12 ms·

Watched it yesterday and hated it. I was looking forward to it too based on the trailers but it turned out to be a big hit ahistorical hit piece. For example,

Watched it yesterday and hated it. I was looking forward to it too based on the trailers but it turned out to be a big hit ahistorical hit piece. For example, no matter what you think of the guy, Napoleon was a bonafide military genius. In the movie, they made him seem like just one more of the bunch. Napoleon was famous for never being bothered by the gore of battle and the buzzing of billets, in the same vein as general Grant. In the movie they made him seem like a scaredy cat In “Waterloo” you could see why French soldiers joined his cause in droves. Extreme charisma

jjtheblunt 3y ago
Was it a lapse in his judgment to start marching on Russia 3 days after summer solstice? That's not a question meant to be sarcastic: you know more about him than I do, so that always has seemed like a terrible choice of timing.
- foobarian 3y ago
  It always puzzled me not just with Napoleon but a couple other recent European expansionist dictators, why they kept overextending their reach. Why did they not just stop at a reasonable point and reinforce the conquest, instead of losing it all. Actually maybe Putin is one example where this may be in fact happening.
  - Exoristos 3y ago
    > It always puzzled me ... They're criminal minds of a certain type, and criminal minds often harbor a secret compulsion to be stopped or caught. > Actually maybe Putin ... Maybe this is why democracies have been somewhat long-lasting, because no one mind bears the full madness of crimes of the magnitude e.g. the U.S. or Britain commit fairly continuously.
    - jjtheblunt 3y ago
      Super interesting point!
    - philwelch 3y ago
      Are democracies long lasting? The longest lasting French Republic lasted from 1870 to 1940, 70 years. The current one started in 1958 so it will be the longest lasting by 2028. In contrast, the pre-revolution Kingdom of France lasted from 987 to 1792.
      - raccoonDivider 3y ago
        The current French fifth republic started when De Gaulle had a new constitution written, during the fourth republic. A democracy changing its rules by referendum while staying a democracy shouldn't really count as a new regime. Edit: arguably, getting invaded and going back to a republic after a few years shouldn't count as a regime change either. The German occupation was temporary and the country reverted back to a republic immediately after. That's more of an argument for the resilience of democracies than against it.
        philwelch 3y ago
        The Fourth Republic was overthrown by a military coup. De Gaulle did manage to restore democracy with his new constitution, largely because the military respected him personally more than they respected the institutions of the Fourth Republic. Military coups are not a sign of a resilient democracy and it’s a very rare thing for a military to reliably subordinate itself to a constitutional government. The Third Republic was also more responsible for its own end than you give it credit for. A minority of the government wanted to keep fighting, from Algeria if necessary, rather than surrender, but the majority were defeatists and fascist sympathizers. The armistice and collaboration was a deliberate choice that came from within the system, as was the reform of the Third Republic into the autocratic Vichy state. In fact, Germany didn’t even completely occupy France until after Operation Torch, when Darlan, the de facto leader of the Vichy government (Petain at this point being more of a figurehead), switched sides and openly cooperated with the Allies, ordering an end to French resistance in North Africa.
        raccoonDivider 3y ago
        > The Fourth Republic was overthrown by a military coup. De Gaulle did manage to restore democracy with his new constitution, largely because the military respected him personally more than they respected the institutions of the Fourth Republic. Military coups are not a sign of a resilient democracy and it’s a very rare thing for a military to reliably subordinate itself to a constitutional government. That's fair, but wouldn't you say that the coup was made possible by the fourth constitution's bad design and not really attributable to the country's being a democracy? I don't know much about how that constitution was written, but just coming out of a war and an occupation with a collaborationist government can't have made the process easy. > The Third Republic was also more responsible for its own end than you give it credit for. A minority of the government wanted to keep fighting, from Algeria if necessary, rather than surrender, but the majority were defeatists and fascist sympathizers. The armistice and collaboration was a deliberate choice that came from within the system, as was the reform of the Third Republic into the autocratic Vichy state. In fact, Germany didn’t even completely occupy France until after Operation Torch, when Darlan, the de facto leader of the Vichy government (Petain at this point being more of a figurehead), switched sides and openly cooperated with the Allies, ordering an end to French resistance in North Africa. The question is, was loss in mainland France avoidable or not? Again, not much of a history buff, but France was defeated extremely quickly, so the choice the government had wasn't between "fight to keep the current republic" and "collaborate", but more between "lose the mainland and go resist from abroad" and "abandon control of the mainland to the Nazis and collaborate". That doesn't make the Vichy government any more moral but it does mean that the republic's end would have been forced from the outside in any case.
  - ekianjo 3y ago
    > why they kept overextending their reach. You dont seem to realize France was in an existential threat the whole time since the Revolution in 1789 up to when Napoleon was deposed. There was never a time that they could have called it a day if they did not want it to turn back into a monarchy
    - foobarian 3y ago
      But again what was the march on Russia for? Why not save those troops reinforcing the homeland instead of gallivanting who knows where in the middle of winter?
      - ekianjo 3y ago
