New Movie this Fall -NAPOLEON

[steeleagle]

"NAPOLEON" This Ridley Scott film is going to be awesome!
Can't wait!

 

[Dr Bison]

and here are 2 trailers to that film - I am really looking forward to it!

 

[Redcap]

From the first trailer seen here, it seems to be simply an amalgamation of the old classics "Waterloo" (battle scenes) and 'The Duellists" however the second one seems more promising as an overview of the new film itself.

Watching with interest.
Gary

 

[Mike Stevens]

I’ll be watching this one at the theater!

 

[ometz]

Holy f#4$% moley. The trailers already have me penciling this one in on my calendar.

 

[Rob]

This looks unexpected, something out of current day Hollywood that may actually be worth watching.

 

[Tecumsea]

Pity he doesn't look like Napoleon

 

[marco55]

Looks good.
Mark

 

[Steve headley]

From the second trailer it looks very interesting indeed, not long to wait for it. Mr Phenix does not look too bad he’s a good actor I’m sure people will not notice too much as long it’s well acted. Who knows could be a blockbuster.

Steve

TFB Miniatures Team

 

[Andrew Dalziel]

As mentioned above, the scenes presumably meant to be at Waterloo look to be from the old 1970s Waterloo film. I do hope not!. If so, we can enjoy looking out for the Soviet extras with modern rifles.

 

[Steve headley]

I think the first preview was something just thrown together using two old movies to fill it out and get people interested. The second one is from the new movie. From the second one it looks very good indeed. No doubt more will come out closer to the release date.

Have to say it has the feel of something big let’s hope it lives up to it.

Steve

TFB Miniatures Team

 

[fogie]

Agree that there are echoes of Bondarchuk's ' Waterloo' and Scott's earlier film 'The Duellists'.
That's not a criticism rather more thrilling anticipation. He's one of the best film makers
working today so this promises to be something not to be missed

Mike

 

[Blind Pew]

I'm sure it'll be well worth a watch. Yes, I know they're all capable of turkeys, but Pheonix is a superb actor, and Ridley Scott's back catalogue speaks for itself.

 

[NRG]

In this mornings newspaper.
N

 

[ivopreda]

In this mornings newspaper.
N


View attachment 471393

hope that the film is better than this picture that's a concentrate of stupid and wrong things... Bonaparte never charged in his life, the flags are completely wrong from any napoleonic flag...

 

[Andrew Dalziel]

I find if the film is good, I can ignore the inaccuracies. I know the spitfires in Battle of Britain are the wrong mark, but I don’t care. I know they use the wrong guns in just about every western, that Colour Sergeant Bourne looked nothing like the actor who played him in Zulu. But I don’t care. Plenty of good books around for the facts. I’d say just be thankful there is a nice large scale Napoleonic epic on the way. No car chases or conflicted detectives, no green aliens, no singing mermaids. I’m looking forward to three hours of escapism and if there’s a three and a half hour extended version, I’ll buy that too.

 

[The Riveteer]

I find if the film is good, I can ignore the inaccuracies. I know the spitfires in Battle of Britain are the wrong mark, but I don’t care. I know they use the wrong guns in just about every western, that Colour Sergeant Bourne looked nothing like the actor who played him in Zulu. But I don’t care. Plenty of good books around for the facts. I’d say just be thankful there is a nice large scale Napoleonic epic on the way. No car chases or conflicted detectives, no green aliens, no singing mermaids. I’m looking forward to three hours of escapism and if there’s a three and a half hour extended version, I’ll buy that too.

