even if they don't match the letter of history, but at least its spirit.
I actually went over a lot of British Propaganda about Napoleon written at the time, and he was portrayed as a spoiled, incompetent dwarf who was utterly incapable of waging war effectively and shot off the nose of the Sphinx out of anger that there were monuments to men greater than he. Clearly untrue but fun to sometime represent ala Terry Gilliam's segment in Time Bandits with Ian Holm in the role.
I mean, I used to show Gladiator in my World History class, not because it was an accurate representation of the historical figures it claimed to follow, but because it was a good movie and it fit the spirit of Roman history if not the letter. It got kids interested and they then listened to me when I told the real story.
This film might be too much for a class in school, but I can tell you it'd have a much better chance of engaging people and getting them interested than the hyper-accurate Bondarchuk Waterloo film will ever do.
It'll be engaging for sure, but judging the trailer as is, its full of historical fallacy.
Napoleon did not fire upon the Pyramids. This is a lie. Marie Antoinette was not executed amongst a raving crowd, they were mostly quiet and reserved as reported by various European and Colonial pubs. The Royalist Insurrection cannonade is also depicted as a bunch of brave, steadfast unarmed protesters, marching purposefully into fire for their cause. This is also nonsense as the vast majority were armed and firing at Revolutionary forces throughout, only to be brought to a halt via cannon. He (Scott) is purposely deviating from history to tell the story he wants to tell with the accustomed "modern" political elements he wants included.
The historical deviations and outright lies are evident throughout and these are the only one visible from the trailer. Ridley, a man that has only a few great films under his belt with well over 100 projects directed and produced, yet people clamor for it and more. What a fuckin' joke.
The man is hack well past his prime. I mean come on, he hired Damon Lindelof as a writer...
Quote from: DetCord on August 26, 2023, 10:17:52 PMThe historical deviations and outright lies are evident throughout and these are the only one visible from the trailer. Ridley, a man that has only a few great films under his belt with well over 100 projects directed and produced, yet people clamor for it and more. What a fuckin' joke.
The man is hack well past his prime. I mean come on, he hired Damon Lindelof as a writer...
I can agree with a lot but I don't with Scott.
Scott is a notorious Napoleon fanboy and deep adherent to him as underappreciated in history. He was obsesssed with Kubrick's failed film.
I don't think Scott's as bad as you say, he has had some recent great success with films like The Martian and Last Duel. Prometheus was underrated.
I'm not sure what to make of the trailer for Napoleon but I know Scott is a firm Napoleon supporter and yeah, you're right, there were no rounds that hit the Pyramids and the depiction of the Royalist insurrection seems off but, I'm willing to see the movie on its merits.
Scott has regularly admired Napoleon as a very heavy anti-religious secularist and he followed Kubrick in that mold. He has long said that he was the bringer of democratic reform, secular humanism, and fair legal reform to Europe and that he was opposed by the forces of divine right, religion and monarchy.
I want to see the movie first.
QuoteI can agree with a lot but I don't with Scott. Scott is a notorious Napoleon fanboy and deep adherent to him as underappreciated in history. He was obsesssed with Kubrick's failed film.
If he was as you say, he'd have depicted the events accurately. He doesn't, period...
QuoteI don't think Scott's as bad as you say, he has had some recent great success with films like The Martian and Last Duel. Prometheus was underrated.
The Martian was written by Weir. The Last Duel, Prometheus, and Covenant, were helmed, produced, and co-written primarily by Scott. They're all awful films. Truly, truly, awful.
QuoteI'm not sure what to make of the trailer for Napoleon but I know Scott is a firm Napoleon supporter and yeah, you're right, there were no rounds that hit the Pyramids and the depiction of the Royalist insurrection seems off but, I'm willing to see the movie on its merits.
As is the Hollyweird norm, he's painting and depicting an ahistorical narrative while push the 'message'.
QuoteScott has regularly admired Napoleon as a very heavy anti-religious secularist and he followed Kubrick in that mold. He has long said that he was the bringer of democratic reform, secular humanism, and fair legal reform to Europe and that he was opposed by the forces of divine right, religion and monarchy.
I want to see the movie first.