        Napoleon wanted to do a naval blockade against England. It was possible to do it through the countries he now controlled, but Russia made it impractical to implement such a blockade since they were too big to be influenced in other ways. Russia was not sitting still, While Napoleon was busy fighting in Spain, Russia with the Tsar Alexander was attacking Sweden and Turkey - they were just as expansionist as ever. There were rumors that Russia was going to march on Warsaw next, too. Russia was also preparing for a larger army to go further into Europe. Both countries were preparing for a clash, and it does not really matter who stroke first. The same thing happened between Hitler and Stalin in 1941: they distrusted each other's and both eventually had plans to turn against each other.
      - BuyMyBitcoins 3y ago
        The Russians were pulling out of the Continental System (embargoing the UK). If Napoleon let Tsar Alexander do this without consequences, it would break apart the order Napoleon had sought to create in continental Europe. Most nations in Europe at the time hated this system because it hurt their economies, and made them effectively subservient to France. You can imagine how one nation breaking away from this system unpunished could trigger a cascade of rebellions. Napoleon actually successfully invaded Russia, and he took the seasons into account. What he didn’t count on was the Russians deliberately going scorched earth on their own territory and even setting fire to their own capital. For several days Napoleon sought to parlay with Tsar Alexander after capturing Moscow, hoping to reach a settlement. The Russians wisely kept him and his army waiting until they were forced to begin retreating due to a lack of supplies.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    There are lots of reasons for this which the YouTuber Caspian Report covers well [0][1]. In short, it's to strengthen their warm water port access; Ukraine being relatively flat so making sure they control the lands up to the natural border of the Carpathian mountains lest NATO invades; et cetera. [0] https://youtu.be/MkrLUFAcjH0?si=NHIYuq1xm4e-D0kT https://youtu.be/MkrLUFAcjH0?si=NHIYuq1xm4e-D0kT [1] https://youtu.be/nR7XAcArAa0?si=lIyM2vWVF50LKvnu https://youtu.be/nR7XAcArAa0?si=lIyM2vWVF50LKvnu
    - sufficer 3y ago
      If nato invades nukes are fired. I don't get all this other useless conjecture from these people.
  - AniseAbyss 3y ago
    [dead]
- ekabod 3y ago
  100 000 French soldiers caught typhus apparently.
LtWorf 3y ago
I wanted to watch it but seeing the "ice lake trap" in the trailer I figured I should read some reviews before going. And yeah it seems brit propaganda about napoleon rather than actual facts, at least according to what I read.
- randomcarbloke 3y ago
  Why would it be Brit propaganda, we bested him...it would serve us better to paint him as the genius he was...
  - dopidopHN 3y ago
    Perfide Albion is gonna perfide Albion… muscle memory. It’s fine.
    - LtWorf 3y ago
      Irish famine… indian famine… british people are the kindest and gentlest of all :)
      - randomcarbloke 3y ago
        you've been reading too much propaganda, get off Reddit once in a while it'll do you some good ;)
  - LtWorf 3y ago
    Why doesn't the film mention the incoming german army at waterloo (from what I've read)?
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Arguably, I know more about WW1 and 2 than the Napoleanic wars. I always had the impression so, tgat Napoleon came incredibly close to winning at Waterloo. Two things, mainly, sealed his defeat: one of his Generals failure to pin, defeat of aggressivle pursue Blüchers Prussian army and said armies arrival at the Battle of Waterloo. And arrival Napoleon didn't exepect due to his generals "failure" mentioned above. I am not sure how history would have gone had Napoleon won there: France was again confined to its orld borders, Napoleons alliances across Europe were history and Spain a lot stronger. All in all, pretty much the situation he found himself in before the first coalition. Or maybe the Prussians would again have fallen in line, Great Britain exited the war. Highly unlickely so, if you ask me.
fastasucan 3y ago
> they made him seem like just one more of the bunch No? They showed how he excelled to eventual be crowned as a king of France due to his military's success.
- romanhn 3y ago
  We must have seen different movies, because this one didn't showcase any of his genius. Instead, they opted to show an unambitious little man (not talking about his height) whose fortunes are pushed forward by others rather than himself. Very odd indeed.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jbc1 3y ago
Is that the only thing to hate about it? That's it's ahistorical? If someone was capable of separating the Napoleon they read about in books from the Napoleon on the screen and was interested in watching a movie with some good cavalry charges glued together by a story about some undeserving wuss finally getting his comeuppance, would you recommend it in that case?
- ulizzle 3y ago
  That’s a good question. No, I wouldn’t. It’s not one of Ridley Scott’s best works. I’d say if you enjoyed kingdom of heaven then you may like it. I’d rather watch “The Terror” again
  - jbc1 3y ago
    Perfect review because i really did not like kingdom of heaven. Thanks!
  - rickstanley 3y ago
    Man, "The Terror" is such good series, I love the eerie/dread feeling of the first season. The actors are top notch too.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  No the movie really just was bad. I’m not even sure what the goal of the movie was. To make Napoleon look bad? To show his human side with his relationship with Josefine? Honestly afterwards I just have no idea. Really it was just a weird speed run through history. They just jumped from random event to random event over the course of like 25 years. Contrast this with the movie Lincoln which portrayed him during a relatively short period of his life. Ignoring everything else (there are many reasons why the Lincoln film is much better), the fact that the Napoleon film tries to cover so much really is an odd choice. I personally would have walked out of the movie, but I was seeing it with a group of people and didn’t want to be too overly negative. (Afterwards I found out that most felt the same.)
  - 3y ago

