Slann
Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl
Eleventh Spawning
- Messages
- 9,757
- Likes Received
- 21,438
- Trophy Points
- 113
Talking of vive la France, I went to see Napoleon on Monday and, this being a history thread, I thought I'd share my tuppence on it.
I honestly thought it was a fine film, and that Critical Drinker and others are being unnecessarily harsh about it (especially with non-woke films like it being as thin on the ground as they are, we should savour every one we can get). Joaquin Phoenix was fine as l'Empreur - some have criticised his changing of moods throughout the film, but Napoleon, having Italic ancestry, was known for being as volatile as he was composed, as Phoenix portrays. Yes there are some inaccuracies - artillery being fired at the Pyramids rather than the Sphinx, trenches at the Waterloo scene (which should have arguably been in the Borodino scene instead) and Napoleon leading charges in both those battles. For all that, though, the battle scenes are nevertheless fantastic, they up the adrenaline and keep the pace fast (something that cannot really be said about the 1979 Waterloo film, which itself failed to capture everything about the battle, suffered from lack of CGI to build up army sizes and flopped at the box office). The soundtrack is magnificent, particularly the staccato French Revolutionary song at Marie Antoinette's execution (perhaps la Marseillaise itself?), the haunting Austerlitz Kyrie played at the Austerlitz and Waterloo scenes, and the sinister Russian singing during the fateful march into Russia and the Cossack ambush. Not to mention the actors portraying the other figures of the great European powers (and those in Napoleon's court) were excellent, particularly Rupert Everett's smug and cool-headed Duke of Wellington. As for it not capturing absolutely every little detail about the great man's life, such a feat would be extremely difficult to capture in one film convincingly without it being excruciatingly long. As some commenters have said, if you want that, go and make a TV series that runs over several series.
All in all, I expected it to be on the level of Oliver Stone's Alexander which set out to do the same thing - an overarching biopic of a historical figure's triumphs and downfall - and similarly glazed over a fair few things to achieve it, and that is pretty much what we've got - a solid film which perhaps set its scope too broadly, but captures the most important aspects and makes a valiant effort to bring them to life, one I'd happily watch again and one that is very inspiring for a game of Napoleonics afterwards. I'll be interested to see Mr. Scott's 4-hour extended cut if it ever comes to DVD (which looks unlikely given that the bastards at AppleTV+ will most likely hoard it).
Also, I wonder just how many of those who've been bashing Napoleon at the same time fawn over Braveheart and 300, both of which are so trashily inaccurate that they make Napoleon look like a true-to-life documentary in comparison?
All in all, I expected it to be on the level of Oliver Stone's Alexander which set out to do the same thing - an overarching biopic of a historical figure's triumphs and downfall - and similarly glazed over a fair few things to achieve it, and that is pretty much what we've got - a solid film which perhaps set its scope too broadly, but captures the most important aspects and makes a valiant effort to bring them to life, one I'd happily watch again and one that is very inspiring for a game of Napoleonics afterwards. I'll be interested to see Mr. Scott's 4-hour extended cut if it ever comes to DVD (which looks unlikely given that the bastards at AppleTV+ will most likely hoard it).
Also, I wonder just how many of those who've been bashing Napoleon at the same time fawn over Braveheart and 300, both of which are so trashily inaccurate that they make Napoleon look like a true-to-life documentary in comparison?