The trailer depicts the exact opposite.
I'm going to withhold judgement and say we'll see Det.
I'm going to be right there with you if it's absurd. Trust me, I also am someone who really wants to see Napoleon done right and if Scott screws the pooch with this one I'm not going to be shy on it.
We'll see what Spielberg does with Kubrick's script as well.
I want to see a very solid and fair representation of Napoleon done on screen. And please, let it be known, I 100% think Napoleon has been painted quite poorly outside of Waterloo.
I want to see a fair and honest film about him, it's something majorly lacking.
We already have a very accurate series though, that being Napoleon (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253839/) from 2002.
Quote from: DetCord on August 26, 2023, 11:39:48 PMWe already have a very accurate series though, that being Napoleon (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253839/) from 2002.
Eesh, yes. I've seen it. I wasn't entirely sold on Clavier but it was not bad.
I still think Stiger was the best.
Fun story I turned an entire class of inner city African American kids into Napoleon fans with my lesson plan on him that included Bonderchuk's Waterloo.
Quote from: DetCord on August 26, 2023, 11:39:48 PMWe already have a very accurate series though, that being Napoleon (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253839/) from 2002.
It's a shame it is not available to stream anywhere. Amazon does have it available on bluray for the bargain price of $498.34, though. :ROFL:
Ridley Scott is one of my favorite directors and very from a hack. Chalk it up to taste.
As a director he's hard to beat!
As a writer, he has problems. He doesn't always pick good writers or adapters either.
^Of course.
Think about the worlds he created just in the Alien universe, though.
Incredible imagination, especially taking into account the sci-fi era they were created in (late 70s).
Most of historical movies I really enjoy as well...and don't even get me started on Thelma + Louise :cool:
Damn, did he do that one too? How long has he been around?
Full disclosure: I did not know about Thelma and Louise until about three days ago and had no idea.
Scott is 85 years old! His more successful run of movies started in the 1970s with The Duelists and of course Alien in 1979.
Love the Duelist
Amazing grog details in the hairstyle and uniform dress for the different periods of the Napoleonic era
His films have made 4.2B Thats nothing to sneeze about on his value to the business
Con
I'm all for historical accuracy down to the minutiae. But I'm with sir Andrew on this one, big production movies like this thrust historical periods into the view of normal non grog people and start conversations about history that otherwise wouldn't have taken place. This will be perfect to take my 10 year old to see.
I can't wait to hear the products of the American Public Education system ask, "Why didn't they just NUKE him man"? :doh:
Pft. Do you WANT Napoleon to be able to breathe out a radioactive firestorm? Because that's how you mutate Napoleon enough to .....
...
.....okay, I would admittedly consider paying money to see that. Maybe set in the context of the seven last years of tribulation with Nappy being the ultimate Antichrist.
:ThumbsUp: Would that make Wellington or Nelson Jesus? :undecided:
You forgot Blücher, making the holy trinity.
:ROFL: :notworthy:
I am very excited to see it. Joaquin Phoenix looks to be an awesome Napoleon.
I am betting they make Napoleon look like a madman... rather than a genius.
On grogs picking up on historical floors Ridley Scott is quoted as saying in reply "were you there?"
Initial reviews are mixed. Some think it is a great achievement, others think it technically very good, but without soul.
The truth is probably in the middle.
I'll see it next week.
That figures. Most modern movies are soul less because they must pander to so many agendas and lobby groups.
The wife and I will probably see this over the weekend. I managed to convince her that it will be good because she loves Joachim Phoenix. Hopefully it isn't soulless.
I have tickets for Wednesday. Should be great.
Quote from: Redwolf on November 20, 2023, 09:49:57 AMI have tickets for Wednesday. Should be great.
The wife and I are going as well.
But the clip of the 'Battle of Austerlitz' that was released a few days ago, has me cringing just a bit.
Particularly the emphasis on the 'frozen pond.' In fact there were so many other "real" moments of heroism and nail-biting tension in the battle that could have been dramatized.
Napoleon, always with an eye for dramatization, claimed 20,000 Russians were lost in the frozen pond. This is the story the movie seems to follow.