jjtheblunt 3y ago

Was it a lapse in his judgment to start marching on Russia 3 days after summer solstice? That's not a question meant to be sarcastic: you know more about him than I do, so that always has seemed like a terrible choice of timing.

foobarian 3y ago
It always puzzled me not just with Napoleon but a couple other recent European expansionist dictators, why they kept overextending their reach. Why did they not just stop at a reasonable point and reinforce the conquest, instead of losing it all. Actually maybe Putin is one example where this may be in fact happening.
- Exoristos 3y ago
  > It always puzzled me ... They're criminal minds of a certain type, and criminal minds often harbor a secret compulsion to be stopped or caught. > Actually maybe Putin ... Maybe this is why democracies have been somewhat long-lasting, because no one mind bears the full madness of crimes of the magnitude e.g. the U.S. or Britain commit fairly continuously.
  - jjtheblunt 3y ago
    Super interesting point!
  - philwelch 3y ago
    Are democracies long lasting? The longest lasting French Republic lasted from 1870 to 1940, 70 years. The current one started in 1958 so it will be the longest lasting by 2028. In contrast, the pre-revolution Kingdom of France lasted from 987 to 1792.
    - raccoonDivider 3y ago
      The current French fifth republic started when De Gaulle had a new constitution written, during the fourth republic. A democracy changing its rules by referendum while staying a democracy shouldn't really count as a new regime. Edit: arguably, getting invaded and going back to a republic after a few years shouldn't count as a regime change either. The German occupation was temporary and the country reverted back to a republic immediately after. That's more of an argument for the resilience of democracies than against it.
      - philwelch 3y ago
        The Fourth Republic was overthrown by a military coup. De Gaulle did manage to restore democracy with his new constitution, largely because the military respected him personally more than they respected the institutions of the Fourth Republic. Military coups are not a sign of a resilient democracy and it’s a very rare thing for a military to reliably subordinate itself to a constitutional government. The Third Republic was also more responsible for its own end than you give it credit for. A minority of the government wanted to keep fighting, from Algeria if necessary, rather than surrender, but the majority were defeatists and fascist sympathizers. The armistice and collaboration was a deliberate choice that came from within the system, as was the reform of the Third Republic into the autocratic Vichy state. In fact, Germany didn’t even completely occupy France until after Operation Torch, when Darlan, the de facto leader of the Vichy government (Petain at this point being more of a figurehead), switched sides and openly cooperated with the Allies, ordering an end to French resistance in North Africa.
        raccoonDivider 3y ago
        > The Fourth Republic was overthrown by a military coup. De Gaulle did manage to restore democracy with his new constitution, largely because the military respected him personally more than they respected the institutions of the Fourth Republic. Military coups are not a sign of a resilient democracy and it’s a very rare thing for a military to reliably subordinate itself to a constitutional government. That's fair, but wouldn't you say that the coup was made possible by the fourth constitution's bad design and not really attributable to the country's being a democracy? I don't know much about how that constitution was written, but just coming out of a war and an occupation with a collaborationist government can't have made the process easy. > The Third Republic was also more responsible for its own end than you give it credit for. A minority of the government wanted to keep fighting, from Algeria if necessary, rather than surrender, but the majority were defeatists and fascist sympathizers. The