So sad for the colonizers.
Film Napoleon (Dir. Ridley Scott)
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
In current views, we know colonization was (and is) completely wrong. But during the time they existed, it made perfect sense in the imperialist mindset of monarchy expanding their powers.
Anyway, the trailer seems promising.
Prometheus actually has some nice things going on at times. I liked the world design and the atmosphere that the film creates. The issue I had with it is that he didn't need to relate it to the Alien saga at all. It should have been its own entity and stood alone on its own merits. It's unusual why he would want to ruin some of the brilliant mystery that he built up in the original Alien film. The 'pilot/space jockey' that gets discovered in the first film is a wonderful piece of movie mystery. It gets the fans guessing and predicting/wondering what happened. Sometimes it's far better to let the mystery be. It's part of the reason why I have a problem with origin stories. Not everything needs explaining. The best parts of the film are all the non-Alien-related bits, which unfortunately makes up too much of the core foundation of the film.
I immensely disliked Covenant. It's too rushed. There's no build-up or tension. I found it very flat and inconsequential. Would not recommend.
I mean....
Real cinema is back!
The trailers look good apart from his lover or whatever, those bits will bore me to death
Doesn't look that good to me..some cringe dialogue here and there.
Was curious to zee if Joaquin was using a French-speaking-English accent, or even weirder an English accent. Glad it’s flat west coast he’s using. This looks like it’s following the Kingdom Of Heaven mold, which was a decent film, but not really exciting, a lot of pretty pictures but a bit meh.
I really enjoy this YouTube channel for history buffs, especially the videos featuring British-Canadian historian Dan Snow. He sat down with Sir Ridley Scott as they break down the battle scenes in the upcoming movie.
Why does Sir Scott in that thumbnail look like he's going to tell me that he wants to play a game?
Then again - what historical action/drama doesn't have some cringe dialogue? In a way those are the most memorable!
Good interview. I always have time for Ridley Scott. Still has one of the best eyes in composition in film and the majority of his commentary tracks are informative and, frankly, hilarious (Prometheus) to listen too.
Nice that he still finds 'Ridleygrams' a fundamental element of his filmmaking. Very good illustrator.
It's been a while since I watched these movies but I don't quite recall them having silly/cringe dialogue?
- Lawrence in Arabia
- Glory
- Schindler's List
Watch Lawrence in Arabia again. There's some iffy dialogue in that film and the score completely takes me out of the tone of the film.
Interms of scale, its fantastic but its not Lean's best . His best film is Great Expectations.
Interms of scale, its fantastic but its not Lean's best . His best film is Great Expectations.
Ever seen the director's cut? Vast improvement on the theatrical release.
Not so sure. Napoleon is one of the big tyrant historical figures who are really actually rather boring because they were such obvious, onedimensional egomaniacs. Him and Mao Zedong. Stalin and Hitler were at least bad in a more interesting way.
No, I usually don't go in for further punishment. Like, I've never listened to a director's commentary either. I thought Kingdom of Heaven was good but the ending just sort of stopped being dramatic and petered out, very dull. Did the director's cut solve that?
I can't remember specifically, but I do remember seeing the theatrical version at the cinema all those years ago, and then rewatching the director's cut a couple of years ago and thinking it was a much superior film. The added running time doesn't solve the main issue of the film, i.e. having Orlando "charisma vacuum" Bloom as the main character, but it definitely makes the whole film feel more cohesive. It's one of those where the added minutes (I think a whopping 45) add so much that it's pretty much a different film and actually makes it seem shorter.
Good lord! That's basically half a movie they cut out. And I totally agree with you on Orlando Bloom. Maybe being a magical elf ruined his ability to channel human emotions in later films. I actually can't tell him apart from Justin Timberlake these days, just one has a different accent, and I want to punch both of them.
Here's an official clip that was released yesterday: Austerlitz.
Any reviews out for this yet?
Review embargo lifts in two days, November 14.
Ok thanks.
82% on RT
5 stars in The Guardian -https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/nov/15/napoleon-review-joaquin-phoenix-emperor-ridley-scott
Thanks. I must go see it.
I'm gonna stop reading this thread cos I don't think I'm gonna be able to go see it before like the 6th December and the less I know, the better, but if it's really this, it'll be a bit disappointing. As much as Napoleon was a tyrant and should be revisited with very critical eyes, his impact on European history, society, politics, economy... is massive, and as much as I love Ridley Scott and the fact he can still remain somewhat edgy, I hope it's not too self indulgent. I guess if it is, it might still be funny, but I'd find it to be a bit of a missed opportunity.
Though I suspect that tweet is probably just a guy trying to be a bit edgy. Who knows.
EDIT: or is it you, Sweet Square? Are you the edgy nerd?
I’m never edgy. When I say Mission Impossible 2 is the best one it comes from the heart!
Your right that tweet is trying to be edgy or at least looking to go viral. But I do like the idea of a war historical epic having funny one liners. And while this film is almost completely ahistorical which imo is a great choice. Napoleon was also a massive nerd/loser. The guy wore his military uniform everywhere.
I wouldn’t recommend reading the guardian review as there’s a few very small spoiler stuff but it did give the impression the film does show Napoleon as a impactful European/world figure
For me the issue with any Napoleon film is the sheer amount of history and the ideas Napoleon represents is so vast that it might be impossible to put into one film or to be made by one director. Waterloo gives us the Napoleon of the battlefields where as the 1927 film captures the revolution energy. Will be interesting to see what Ridley adds.
I don't know, man, in my opinion this clip looks guilty of all kinds of sins. The massive CGI armies roaring at each other, the cheesy music, the overdone CGI cannon shots, the overdone CGI cannonball impacts in the ice... it just looks terrible. Battles like this are boring. The Battle of the Bastards looks staged better. One thing I'll give Saving Private Ryan is that opening beach storming where the battle was done in a new way that showed chaos and unpredictable and fear, instead of the usual manly men yelling at each other in formation in wide shot before cutting to close ups of someone being bayoneted. Phoenix's laconic delivery doesn't seem to be from the same scene we're witnessing; he says his commands like he's ordering a sandwich.
Probably give it 20 minutes when it appears on streaming for free. Very low expectations.
Ridley Scott is my spirit animal
I never thought much of Ridley Scott other than enjoying his movies but - refreshing to hear what he said there. Plain talk. As they talked about in the Michael Jordan-Nike movie on Prime - people wanna build you up and immediately tear you down. Important to remember for yourself why you even got to the top.
The Battle of the Bastards was a fun spectacle, but it was also very unrealistic. Though I've heard some of the same things about this film.
Sorry the latest bullshit Alien crap did it for me, he is done as a brilliant filmmaker.
As amusing as some of those quotes are, I think if you're doing a movie based on real life events you should be as accurate as possible. Seems pointless otherwise?