I saw Napoleon Saturday, and I enjoyed it.
I liked how the film was shot as well as the battle scenes. I also liked the performances as well.
I thought the movie could have been better though.
Overall, I liked the film. I recommend everyone to see it.
I give it a grade of an B.
ENJOY!
I liked it overall. It got the feeling right.
The only issue I have is that Scott and the crew got some easy stuff way wrong. The first minute of the movie is not historically accurate. Bonaparte was not in Paris when Marie Antoinette got her noggin taken off. He was at Toulon setting up artillery.
I also think it’s weird that they left out Napoleon’s arguably greatest achievement. The one thing that outlived him and the First French Empire. The Code Napoleon, which is still used as the basis of civil law in many countries both in Europe and in the former Spanish empire. It didn’t even get a mention.
I adored the Waterloo scene though. It was gritty and realistic. Although they got some of the details wrong (Napoleon never saw Wellington and they never met afterwards).
Oh cool.
Is this about how him and Pedro are all grown up and work together on a llama farm in Idaho and Uncle Rico comes over to live with them again ? 
Hope my friend is wrong but he was saying it has little action and was more to do with the interaction between napolean and his lady.
That’s true to an extent but the action that is there is really well done.
Rico throws a football over the mountain in this one.
He (Scott) is not in the business of making documentaries, and he openly admits it. He is making entertainment.
i liked the way some of Napoleons army got “lost” and never showed up for battle.
Allan
That’s true. But the things I complained about were really easy things that the advisor on set should have pointed out.
Which was accurate to the battle.
That actually happened a lot back in wars of that period. Maps were usually horrendously out of date. Communication was poor.
I mean look at Pickett’s Charge in the Battle of Gettysburg. That only went down the way it did because Lee was a high class southerner who used the words “if practicable” which Pickett didn’t really understand the meaning of.
The movie’s reception has been based on a national level. It has really high reviews in the US and in the UK. French reviewers have savaged it. Mainly for how Napoleon himself is depicted in the film.
The movie definitely has a British bias. Napoleon is sort of depicted as a proto-Hitler. Which is how the British tend to view his legacy. The French completely reject that point of view. He’s a national hero in France to this day.
IMO, he was clearly in between those two extremes. Not the outright villain that the British tended to view him as. But not a “hero” by any stretch of the definition. He was a complicated man with a complicated legacy. Both good and bad things came out of his campaigns. He shook up the entire European order that existed for two centuries at that point. Some of it was needed. But in some cases he went way too far.
Well, if the story is served by having N. In Paris, that’s what Scott will shoot, and he won’t care.
Just like, say, Gladiator
I will say that he’s earned his mojo back with this movie in my opinion.
Because Alien Covenant was a dumpster fire.
Heh. That’s fair.
It has very mixed reviews. I thought it was dull. There is a 4.5 hour version coming from Scott on apple tv at some point. So far it is very poor except for action scenes.
It accomplishes nothing to add to the Napoleon media history. maybe Spielberg’s “Kubrick’s Napolean” Mini series will get a little deeper.
i hate it when film makers decide to drama-up history when accuracy would serve just fine. there’s nothing wrong with creating drama, but there’s no reason to purposefully get the history wrong