armistice and collaboration was a deliberate choice that came from within the system, as was the reform of the Third Republic into the autocratic Vichy state. In fact, Germany didn’t even completely occupy France until after Operation Torch, when Darlan, the de facto leader of the Vichy government (Petain at this point being more of a figurehead), switched sides and openly cooperated with the Allies, ordering an end to French resistance in North Africa. The question is, was loss in mainland France avoidable or not? Again, not much of a history buff, but France was defeated extremely quickly, so the choice the government had wasn't between "fight to keep the current republic" and "collaborate", but more between "lose the mainland and go resist from abroad" and "abandon control of the mainland to the Nazis and collaborate". That doesn't make the Vichy government any more moral but it does mean that the republic's end would have been forced from the outside in any case.
- ekianjo 3y ago
  > why they kept overextending their reach. You dont seem to realize France was in an existential threat the whole time since the Revolution in 1789 up to when Napoleon was deposed. There was never a time that they could have called it a day if they did not want it to turn back into a monarchy
  - foobarian 3y ago
    But again what was the march on Russia for? Why not save those troops reinforcing the homeland instead of gallivanting who knows where in the middle of winter?
    - ekianjo 3y ago
      Napoleon wanted to do a naval blockade against England. It was possible to do it through the countries he now controlled, but Russia made it impractical to implement such a blockade since they were too big to be influenced in other ways. Russia was not sitting still, While Napoleon was busy fighting in Spain, Russia with the Tsar Alexander was attacking Sweden and Turkey - they were just as expansionist as ever. There were rumors that Russia was going to march on Warsaw next, too. Russia was also preparing for a larger army to go further into Europe. Both countries were preparing for a clash, and it does not really matter who stroke first. The same thing happened between Hitler and Stalin in 1941: they distrusted each other's and both eventually had plans to turn against each other.
    - BuyMyBitcoins 3y ago
      The Russians were pulling out of the Continental System (embargoing the UK). If Napoleon let Tsar Alexander do this without consequences, it would break apart the order Napoleon had sought to create in continental Europe. Most nations in Europe at the time hated this system because it hurt their economies, and made them effectively subservient to France. You can imagine how one nation breaking away from this system unpunished could trigger a cascade of rebellions. Napoleon actually successfully invaded Russia, and he took the seasons into account. What he didn’t count on was the Russians deliberately going scorched earth on their own territory and even setting fire to their own capital. For several days Napoleon sought to parlay with Tsar Alexander after capturing Moscow, hoping to reach a settlement. The Russians wisely kept him and his army waiting until they were forced to begin retreating due to a lack of supplies.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  There are lots of reasons for this which the YouTuber Caspian Report covers well [0][1]. In short, it's to strengthen their warm water port access; Ukraine being relatively flat so making sure they control the lands up to the natural border of the Carpathian mountains lest NATO invades; et cetera. [0] https://youtu.be/MkrLUFAcjH0?si=NHIYuq1xm4e-D0kT https://youtu.be/MkrLUFAcjH0?si=NHIYuq1xm4e-D0kT [1] https://youtu.be/nR7XAcArAa0?si=lIyM2vWVF50LKvnu https://youtu.be/nR7XAcArAa0?si=lIyM2vWVF50LKvnu
  - sufficer 3y ago
    If nato invades nukes are fired. I don't get all this other useless conjecture from these people.
- AniseAbyss 3y ago
  [dead]
ekabod 3y ago
100 000 French soldiers caught typhus apparently.