I can accept some inaccuracies. I give Waterloo and The Duelists passes as they at least "feel and look right overall" but Ridley Scott has the money and reputation to do better than this.
I really get a feeling of "The Emperor's new clothes here" (no pun intended). The dialogue is awful and it looks like an amateur production being given the benefit of a high budget and a good special effects team. What here shouts the work of a "master Director"?
Joaquin Pheonix is a good actor but that doesn't necessarily make him appropriate for this role. He just doesn't look right (i.e. nothing like the man he's supposed to be portraying), he's far too old and portly to play the younger Napoleon (look at his back as he enters the Directory - looks more like Danny Devito's Penguin to me), and he's supposed to be younger than Josephine!
What's with the casting of an actor with a cleft lip to play Napoleon for the second time? (2007's Heroes and Villains - Tom Burke). I know we are supposed to be blind to that, according to the PC rules but it took me out of my suspension of disbelief then, and it will do again. Yes, - I am a monster!
TYRANT! way to go Ridley, no bias there.
What is that Cavalry charge? Presumably Marengo? Were Kellermann or Bessieres not available?
Why has he got two unbroken lines of infantry stretching out into the distance with Artillery blasting away right behind them?
Why perpetuate the old falsehood of Napoleon blowing up Egyptian monuments when his campaign practically kickstarted modern Egyptology.
Those Cuirassiers certainly like their white horses don't they.
Is that the smallest square ever depicted on film? Even the BBC's Vanity Fair did better.
Why do all the battles look like they were blessed with the same miserable weather conditions? Why does it all look so dull and uninteresting?
I never knew Napoleon had all his artillery pre-set (and covered with tarps), ready to blast the frozen lake at Austerlitz - I suppose he foresaw which way the Austrians were going to retreat beforehand.
And his whole military career in 3 hours! Might have to skimp a bit.
All this from just a couple of minutes of the trailer, it doesn't bode well.

I will have to watch it eventually just to see how bad it gets, but I can easily wait until it crops up on T.V. sometime. I really don't see why everyone is getting so excited about it. I'm really disappointed

David

 

[Steve headley]

Well that’s that then no point in going to see it. I’m not a napoleonic buff at all I have a passing interest so I will go to see it with an open mind and just lose myself in the escapism that is cinema. I go to get entertained for a few hours. Of course thereis going to be mistakes. Take a look at his other films Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven great escapism films. Some great action scenes. Yes you can pull them to bits too if you want to.

At the end of the day the average person will go to see it. And will have no idea about the short comings and Will enjoy the experience. There are not many if any films out there that are historically accurate you could find fault with any of them. But you forgive the gaffs and just love the film any way.

Long and short of it go with an open mind enjoy the experience and chill for a few hours. It’s not often a film like this comes along theses days.

This is just my opinion I for one are looking forward to it and I’m sure meany others will too.

Steve

TFB Miniatures Team

 

[fogie]

Understand exactly where you're coming from David, but film directors, script writers, production companies
never let facts get in the way of bums in seats. Most audiences wouldn't have a clue about Bonaparte's history
or the mandated colour of a heavy cavalry horse.....they just want to be led by the nose across a dramatised
storyline. While we find gaffs irksome or hilarious (who can forget Rod Stieger wondering aloud in a Long
Island accent why Wellington fights 'on his ass!') most don't even notice. You know full well David that film
makers operate by different rules......which is why we need to regard their work with a degree of indulgence.
But It's difficult sometimes...eh?

Mike

 

[The Riveteer]

Mike and Steve. I agree with what you say, and each to his own. Of course you should go and see it Steve. I thought Braveheart was good when I first saw it. It's still a well made film and I knew nothing about the history behind it. but having since read about Wallace and the Bruce I now find it unwatchable.
I accept inaccuracy in older films like "Battle of the Bulge", where the film makers couldn't source the real period tanks in large numbers, or Tora Tora Tora, - a great film, even although it had to use model ships.
I just think that these days we should expect more. As I said, Ridley Scott has a phenomenal amount of money to spend. He does try to make his historical films look accurate (to a degree) but he seems to have a couldn't care less attitude to historical authenticity beyond "how it looks".
The Gettysburg documentary he produced was pretty good (I think?) and he made a great deal of noise about how accurate it was, but then when questioned about the accuracy of the roman archer's fire arrow sequence in Gladiator he said he didn't care if it was accurate or not - it looked good. That displays a degree of disrespect for his audience to me.
If you have the means available I don't see why you can't have accuracy as well as artistic expression.
I do hope you enjoy the film, I won't criticize you for that, but watching what has been released in the trailer so far just makes me shudder.
It's the thought that a general audience might be getting an incorrect understanding of the subject that bothers me. If they are not concerned about that, then I suppose it doesn't matter but it does for me.

David