Thought it was a really shit movie. I feel like directors have lost the ability to make true classics. Was pretty bored during this
Film Napoleon (Dir. Ridley Scott)
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
He always was the lesser Scott brother.
So if a directors cut is better, why not release that?
Length/duration. People these days seem to struggle with watching films beyond a certain running time and that leads to directors cuts being quite a bit longer than the original cinematic release.
Problem is, with all the cutting and editing to cinematic releases, they can lack the coherency and intended flow of the DC. It won't be a surprise if the DC of this is considerably better than the current release.
I think the film was just Scott showcasing how much he doesn't like Napoleon.
Possibly the worst I've seen Phoenix perform, ever?
Possibly the worst I've seen Phoenix perform, ever?
Directors lose perspective and often can’t get out of their own way. I’m struggling to think of a directors cut that was better than the official release.
Blade Runner ?
tbh I quite like the original cinema realise with the bad voice over and happy ending.
Also the directors cut of Brazil is million times better than the official release.
Apocalypse Now? Once Upon a Time in America?
I am waiting for the directors cut. Someone posted that this is basically a 2 and half hour movie trailer.
I think the theatrical version of BR needed the voice over but the voice over could have been written better. I also liked the ending. I have seen both a few times but I think the directors cut is unnecessarily bleak. The original movie deviates wildly from the novel, and is more romantic, and the v.o. and ending add to that. The DC was supposed to hew closer to the book, but it really didn’t.Blade Runner ?
tbh I quite like the original cinema realise with the bad voice over and happy ending.
Also the directors cut of Brazil is million times better than the official release.
I haven’t seen the Brazil DC, will look for it.
Are you referring to the “redux” version, or one of the 2 other alternate cuts? Those extra scenes were great and I loved “expanding” the story, but the original version is perfect. I actually have the “first assembly” cut mentioned in the article below (on VHS!) It is a testament to the power of good editing because that 289 minute version is shockingly boring.
https://screenrant.com/apocalypse-now-different-cuts-versions-coppola-changes-explained/
Have not seen DC of OUATIA.
Last edited:
Ive seen the directors cut of that - 3 and a bit hours long. One of my favourite films. The difference i read between the butchered version and the directors cut, is that the former is terrible and the latter is considered the film of the decade, that being the 80s.
It's over two and a half hours - If you can't make a decent, coherent film in that amount of time you've failed as a director. It has nothing to do with with people's attention spans.
Kingdom of Heaven. Other than that, yeah, they're often actually just worse. Even that one has some issues.
Oh interesting. Tbh I’ve haven’t read the novel as I’m still going through William Gibson work. The DC is still my favourite version but the original really shouldn’t be as hated as it is.
Scott recently did a interview saying the mountain scenes in original ending are b roll footage from the Shinning. He rang up Kubrick asking for tips and Kubrick was like don’t worry just use some my left over footage.
Nice one you’ve just made Béla Tarr cry.
It's a historical epic for one of the most celebrated/revered military commanders of all-time. It could be a full-on mini series and not have enough time to do him justice, but even condensed,these kind of films are expected to be over 3hrs long for solid exposition and a steady, cohesive telling of the story. I'm sure the DC will be 3hr+.
I don't think the film is good, but duration is definitely not one of my quibbles with it.
I don't have a problem at all with long films, I just think if you make a film that is nearly 3 hours and it's still not good, the duration is almost by definition one of the issues - and it's definitely not an excuse to say that people don't like your film because of their attention spans. I also don't disagree that it could easily have been longer. In fact, it probably should have been a two-parter, judging by everything they left out.
I don't know how you chop a film about such a storied man down, with the best will in the world - even brevity would be seen as disrespectful and a mark against the director. It's a vast project to take on with so many layers you can see why many would stay as far away from it as possible.
Duration is a huge factor for the modern audience, I would say. You only have to take a look in the Oppenheimer thread to see page after page of posters complaining about how long the film is and statements that it should be compressed, somewhow without ommitting key moments of history being a running theme. It's not an isolated incident, many have no desire to sit through a lengthy film, but it is absolutely unavoidable with this subject matter. They could've chopped the Josephine stuff down, but then they are only focusing on the military side, which can be seen as boring or monotonous if it's just trudge after trudge from one theater of war to another. That wouldn't work, so what can be done?
My first impression as I was watching was that I'll need to see the director's cut to make a full assessment of the film. I don't like what has been released, but I don't think other directors would have made a solid film about Napoleon within this film's running time, either.
A two-parter is more apt, I'd agree, but this has already bombed - a two-parter would've been an incredibly costly and risky affair for a studio to take on - and on that note, the DC might be better than this release but still not good, so maybe Scott wouldn't be the man to take this into the 5hr+ territory.
Still have yet to see the DC of that. I remember you saying the ending in the DC basically salvaged it, I’ve just been gun shy about watching the rest of it again.
I read that too about the extra aerial shots from The Shining being used in Blade Runner. It’s super weird but works. The novel has a lot more to do with a Jewish subtheme, where Rachel’s surname is Rosen, not Tyrell, and the replicants are similar to humans to the extent it’s just this “other” idea (I.e.) being Jewish/replicant that separates them. There is also a huge deal made of the buying and showing off of electric animals, a status symbol, because all real animals are either dead or so outrageously priced no one but the ultra rich can afford them. Deckard has an electric sheep. He spends all his money from killing replicants on a real sheep — that Rachel then throws from the top of his building to spite him. They do not end up together as she is basically a replicant spy who has been trying to find and kill the persons tracking replicants. There is also a whole additional layer of their being a counterfeit police department, and they arrest Deckerd for impersonating a cop. Oh, and he’s married to a ball buster named Iran.
