Jump to content

Bad Apple Movie Theead


Recommended Posts

On 11/28/2023 at 12:16 AM, DieselDaisy said:

It is a bit like Meghan Markle and Prince Harry. Meghan Markle, divorced, older and with notches on the bed. Prince Harry - all about the British Army, polo, drunken jolly japes and rugger - has to be led into this Los Angeles world of avocado smoothies and ''tea with the Cloonys and Beckhams''.

Meghan seems more of a nightmare. Harry could of got any smokeshow who didn't speak and went for this psycho PR campaign. He must have seen her on Suits.
 

 Considering Napoleon is meant to love Josephine he doesn't romance her much like. 
 

The American/ English accents were a little strange. Not even French accents. The French must be fuming. Napoleon is like this bumbling perv that gets mangled by Wellington. There's no enlightenment on a horse I saw on the BBC review. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wasted said:

Meghan seems more of a nightmare. Harry could of got any smokeshow who didn't speak and went for this psycho PR campaign. He must have seen her on Suits.
 

 Considering Napoleon is meant to love Josephine he doesn't romance her much like. 
 

The American/ English accents were a little strange. Not even French accents. The French must be fuming. Napoleon is like this bumbling perv that gets mangled by Wellington. There's no enlightenment on a horse I saw on the BBC review. 

 

Phoenix plays him very dour. Yet Napoleon could be amiable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Napoleon

 

The historical errors are appalling and I have discussed some of them above. So leaving that aside, Scott has basically centred the film around Napoleon and Josephine and turned Napoleon and Josephine into a courtly Tudor drama. Napoleon is Henry VIII desperate for a son. Josephine is Catherine of Aragon. And like Tudor bodice-rippers there is plenty of shagging. Napoleon at one point wonders why Josephine hasn't produced a son? The answer, I suspect, is that he keeps shagging Josephine doggy-style! 

 

There wasn't too many big historical lies. It was just the pyramids, the gun and Wellington on a boat. 
 

I see it more as a starting point. Like JFK it's only the start of your descent into infinity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, wasted said:

There wasn't too many big historical lies. It was just the pyramids, the gun and Wellington on a boat. 
 

I see it more as a starting point. Like JFK it's only the start of your descent into infinity. 

 

HMS Bellerophon. That WAS the ship that Napoleon surrendered to, and it is also true that he charmed the Royal Navy personnel, but Wellington certainly never stepped onboard as he was occupying Paris at the time with his army. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

Phoenix plays him very dour. Yet Napoleon could be amiable. 

I thought he was kind of comical. Like he was some kind of mad person. And like a little kid. In a way those generals seem like pussies, they don't really go into battle. They seem like public school boys who go straight in as MDs in companies and can do it but haven't really done the shit jobs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

 

HMS Bellerophon. That WAS the ship that Napoleon surrendered to, and it is also true that he charmed the Royal Navy personnel, but Wellington certainly never stepped onboard as he was occupying Paris at the time with his army. 

That's kind of a movie device like in Heat when Al and DeNiro meet at the end. It's a visual represent of imagined psychology between them. Like in JFK, Garrison never met a Mr X. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, wasted said:

My main thing is I don't think it's a very respectful presentation of Napoleon. Surely he's not meant to be a kind of Joker character in French history. He's supposed to be the greatest leader ever. It's basically a comedy compared to Gladiator. 

 

He is a character that draws a multitude of opinions but even his detractors have to acknowledge his civilian reforms, none of which appear in film. The following were founded by Bonaparte and are all in place today,

 

- French Civil Code

- French Council of State

- Bank of France

- secondary educational (Lycee)

- metric system

 

He did some architectural stuff also like the Arc de Triumph. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

He is a character that draws a multitude of opinions but even his detractors have to acknowledge his civilian reforms, none of which appear in film. The following were founded by Bonaparte and are all in place today,

 

- French Civil Code

- French Council of State

- Bank of France

- secondary educational (Lycee)

- metric system

 

He did some architectural stuff also like the Arc de Triumph. 

Also the Bonapartes are now or were then a big wealthy family? 
 

It wasn't that kind of film, if there are such things, it needs a 7 part documentary. 
 

