Napoleon (2023)
→ in Napoleon
Reply to Topic
X
Favorite Movies
Yes.
I had mixed feelings about it. The battle scenes were fantastic, I thought the acting was solid, but the story is a mess (characters appearing, then disappearing, then reappearing), and both Napoleon and Josephine were unlikable. So at over 2.5 hours this was kind of a difficult watch and definitely not the best work of anyone involved. I only saw it once though so my feelings could change when I see it again.
I had mixed feelings about it. The battle scenes were fantastic, I thought the acting was solid, but the story is a mess (characters appearing, then disappearing, then reappearing), and both Napoleon and Josephine were unlikable. So at over 2.5 hours this was kind of a difficult watch and definitely not the best work of anyone involved. I only saw it once though so my feelings could change when I see it again.
__________________
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Yes. Good production design and costumes, but I wasn't impressed with the writing or acting. This should have been better overall and more entertaining. 6/10 was my rating.
X
Favorite Movies
Yes. Good production design and costumes, but I wasn't impressed with the writing or acting. This should have been better overall and more entertaining. 6/10 was my rating.
X
Favorite Movies
Waterloo with Rod Steiger was good.
X
Favorite Movies
I don't think I have seen that one. I will have to check it out sometime.
X
Favorite Movies
I have now seen the director's cut of Scott's Napoleon, which is about 3 hours and 15 minutes without credits.
It may be a slight improvement over the theatrical release version, if only because the latter seemed so threadbare in some crucial ways; it still leaves a lot to be desired, even if the technical aspects are quite strong.
But that is also what makes it kind of frustrating, in a way. David Lean showed the world how to make epic movies about historical figures that combined great psychological insight with a great sense of realpolitik, how the world actually works and what not - and all of it accompanied by a sweeping narrative arc.
Scott's film accomplishes absolutely none of those things. He clearly had no financial limitations whatsoever while making the movie, and yet the final result still smacks of mediocrity.
(Abel Gance's take on Napoleon is still far and away the best, too!).
It's sad to see how limited some modern-day directors are in their narrative abilities, especially now that digital effects give them the power to bring to the screen things that were undreamt of for the old-school filmmakers of the 20th century.
It may be a slight improvement over the theatrical release version, if only because the latter seemed so threadbare in some crucial ways; it still leaves a lot to be desired, even if the technical aspects are quite strong.
But that is also what makes it kind of frustrating, in a way. David Lean showed the world how to make epic movies about historical figures that combined great psychological insight with a great sense of realpolitik, how the world actually works and what not - and all of it accompanied by a sweeping narrative arc.
Scott's film accomplishes absolutely none of those things. He clearly had no financial limitations whatsoever while making the movie, and yet the final result still smacks of mediocrity.
(Abel Gance's take on Napoleon is still far and away the best, too!).
It's sad to see how limited some modern-day directors are in their narrative abilities, especially now that digital effects give them the power to bring to the screen things that were undreamt of for the old-school filmmakers of the 20th century.