The reality was far less dramatic. When the ponds were drained after the battle, there were only three Russian bodies found.
Here is an excerpt from Robert Goetz' excellent history: "1805 Austerlitz: Napoleon and the Destruction of the Third Coalition".
"With the causeway jammed with fleeing men and abandoned vehicles, many of those remaining behind attempted to cross the ice of the Satchan Pond, producing the scene immortalized by Napoleon's 30th Bulletin: ". . . one saw a horrible spectacle, such as one had seen at Aboukir: 20,000 men throwing themselves in the water and drowning in the lakes!" While the ice did break beneath them due to a combination of artillery fire and the weight of their numbers and a small number did drown, still others managed to cross to the safety of the other side or were pulled from the pond, which was only 1.5 meters or so deep. Segur claims personally to have helped to pull a Cossack from the icy water. Comeau, a French staff officer who witnessed the action, later scoffed at the exaggeration of the bulletin, and asserted that the pond actually preserved the 1st Column from destruction rather than claiming a large number of lives:
The bulletin says that this pond absorbed thousands of them [Russian soldiers]. I was near enough to see what occurred there. The Russian army skirted the pond and put it between them and the cavalry that would have harassed them. While some parties might have got their feet wet, they did not drown. The few corpses of men and horses that I saw there had been killed by gunfire; they were on the bank, and even nearer. I would say in fact that it was not 2,000 men who perished, but fewer than 200 while without this obstacle [the pond] the column would have been crushed.* When the ponds were drained after the battle, only three human corpses were found, along with thirty cannon and the corpses of about 130 horses, fully corroborating Comeau's eyewitness account.† Seeing the ice breaking on the pond, most of the remaining allied troops west of the pond escaped to the south toward Mönitz, some continuing south from that village, others attempting to cross the ice of Mönitz Pond, which soon also broke up. Ironically, the troops which had maintained order and were left behind, including the Austrian cavalry forming the rearguard, still managed to cross between the ponds before the French closed in on their rear."
Goetz, Robert. 1805 Austerlitz: Napoleon and the Destruction of the Third Coalition (pp. 354-355). Pen & Sword Books. Kindle Edition.
I know this complaint is nit picky.... but hey... I am a "Grognard" after all.
Quote from: Gusington on July 10, 2023, 11:16:52 AMIn addition Spielberg and Kubrick and Tarantino, Scott is one of my favorite directors.
I snickered slightly when I thought of how Michael Bay would have done it....
"Napoleon, always with an eye for dramatization, claimed 20,000 Russians were lost in the frozen pond. This is the story the movie seems to follow."
Well, he couldn't keep it under his hat, it's been sold for US$2.1M https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67465802
I will be going to see this movie... hoping for great and grand things.
As an aside, I bought the SSI Waterloo game years/decades back.
I commanded ALL of Wellington's troops to advance as one - after a relatively short bombardment; and I gleaned out a marginal/tactical victory before Blucher arrived. Greatness waits for no one.
I saw a review from someone who indicated was part of a pre screening and they weren't impressed. Believe he indicated more of the focus was on his personal life versus the battles and such as we see in the trailers and commercials. No idea if true and doesn't mean it won't be good, I would just prefer more focus on the battles:) Regardless, certainly a movie I will see.
On the one hand I kinda love Ridley Scott's commitment to his vision and basically responding to groggies with a nerd emoji whenever they point out historical inaccuracies.
Also, this quote seems to be pretty damning for the typical Groghead, encouraging for the typical moviegoer.
QuoteRidley Scott's "Napoleon" wears the mask of a sombre war epic but is performed like comedic farce, as though the famed French emperor were The Office's Michael Scott. Riotous myth-making about the absurd dangers of modern and historical despots.
https://www.inverse.com/entertainment/napoleon-review-ridley-scott-apple-tv
CNN posted an opinion piece today that appreciated the focus of this movie on Napoleon's personal life, how he was poor in bed and could not get Josephine (played by Vanessa Kirby here) pregnant:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/20/opinions/napoleon-ridley-scott-joaquin-phoenix-donald-trump-berlatsky/index.html
Vanessa Kirby:
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/ell.h-cdn.co/assets/16/46/1600x800/landscape-1479146951-vanessa-kirby-comp-lead.jpg?resize=640:*)
This sort of personal life cherry picking and twisting is what I hate about a lot of napoleonic epics. Still I guess even the crumbs are worth supporting. Not happy with Ridley Scotts poo pooing of the grogs and nerds. But can understand that trolling is a thing these days. Hope this is not simply a womens lib vs power crazed man baby romp made out of one of the most influencial characters of history who's legacy for better or worse is still with us today.