Kubrick tried to make Napoleon and failed. Another director too. I think Scott just said fuck it and made his movie. He shot it in 60 days. Given all the battle scenes and epic scope it's pretty impressive pace. 
 

Maybe to get it made he had to not take it too seriously. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

If I was going to find praise I'd say the first 30mins (French Revolution) are not so bad. The visual style is also quite good. They used the Painted Hall at Greenwich for the Brumaire coup d'etat - I just visited that very place in 2022. 

Movie wise it's more the pacing somewhere in the middle lags a bit. Scott normally gets criticized for too much action not enough explanation. There wasn't much dialogue either. But Iiked the non battle stuff more. 
 

The first 30 mins has everything, he pulls off a win then leaves battle to go toss around in high society. He's more like a spoiled prince than the greatest leader. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, wasted said:

Also the Bonapartes are now or were then a big wealthy family? 
 

It wasn't that kind of film, if there are such things, it needs a 7 part documentary. 
 

Kubrick tried to make Napoleon and failed. Another director too. I think Scott just said fuck it and made his movie. He shot it in 60 days. Given all the battle scenes and epic scope it's pretty impressive pace. 
 

Maybe to get it made he had to not take it too seriously. 

 

It is too large a time span. Apparently Scott is planning a 4 hr directors cut. The amount of absolutely crucial battles that are missing is mad. The film skips from Russia 1812 to his first abdication, completely omitting 1813-14 which included the gigantic Battle of Leipzig. 

 

Napoleon's nephew, Napoleon III, became Emperor of France in 1852. He was defeated at Sedan by Bismarck's Prussia in 1870 and ended up exiled and dying in Chislehurst, England. That war saw the rise of Germany under the Kaiser.

 

The House of Bonaparte do still exist and there are various descendants, none direct as Napoleon II, Napoleon I's son, died in his youth. They (the original clan) were a large family.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

It is too large a time span. Apparently Scott is planning a 4 hr directors cut. The amount of absolutely crucial battles that are missing is mad. The film skips from Russia 1812 to his first abdication, completely omitting 1813-14 which included the gigantic Battle of Leipzig. 

 

Napoleon's nephew, Napoleon III, became Emperor of France in 1852. He was defeated at Sedan by Bismarck's Prussia in 1870 and ended up exiled and dying in Chislehurst, England. That war saw the rise of Germany under the Kaiser.

 

The House of Bonaparte do still exist and there are various descendants, none direct as Napoleon II, Napoleon I's son, died in his youth. They (the original clan) were a large family.  

As someone who doesn't know the history I can see why it doesn't matter to the movie audience. I can only remember the first battle establishing his genius. Then the one he really outsmarts them. Then Russia debacle. Then Waterloo. That's the arc of his character. There was the French revolution and Insurrection which made me think of J6. If they shot canons at Trump supporters. 
 

I realized what it reminded me of. Blackadder. The brutal battle scenes followed by some comical feasts and bumming. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wasted said:

As someone who doesn't know the history I can see why it doesn't matter to the movie audience. 
 

I realized what it reminded me of. Blackadder. The brutal battle scenes followed by some comical feasts and bumming. 

 

It is sort of like what the Americans (cough, Spielberg) do where they leave the Brits out of WW2 but worse. Leipzig was the biggest battle of the entire wars and the biggest battle Europe had seen and would see again for some time, massive armies, the Habsburgs, Prussians, Russians and Swedes engulfing Napoleon in this city. And it didn't exist here! Here we just jump from the Russian disaster of 1812 to his first abdication of 1814.

 

Oh and Wellington had been smacking French armies in Portugal-Spain 1808-14. The entire Peninsular War (Sharpe's War, Sean Bean) is omitted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

It is sort of like what the Americans (cough, Spielberg) do where they leave the Brits out of WW2 but worse. Leipzig was the biggest battle of the entire wars and the biggest battle Europe had seen and would see again for some time, massive armies, the Habsburgs, Prussians, Russians and Swedes engulfing Napoleon in this city. And it didn't exist here! Here we just jump from the Russian disaster of 1812 to his first abdication of 1814.

 

Oh and Wellington had been smacking French armies in Portugal-Spain 1808-14. The entire Peninsular War (Sharpe's War, Sean Bean) is omitted.

