Ridley Scott's Napoleon (Nov 2023)

[Windigo]

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.

[Grim.Reaper]

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.

[al_infierno]

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.

Ridley 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

[Gusington]

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:

[Destraex]

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.

[al_infierno]

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:

What a dork!  He could conquer Europe, but he couldn't conquer the Vanussy.   

[Gusington]

If Josephine really looked like Vanessa I would try and try until I couldn't try anymore 

[MikeGER]

...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 
 
...we don't expect all to much historic Blitzkrieg, Stalingrad or Normandy action so
 

[Pete Dero]

If Josephine really looked like Vanessa I would try and try until I couldn't try anymore 

[W8taminute]

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.

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.

[Windigo]

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.

[Pete Dero]

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13287846/criticreviews/

Average score : 67    (based on the 35 reviews in the link)

[Redwolf]

I am watching Waterloo (1970) in preparation for tomorrow.

[ArizonaTank]

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.

[Con]

But they got the uniforms mostly right. Bicorns at Austerlitz, and shakos at Waterloo.

And that is how you write a review for grogs