Quote from: Gusington on November 20, 2023, 09:51:20 PMCNN posted an opinion piece today that appreciated the focus of this movie on Napoleon's personal life, how he was poor in bed and could not get Josephine (played by Vanessa Kirby here) pregnant:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/20/opinions/napoleon-ridley-scott-joaquin-phoenix-donald-trump-berlatsky/index.html
Vanessa Kirby:
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/ell.h-cdn.co/assets/16/46/1600x800/landscape-1479146951-vanessa-kirby-comp-lead.jpg?resize=640:*)
What a dork! He could conquer Europe, but he couldn't conquer the Vanussy. :3musketeer: :twirl:
If Josephine really looked like Vanessa I would try and try until I couldn't try anymore :buck2:
...there are first Hollywood rumors that the next biopic by Ridley Scott is already in preparation ^^
called "Adolf" its about the rise of a semi fictional Hitler to power and focus on his relatioship to his girlfriend and later wife Eva Braun, his vegetarianism and the parties at Obersalzberg :doh:
(https://i.ibb.co/84J9QGf/769464.jpg)
...we don't expect all to much historic Blitzkrieg, Stalingrad or Normandy action so :huh:
Quote from: Gusington on November 21, 2023, 12:07:25 AMIf Josephine really looked like Vanessa I would try and try until I couldn't try anymore :buck2:
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMDRjMTA4ZGYtZjM3OS00MjA1LTgwZGItMzc4Mzg4MDI1MTliXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTYzNTE3NDA@._V1_.jpg) (https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/QyMAAOSwGwBjlz5I/s-l1200.webp)
Quote from: Destraex on November 20, 2023, 10:33:42 PMThis sort of personal life cherry picking and twisting is what I hate about a lot of napoleonic epics. Still I guess even the crumbs are worth supporting. Not happy with Ridley Scotts poo pooing of the grogs and nerds. But can understand that trolling is a thing these days. Hope this is not simply a womens lib vs power crazed man baby romp made out of one of the most influencial characters of history who's legacy for better or worse is still with us today.
I hope this is not the case. As a precaution however, I will bring a bag of rotten tomatoes to the theatre as I'm watching the movie.
Prepare some negative reviews to share on the movie rating apps.
e.g., this one written by AI on the movie Waterloo
My instructions: write a short scathing review of the movie Waterloo from the perspective of a military war historian
"Waterloo," a cinematic endeavor that purports to depict one of the most significant battles in European history, is a lamentable failure that manages to trivialize and distort the events of the Battle of Waterloo with an astounding lack of historical accuracy. As a military war historian, witnessing this cinematic debacle was akin to enduring a prolonged assault on my scholarly sensibilities.
The film, directed by Sergei Bondarchuk, exhibits a blatant disregard for the nuanced intricacies of military strategy and tactics that characterized the Napoleonic era. Rather than presenting a meticulous recreation of the battlefield, the audience is subjected to a cacophony of chaotic and anachronistic battle scenes, bereft of any semblance of historical fidelity. It seems as though the director prioritized bombast over authenticity, reducing the clash of armies to a mindless spectacle.
The portrayal of historical figures, notably Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington, is equally egregious. Instead of capturing the complexity of these iconic leaders, the film reduces them to caricatures, with performances that oscillate between melodramatic and farcical. The script's attempt at humanizing Napoleon falls flat, and Rod Steiger's portrayal borders on parody, lacking the gravitas required for such a pivotal historical figure.
Moreover, the film takes unwarranted liberties with the chronology of events, distorting the sequence of the battle and undermining the meticulous planning and strategic brilliance that defined the actual engagement. The viewer is left with a distorted and oversimplified version of history, where critical details are sacrificed at the altar of cinematic spectacle.