Maybe that's in the directors cut. I feel like in the movie he only needs to lose once. Then goes off to die. He also gets exiled and returns earlier. 
 

Maybe that's in the Wellington movie. Maybe he should have made Wellington the movie instead of Napoleon. 
 

It's a biopic more than historical drama. 
 

This is why Kubrick couldn't do it, he was planning 7 movies of Napoleon. 
 

Scott used Napoleon to make a movie, and takes a shot at the pyramids and his hat as a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wasted said:

Maybe that's in the directors cut. I feel like in the movie he only needs to lose once. Then goes off to die. He also gets exiled and returns earlier. 
 

Maybe that's in the Wellington movie. Maybe he should have made Wellington the movie instead of Napoleon. 
 

It's a biopic more than historical drama. 
 

This is why Kubrick couldn't do it, he was planning 7 movies of Napoleon. 
 

Scott used Napoleon to make a movie, and takes a shot at the pyramids and his hat as a joke.

 

Reading about the production, Marengo (1800) ended up on the cutting room floor. I am not sure if it is made apparent that there was a brief piece between Britain and France, 1802-3. So he even established a brief peace with Britain. This was when he was First Consul.

 

First Abdication led to Elbe - allowed a small army and paid a subsidy 

Lands in France again and commences ''100 Days'' leading to his defeat at Waterloo

2nd to St Helena which was just a British rock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

Reading about the production, Marengo (1800) ended up on the cutting room floor. I am not sure if it is made apparent that there was a brief piece between Britain and France, 1802-3. So he even established a brief peace with Britain. This was when he was First Consul.

 

First Abdication led to Elbe - allowed a small army and paid a subsidy 

Lands in France again and commences ''100 Days'' leading to his defeat at Waterloo

2nd to St Helena which was just a British rock.

It has that scene where Napoleon tells the British Ambassador to bog off with his boats. Which was the end of the peace. There wasn't a lot of detail. 
 

Then the end with the little girls telling him the accepted history, then Napoleon tells he did it. They say no. Then he keels over and dies. 
 

On Helena he is reading a letter from Josephine about starting over but she's already dead. Then he dies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, wasted said:

It has that scene where Napoleon tells the British Ambassador to bog off with his boats. Which was the end of the peace. There wasn't a lot of detail. 
 

Then the end with the little girls telling him the accepted history, then Napoleon tells he did it. They say no. Then he keels over and dies. 
 

On Helena he is reading a letter from Josephine about starting over but she's already dead. Then he dies. 

 

Ah yes. Lord Whitworth. 

 

It is true that he befriended an English girl on St Helena.

 

And yes, Josephine died 1814. Napoleon learnt of her death while on Elba so his finding out by her daughter during the Hundred Days is fake history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

Ah yes. Lord Whitworth. 

 

It is true that he befriended an English girl on St Helena.

 

And yes, Josephine died 1814. Napoleon learnt of her death while on Elba so his finding out by her daughter during the Hundred Days is fake history.

Maybe he was reading an old letter in the last scene. 
 

There was no explanation why two girls were talking to him at the end. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

List of errors (I'll update if I can think of anymore),

 

Marie-Antionette had cropped hair on her way to the guillotine, not an 'ancien regime' hairstyle; this is a contemporary sketch,

 

image.png.0b22e09cd6a86cce6236744bbf70565a.png

 

Napoleon Bonaparte was not present at the execution of Marie-Antionette

 

Napoleon was wounded by a British soldier, bayonett to leg, at Toulon. This is not depicted.

 

No Murat at ''whiff of grapeshot'' incident?

 

Napoleon didn't fire at pyramids. Probably the affair was not a massive factor in his leaving Egypt also.

 

General Dumas introduced as ''black'' general for ''diversity'' no doubt, ''token black guy''. Dumas was a real person (father of Alexander Dumas, the novelist) but Napoleon hated him (he was a republican) and he was no longer in the army; also there is the tiny problem that he was dead by 1806!