LtWorf 3y ago

I wanted to watch it but seeing the "ice lake trap" in the trailer I figured I should read some reviews before going. And yeah it seems brit propaganda about napoleon rather than actual facts, at least according to what I read.

randomcarbloke 3y ago
Why would it be Brit propaganda, we bested him...it would serve us better to paint him as the genius he was...
- dopidopHN 3y ago
  Perfide Albion is gonna perfide Albion… muscle memory. It’s fine.
  - LtWorf 3y ago
    Irish famine… indian famine… british people are the kindest and gentlest of all :)
    - randomcarbloke 3y ago
      you've been reading too much propaganda, get off Reddit once in a while it'll do you some good ;)
- LtWorf 3y ago
  Why doesn't the film mention the incoming german army at waterloo (from what I've read)?
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Arguably, I know more about WW1 and 2 than the Napoleanic wars. I always had the impression so, tgat Napoleon came incredibly close to winning at Waterloo. Two things, mainly, sealed his defeat: one of his Generals failure to pin, defeat of aggressivle pursue Blüchers Prussian army and said armies arrival at the Battle of Waterloo. And arrival Napoleon didn't exepect due to his generals "failure" mentioned above. I am not sure how history would have gone had Napoleon won there: France was again confined to its orld borders, Napoleons alliances across Europe were history and Spain a lot stronger. All in all, pretty much the situation he found himself in before the first coalition. Or maybe the Prussians would again have fallen in line, Great Britain exited the war. Highly unlickely so, if you ask me.

fastasucan 3y ago

> they made him seem like just one more of the bunch No? They showed how he excelled to eventual be crowned as a king of France due to his military's success.

romanhn 3y ago
We must have seen different movies, because this one didn't showcase any of his genius. Instead, they opted to show an unambitious little man (not talking about his height) whose fortunes are pushed forward by others rather than himself. Very odd indeed.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jbc1 3y ago

Is that the only thing to hate about it? That's it's ahistorical? If someone was capable of separating the Napoleon they read about in books from the Napoleon on the screen and was interested in watching a movie with some good cavalry charges glued together by a story about some undeserving wuss finally getting his comeuppance, would you recommend it in that case?

ulizzle 3y ago
That’s a good question. No, I wouldn’t. It’s not one of Ridley Scott’s best works. I’d say if you enjoyed kingdom of heaven then you may like it. I’d rather watch “The Terror” again
- jbc1 3y ago
  Perfect review because i really did not like kingdom of heaven. Thanks!
- rickstanley 3y ago
  Man, "The Terror" is such good series, I love the eerie/dread feeling of the first season. The actors are top notch too.
CogitoCogito 3y ago
No the movie really just was bad. I’m not even sure what the goal of the movie was. To make Napoleon look bad? To show his human side with his relationship with Josefine? Honestly afterwards I just have no idea. Really it was just a weird speed run through history. They just jumped from random event to random event over the course of like 25 years. Contrast this with the movie Lincoln which portrayed him during a relatively short period of his life. Ignoring everything else (there are many reasons why the Lincoln film is much better), the fact that the Napoleon film tries to cover so much really is an odd choice. I personally would have walked out of the movie, but I was seeing it with a group of people and didn’t want to be too overly negative. (Afterwards I found out that most felt the same.)
- 3y ago