In conclusion, "Waterloo" stands as a woeful testament to the pitfalls of historical filmmaking when divorced from scholarly rigor. For those seeking an authentic and insightful portrayal of the Battle of Waterloo, I would strongly advise turning to the annals of history or well-researched documentaries, rather than subjecting oneself to this cinematic travesty.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13287846/criticreviews/
Average score : 67 (based on the 35 reviews in the link)
I am watching Waterloo (1970) in preparation for tomorrow.
Saw it with the wife this evening.
I liked it, but would say its good, not great.
The only battle segment worth noting was Waterloo; it came somewhat close to the real thing.
Austerlitz was almost total fantasy.
But they got the uniforms mostly right. Bicorns at Austerlitz, and shakos at Waterloo.
Quote from: ArizonaTank on November 21, 2023, 10:08:25 PMBut they got the uniforms mostly right. Bicorns at Austerlitz, and shakos at Waterloo.
And that is how you write a review for grogs
Quote from: ArizonaTank on November 21, 2023, 10:08:25 PMSaw it with the wife this evening.
I liked it, but would say its good, not great.
The only battle segment worth noting was Waterloo; it came somewhat close to the real thing.
Austerlitz was almost total fantasy.
But they got the uniforms mostly right. Bicorns at Austerlitz, and shakos at Waterloo.
This is the beauty of me being clueless on Napoleonic battles as I have very little knowledge to compare fiction and fantasy:)
^Me too.
'Ignorance is bliss.' :justice:
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on November 22, 2023, 06:56:48 AMQuote from: ArizonaTank on November 21, 2023, 10:08:25 PMSaw it with the wife this evening.
I liked it, but would say its good, not great.
The only battle segment worth noting was Waterloo; it came somewhat close to the real thing.
Austerlitz was almost total fantasy.
But they got the uniforms mostly right. Bicorns at Austerlitz, and shakos at Waterloo.
This is the beauty of me being clueless on Napoleonic battles as I have very little knowledge to compare fiction and fantasy:)
Lucky you. I have painted so many of the little buggers in my time that if RS had made the mistake of using shakos at Austerlitz, it would have been devastating to my psyche. :twirl:
I saw it with my son and I would agree 100% with tank's review. It's good and entertaining, chalked full of historical inaccuracies and used up too much time in the personal life that should have been used on the campaigns...cause after all, that's what made him great. But they got the uniforms right and the battles looked epic even though they didn't follow the exact events of history.
The iconic battle scene with the ill fated cavalry charge into the British squares at Waterloo looked really cool and made you feel like you were there for a brief moment, it left us wanting more of that afterwards. Like, I wish the whole movie was the battle sequences.
Quote from: Skoop on November 25, 2023, 06:49:06 PMThe iconic battle scene with the ill fated cavalry charge into the British squares at Waterloo looked really cool and made you feel like you were there for a brief moment, it left us wanting more of that afterwards. Like, I wish the whole movie was the battle sequences.
Out of historical curiosity, how was the cavalry supposed to react to the squares?
Both this movie and the 1970 Waterloo show them just circling while being fired at, which obviously is not a winning strategy.
I watched a video by Archcast who claims this is nothing more than "Josephine the Movie". I think I'm going to pass on this one.
Quote from: Redwolf on November 26, 2023, 09:37:51 AMQuote from: Skoop on November 25, 2023, 06:49:06 PMThe iconic battle scene with the ill fated cavalry charge into the British squares at Waterloo looked really cool and made you feel like you were there for a brief moment, it left us wanting more of that afterwards. Like, I wish the whole movie was the battle sequences.
Out of historical curiosity, how was the cavalry supposed to react to the squares?
Both this movie and the 1970 Waterloo show them just circling while being fired at, which obviously is not a winning strategy.
I believe the idea was for the cavalry to threaten the British infantry, who then form squares, and in response, the French artillery pummels the squares, causing them to break, whereby the cavalry now runs down the disorganized infantry. I think the coordination broke down at Waterloo (although I am by no means an expert on this battle).