 

Austerlitz completely reconfigured. No heavy snow present. The whole thing with the ice is given much greater prominence than reality. It was an incidental incident, an aftermath of the main battle which concerned the Pratzen Heights. Here is how Austerlitz, the 'snow battle'', looked,

 

image.jpeg.d0259332ead85f769bf319be8b85cb71.jpeg

 

Battles of Jena, Eylau, Friedland all omitted as is Peninsular War. As is Napoleon's civilian reforms.

 

Tilsit didn't seem to be on a raft in the river Niemen but maybe it was? Certainly the film didn't emphasise it.

 

Napoleon-Josephine divorce stuff AND his marriage to Marie Louise all occurred 1809/10 and NOT hooked around 1807 as depicted in film.

 

Napoleon never charged with cavalry at Borodino. He was a poor equestrian.

 

Napoleon did not select ''Waterloo'' as the place to split Wellington and Blucher. There wasn't actually a shot fired in anger at Waterloo - the actual battlefield lies south of that town. And it was Wellington who selected the battlefield, the Mont St Jean ridge. Napoleon did quasi-split the armies but this was further south again, at Charleroi. 

 

Trench warfare did not occur at Waterloo, and it makes no sense for the British infantry to vacate trenches and form squares to meet cavalry. Square ARE the correct formation to face cavalry but why do it when you have WW1 style trenches with stakes in front? Both armies had arrived literally hours earlier so would have no time to construct duckboarded/staked trenches!

 

Warfare in general does not resemble Napoleonic warfare in the slightest. The formations for infantry and cavalry alike are just waves of loose formations charging and screaming like Braveheart. In reality armies marched in column and attacked in close formations of either line or (less frequently) column. Only during sieges would you see those loose style screaming charges. 

 

Russia (1812) did NOT lead to Napoleon's 1st Abdication. In reality Napoleon rebuilt his army after Russia and won a series of battles in Saxony, all of which are omitted. He then lost a MASSIVE battle at Leipzig which ultimately was the decisive battle of the Napoleonic Wars. He then conducted a defence of France in 1814 which was actually very impressive despite being completely outnumbered. When Paris fell, he was forced to abdicate.

 

Louis XVIII not present at the Congress of Vienna. He buggered off to Ghent and stayed there until re-restored.

 

Josephine died a year earlier and Napoleon found out about it on Elba. 

 

Whole Waterloo battle is a mess. I do not even know where to begin? Napoleon again did not charge with the cavalry. His health was bad at this stage and he spent most of the battle silently and sullenly perched on a little hill on his foldable stool.

 

image.thumb.png.2d530ed8fb66591bbd670193fdf20b16.png

 

Telescoped/sniper rifles not invented until the 1840s, years after Waterloo (1815)! And naturally Napoleon did not have a hole shot in his hat.

 

Prussian's in reality attacked not Napoleon's left flank but Napoleon's right. The battle was fought in Belgium. Prussia lay eastward! The sudden nature of their arrival, like the 7th Cavalry, is a lot more immediate. 

 

No Wellington-Napoleon meeting on Bellerophon. They never met and Wellington was occupying Paris when Napoleon was in Royal Navy custody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

List of errors (I'll update if I can think of anymore),

 

Marie-Antionette had cropped hair on her way to the guillotine, not an 'ancien regime' hairstyle; this is a contemporary sketch,

 

image.png.0b22e09cd6a86cce6236744bbf70565a.png

 

Napoleon Bonaparte was not present at the execution of Marie-Antionette

 

Napoleon was wounded by a British soldier, bayonett to leg, at Toulon. This is not depicted.

 

No Murat at ''whiff of grapeshot'' incident?

 

Napoleon didn't fire at pyramids. Probably the affair was not a massive factor in his leaving Egypt also.

 

General Dumas introduced as ''black'' general for ''diversity'' no doubt, ''token black guy''. Dumas was a real person (father of Alexander Dumas, the novelist) but Napoleon hated him (he was a republican) and he was no longer in the army; also there is the tiny problem that he was dead by 1806!

 

Austerlitz completely reconfigured. No heavy snow present. The whole thing with the ice is given much greater prominence than reality. It was an incidental incident, an aftermath of the main battle which concerned the Pratzen Heights. Here is how Austerlitz, the 'snow battle'', looked,

 

image.jpeg.d0259332ead85f769bf319be8b85cb71.jpeg

 

Battles of Jena, Eylau, Friedland all omitted as is Peninsular War. As is Napoleon's civilian reforms.