Quote from: Redwolf on November 26, 2023, 09:37:51 AMQuote from: Skoop on November 25, 2023, 06:49:06 PMThe iconic battle scene with the ill fated cavalry charge into the British squares at Waterloo looked really cool and made you feel like you were there for a brief moment, it left us wanting more of that afterwards. Like, I wish the whole movie was the battle sequences.
Out of historical curiosity, how was the cavalry supposed to react to the squares?
Both this movie and the 1970 Waterloo show them just circling while being fired at, which obviously is not a winning strategy.
In an ideal world, cavalry could press home the charge, and break the square. But this rarely happened. It took a really well-trained horse to charge into a wall of shoulder-to-shoulder bayonets. As far as I know, there were only a few cases of cavalry breaking a square in Napoleonic warfare, and there was always some mitigating circumstance that helped it happen. For example, when Polish Lancers broke a British square in Spain, a rain squall had masked the lancers advance, and the British weren't fully formed when the Poles hit.
A combined arms attack was the only real answer to the square. A closely packed infantry square was great cannon fodder, and not very mobile. So the ideal sequence was: 1) threaten the infantry into a square with cavalry, 2) pound the squares with artillery and possibly infantry volley fire, 3) mop up the squares when they finally break. This was one of the main reasons that cavalry units usually had horse artillery attached.
If a combined arms attack was not possible, the other good use of cavalry was to ride through the squares and attack soft rear trains units, or exposed artillery crews. But presumably this sort of attack would be stopped by opposing cavalry.
Ney didn't do any of this at Waterloo. Instead, as depicted in the movies, the cream of the French cavalry units rode around the squares and took galling fire from them. Some historians think that Ney mistook British removal of casualties as a sign of retreat, so he was hoping the charge would catch the British off-balance as they fell-back. Other speculation has been that years of warfare and PTSD had made Ney too impulsive. He seemed to think that the British line would fold merely at the charge - he should have known better.
Most of the battles were in the bedroom. Wellington was a caricature. They can show decapitation but the infantry roll around on the ground rather than use their bayonets at times? My professor would be upset that their was no mention of Napoleon's Civil Code. Grade Ridley Scott then!
I didn't hate the movie but the only decent battle scenes were Toulon at the beginning and Waterloo at the end. Maybe the director's cut release will have more of the fighting in Egypt and Russia.
My initial thoughts on watching this movie is that it was a dreary grey washed film which painted a man who was universally inspiring to a whole country as a monster who committed attocities and genocide by killing his own men en mass. They fail to relate previous wars devestation (seven years wars etc) or that mass conscription and public armies were now back in vogue. The casualty list at the end reminded me of ww2 massacre events which were of course much worse with an entirely different and abnormal intent. I would have liked to see the napoleonic code and all of the civil reforms still in use today from that at least mentioned. Because Napoleon was surrounded by traditionalist monarchies and empires while being in charge or a republic and eventually simply becoming a dictator himself he is seen as both good and bad. He is a confusing character and that's what makes him interesting. I am not necessarily a fan of him but I think he was given a very bad wrap in this film.
Basically the complicated history of Napoleon was turned into him being painted as a single shade akin to some sort of mafia boss hitler figure whom was controlled and manipulated by Jospehine as his manbaby immature state dictated.
The Battle scenes especially were somehow medieval close combat style blood baths. I laughed at the scoped rifleman, I laughed at the troops coming out of trenches to forms squares in the open thus preparing for cavalry, I laughed at the cannon balls breaking ice and winning the battle, I laughed at a standard bearer being chased by cannon balls. Napoleons battles and life were so chock full of amazing and interesting events and instead the makers of this film choose debauchery and lies. The whole of France who are presumably taught this history at school hate this film btw.
The historical innacuracies are so many and so bad that this film will likely NEVER be cured by a directors cut.
The film is just a depressing I would say biased one dimensional look at a very deep subject.
QQ for you USA peeps out there: The revolution basically happened first in the USA, then in France to overthrow the nobility and get power back in the hands of the people right? So did France do it any differently or did it just copy the US after helping it win the American Revolutionary War? Would you say any of the American Generals stack up as monsters in the way Napoleon is portrayed?
Well america did it better cause we drafted a constitution that is still in place today. The French Revolution took control, then they didn't know what to do with it, which led to the reign of terror and the power vacuum for napoleon.
Though america did have to fight a civil war later on.
Quote from: Destraex on December 02, 2023, 06:18:08 PMQQ for you USA peeps out there: The revolution basically happened first in the USA, then in France to overthrow the nobility and get power back in the hands of the people right? So did France do it any differently or did it just copy the US after helping it win the American Revolutionary War? Would you say any of the American Generals stack up as monsters in the way Napoleon is portrayed?
Well, to start...no American Revolutionary War general crowned themselves as absolute ruler.
America also managed to dodge the worst of the mob rule terror. There are a bunch of reasons for this, but the mob rule sentiments were certainly in the mix.
Anyway, I did not think the movie was that bad, but I certainly see why many would agree with you.
It is sad, because I think this movie will soon be forgotten (except for RS' investors who will not soon forget it).
The good news is that there is at least one 'Napoleon' screen foray that I think is worth watching, the 2002 mini-series with Gerard Depardieu among many others.
But it is hard to find a copy, and I don't think it is currently streaming anywhere.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253839/ (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253839/)
Quote from: Destraex on December 02, 2023, 06:18:08 PM...
QQ for you USA peeps out there: The revolution basically happened first in the USA, then in France to overthrow the nobility and get power back in the hands of the people right? So did France do it any differently or did it just copy the US after helping it win the American Revolutionary War? Would you say any of the American Generals stack up as monsters in the way Napoleon is portrayed?
This is a pretty deep question. I would begin by saying that the American Revolution had several characteristics that were absent in the French Revolution.
One of its core principles was "all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights...."
The French writer Condorcet, while awaiting execution during the Terror, further noted that the French revolution was attempting to remake French society, while the American revolution merely wanted to exchange one group of English rulers for another slightly less English American version. He wrote:
"It was more complete, more entire than that of America, and of consequence was attended with greater convulsions in the interior of the nation, because the Americans, satisfied with the code of civil and criminal legislation which they had derived from England, having no corrupt system of finance to reform, no feodal tyrannies, no hereditary distinctions, no privileges of rich and powerful corporations, no system of religious intolerance to destroy, had only to direct their attention to the establishment of new powers to be substituted in the place of those hitherto exercised over them by the British government. In these innovations there was nothing that extended to the mass of the people, nothing that altered the subsisting relations formed between individuals: whereas the French revolution, for reasons exactly the reverse, had to embrace the whole economy of society, to change every social relation, to penetrate to the smallest link of the political chain, even to those individuals, who, living in peace upon their property, or by their industry, were equally unconnected with public commotions, whether by their opinions and their occupations, or by the interests of fortune, of ambition, or of glory." As Joseph Laconte later wrote "Intoxicated by visions of a truly egalitarian society, the revolutionaries in Paris took a wrecking ball to the institutions and traditions that had shaped France for centuries. Virtually nothing, including the religion that guided the lives of most of their fellow citizens, was sacrosanct. "We must smother the internal and external enemies of the Republic," warned Maximilien Robespierre, "or perish with them." Their list of enemies—past and present—was endless."
Laconte also notes one other critical difference: The American revolution was founded on the idea of natural rights as moored by the Old and New Testaments, while the French revolution, inspired by the thinking of Rousseau and Voltaire, believing in the inate goodness of humans, emphasized human reason and sheer will, untethered from Judeo-Christian thought. As scores of socialist revolutions have subsequently proven, this substitution of human values for Judeo-Christian ones inevitably leads to death and destruction.
All this just reminds me I haven't seen that crazy-epic silent film of Napoleon's early career which was meant to be the first of a six film series. :Dreamer:
Saw the movie over the weekend despite not wanting to see it. I did promise a friend of mine though that I'd go see Napoleon with him and I kept my word.
I was entertained but I wouldn't recommend spending money on this film. Wait until you can see it for free somewhere.
The movie was mostly about Napoleon doing a whole lot of nothing peppered with a few moments of him doing something. I thought Joaquin did a better job portraying the Roman emperor in "Gladiator" than his portrayal of Napoleon.