 

Tilsit didn't seem to be on a raft in the river Niemen but maybe it was? Certainly the film didn't emphasise it.

 

Napoleon-Josephine divorce stuff AND his marriage to Marie Louise all occurred 1809/10 and NOT hooked around 1807 as depicted in film.

 

Napoleon never charged with cavalry at Borodino. He was a poor equestrian.

 

Napoleon did not select ''Waterloo'' as the place to split Wellington and Blucher. There wasn't actually a shot fired in anger at Waterloo - the actual battlefield lies south of that town. And it was Wellington who selected the battlefield, the Mont St Jean ridge. Napoleon did quasi-split the armies but this was further south again, at Charleroi. 

 

Trench warfare did not occur at Waterloo, and it makes no sense for the British infantry to vacate trenches and form squares to meet cavalry. Square ARE the correct formation to face cavalry but why do it when you have WW1 style trenches with stakes in front? Both armies had arrived literally hours earlier so would have no time to construct duckboarded/staked trenches!

 

Warfare in general does not resemble Napoleonic warfare in the slightest. The formations for infantry and cavalry alike are just waves of loose formations charging and screaming like Braveheart. In reality armies marched in column and attacked in close formations of either line or (less frequently) column. Only during sieges would you see those loose style screaming charges. 

 

Russia (1812) did NOT lead to Napoleon's 1st Abdication. In reality Napoleon rebuilt his army after Russia and won a series of battles in Saxony, all of which are omitted. He then lost a MASSIVE battle at Leipzig which ultimately was the decisive battle of the Napoleonic Wars. He then conducted a defence of France in 1814 which was actually very impressive despite being completely outnumbered. When Paris fell, he was forced to abdicate.

 

Louis XVIII not present at the Congress of Vienna. He buggered off to Ghent and stayed there until re-restored.

 

Josephine died a year earlier and Napoleon found out about it on Elba. 

 

Whole Waterloo battle is a mess. I do not even know where to begin? Napoleon again did not charge with the cavalry. His health was bad at this stage and he spent most of the battle silently and sullenly perched on a little hill on his foldable stool.

 

image.thumb.png.2d530ed8fb66591bbd670193fdf20b16.png

 

Telescoped/sniper rifles not invented until the 1840s, years after Waterloo (1815)! And naturally Napoleon did not have a hole shot in his hat.

 

No Wellington-Napoleon meeting on Bellerophon. They never met and Wellington was occupying Paris when Napoleon was in Royal Navy custody.

Do you think these are mistakes? Or does Ridley know. 
 

Some of it seems like liberties for entertainment. Like shooting at pyramids or the scope or meeting with Wellington. 
 

For the sake of the script to have him come back to find Josephine dead and talk to his sister is more dramatic. Marie Ant getting her head lopped off and then here's Napoleon seems just more concise movie wise.  
 

I'm not sure why so much needs to be wrong, but maybe the script follows his character development and relationship and has to shoehorn dates or they aren't chronological and they don't care. Maybe it was hacked down to be shorter and 4 hour fills the gaps. 
 

Do you think the Czar of Russia had affair with Josephine? 
 

Also those little girls say Russia burned Moscow so it could not be taken. Napoleon says he took Moscow. Did that happpen? 
 

Is it too misleading is the question or is it more about painting a picture Napoleons life. I'm not sure it's a good portrait of him. He seems to comical and not impressive enough in battle. 
 

I'm sure JFK is not accurate, it just sums up Garrisons pursuit. When you read JFK books or James Ellroy you realize it's way more complicated. There's so many more people involved. 
 

At the premiere when Ridley was asked about this stuff he said "How do you know, were you there?!" another reply was just Fuck Off. I guess that's the kind of hard nosed attitude he needed to make the movie. 
 

I don't get why trenches or those details are wrong. Some of it seems like Napoleon fanboy stuff you would want in there. Whether it happen or not is hard to say. The reality might be more boring. The battles weren't boring. 
 

The battles are brutal but theres still some decapitations in there as well. The thing is jammed full of Napoleon ideas but factually they didn't happen like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...