In one scene Phoenix lets out a slight laugh at a comment one of his advisors make. That laugh was very similar to the laugh he had in "Joker". Interesting...
Jokepoleon?
to improve accuracy there will be a directors cut.
heres a still from that version:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GAc8I9PW0AA0Hcn?format=jpg&name=large)
Quote from: Tripoli on December 03, 2023, 03:08:28 PMQuote from: Destraex on December 02, 2023, 06:18:08 PM...
QQ for you USA peeps out there: The revolution basically happened first in the USA, then in France to overthrow the nobility and get power back in the hands of the people right? So did France do it any differently or did it just copy the US after helping it win the American Revolutionary War? Would you say any of the American Generals stack up as monsters in the way Napoleon is portrayed?
This is a pretty deep question. I would begin by saying that the American Revolution had several characteristics that were absent in the French Revolution. One of its core principles was "all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights...."
The French writer Condorcet, while awaiting execution during the Terror, further noted that the French revolution was attempting to remake French society, while the American revolution merely wanted to exchange one group of English rulers for another slightly less English American version. He wrote:
"It was more complete, more entire than that of America, and of consequence was attended with greater convulsions in the interior of the nation, because the Americans, satisfied with the code of civil and criminal legislation which they had derived from England, having no corrupt system of finance to reform, no feodal tyrannies, no hereditary distinctions, no privileges of rich and powerful corporations, no system of religious intolerance to destroy, had only to direct their attention to the establishment of new powers to be substituted in the place of those hitherto exercised over them by the British government. In these innovations there was nothing that extended to the mass of the people, nothing that altered the subsisting relations formed between individuals: whereas the French revolution, for reasons exactly the reverse, had to embrace the whole economy of society, to change every social relation, to penetrate to the smallest link of the political chain, even to those individuals, who, living in peace upon their property, or by their industry, were equally unconnected with public commotions, whether by their opinions and their occupations, or by the interests of fortune, of ambition, or of glory."
As Joseph Laconte later wrote "Intoxicated by visions of a truly egalitarian society, the revolutionaries in Paris took a wrecking ball to the institutions and traditions that had shaped France for centuries. Virtually nothing, including the religion that guided the lives of most of their fellow citizens, was sacrosanct. "We must smother the internal and external enemies of the Republic," warned Maximilien Robespierre, "or perish with them." Their list of enemies—past and present—was endless."
Laconte also notes one other critical difference: The American revolution was founded on the idea of natural rights as moored by the Old and New Testaments, while the French revolution, inspired by the thinking of Rousseau and Voltaire, believing in the inate goodness of humans, emphasized human reason and sheer will, untethered from Judeo-Christian thought. As scores of socialist revolutions have subsequently proven, this substitution of human values for Judeo-Christian ones inevitably leads to death and destruction.
Holy moly. That is explanation is perfect thanks. I do see how the French revolution was significantly different to the American one. It was not just a change pf government but an actual revolution of every aspect of society. That os probably why you never really see anybody saying that the US did it first. Because they were simply different beasts.
I feel the American one was superior, as we didn't cut our noses off to spite our face like the French did. We didn't want to burn everything down, we just wanted to control our own destiny, and split from king George.
The pretty great historical war/strategy channel "Invicta" has scored an interview with the historical consultant on Nappy'23. :notworthy:
QuoteIn this interview we discuss the making of Ridley Scott's Napoleon with the film's historical advisor, Dr. Lorris Chevalier. While there is certainly much to criticize when it comes to the movie's depiction of history, we will moreso be focused on the behind the scenes process for how history becomes adapted to cinema. Below are our conversation timestamps:
00:00:00 Intro
00:02:03 Being a Historical Advisor
00:15:29 Creating the Napoleon Movie
00:28:58 A Typical Day
00:40:24 Napoleon
00:59:11 The Marshals
01:04:30 Josephine
01:11:59 Battle of the Pyramids
01:16:40 Austerlitz
01:25:23 Russia
01:27:29 Missing Battles
01:30:25 Waterloo
01:34:31 Sniper
01:44:51 Depiction of Combat
01:56:04 St. Helena
That advisor says to me to that Ridley wanted a yes man.