Last edited:
Oppenheimer was both a critical and commercial success. A several hours long biopic largely consisting of talking, and it was a massive success. Some people are always going to dislike it, that's normal. Their views are subjective and valid, but maybe not representative of the wider audience.
I don't know what the solution would be to fix Napoleon. I don't think it being shorter would necessarily fix it, but it might help if the director wasn't trying to do everything and simultaneously skip so much. Maybe a 6-parter BBC/HBO miniseries would have done it.
Mostly I'm just disappointed at the missed opportunity.
Fair comment. Yeah, on your last sentence, that's the annoying thing.
I think the DC will be better than the cinematic release, but not by enough to elevate this to something for the ages.
- Apocalypse Now Redux (1979)
- Das Boot (1981)
- Once Upon a Time in America (1984)... Roger Ebert even called the American theatrical version a travesty after he finally saw the director's version.
- The Abyss (1989)
- The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001-2003)
- Alexander (2004)
- Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
Haven't seen the DC of Once Upon, Alexander, or Kingdom of Heaven, but you're right about Das Boot and The Abyss, those are great examples. And for me, the Redux Apocalypse Now lost the magic, and the LOTR movies were fine as they were, the extra material was fun but I'm not sure they made the movies any better because they were such a tough sit.
Also, Roger Ebert was a big fat idiot and I hated his taste in movies.
The director's cut of The Abyss is terrible, imho. Go figure.
5.5/10. Felt rushed on superficial. Shame, I had high hopes for this.
LotR don't really count, as the theatrical cuts were the director's cuts. The extended editions were just more content for the fans.
Wow. That was truly awful.
I never thought about that when I read the book but it's a very good point!
Cheers. I had no idea the book was so different.
I love reading bad reviews, so what were the film's problems?
I remembered some things i had forgotten. It's even weirder.
1.)
Rachel helps Deckard hunt down the replicants that escaped by murdering a colony ship. She pretends to be in love with him and sleeps with him, but this is only a ruse. He finds out that she has slept with a bunch of other bounty hunters, and each time they have lost their zeal for hunting replicants afterwards. Deckard does not lose his zeal. When they find the replicants hiding out with the toy maker guy, the Pris replicant is a duplicate of Rachel, and initially Deckard can't kill her, but he gets it together and kills her. Then Rachel goes and throws his sheep off the roof to its death. Then she fecks off and never talks to him again.
2.)
There's also this religion in the book that was created around this person Mercer. Through a ritual called fusion, the adherents hold onto the metal rods of a Mercer box and "fuse" with Mercer, where they get to see Mercer get martyred as happened in real life. He was stoned to death. People share in Mercer's sufferings and share feelings with other adherents. Deckard's wife is a big Mercerist, but when Deckerd tries it, Mercer talks to him, and instead of seeing the ritual, Deckerd feels the blows of the rocks and they really injure him, when he lets go of the fusion bars he is bleeding. Deckard is the only person this happens to. Later on, Mercer is revealed to be a hoax. However, at the end of the book, Deckard gets in his car and flies north hundreds of miles (it is set in San Francisco, not LA), and sees nothing but barren wasteland. He sets the car down and walks around, and suddenly fuses with Mercer, even though he is not using a Mercer box. Then he finds a toad, a miracle. He brings the toad home to his wife, and she flips it over and discovers it's an electric toad. The end.
Going into this with absolutely no expectations after all the reviews here so I'm sure I'll enjoy it.
The historical inaccuracy was annoying and I don't think the artistic merit Scott was going for was up to the standard needed to get away from them.
It also irritated me that the French had different accents (basically the actor's own) but then every other nation was putting on little accents.
On the other hand it was cool to see a few British TV actors in a big movie. Didn't expect to see Miles Jupp for example.
I don't know enough about Napoleon to care about historical inaccuracies but I do feel that the focus and attention of the movie was so scattered that they couldn't do justice to any of its key plot points - the Josephine "romance", the war, or any real character development. I went in with very limited expectations and still came away disappointed. Even the war scenes really weren't as grand as I thought they would be.
If anyone interested. This is more fun than the boring movie
Good man.
It's a great film. It's so much fun. It's such a fresh take on the biopic genre to have a director taking a historical figure so many nerds have a weird affection for, himself clearly despising him, and then putting that on the screen for a couple of hours. I thought Phoenix's mopey performance was quite on the nose and suited the film perfectly.
As for the death count, it's pretty clear that Scott sees little merit in war, and is pointing out that the little tyrant's ambition laid waste to early 19th century Europe. Even his feeble attempts at peace are just political ploys. That view of war was already quite visible in Kingdom of Heaven, focusing on the ambitions of certain war-hungry lords to the detriment of peace.
I mean... there's quite a few that have already been listed here, and I definitely feel that the very last version of Apocalypse Now (released a few years ago) was absolutely perfect - shorter than Redux and just slightly fleshing out certain things that are a bit too bare in the first version.
Less impressive than Apocalypse Now, but Watchmen's theatrical version is a poor film, where the DC is actually quite good. It's still Snyder completely misunderstanding the source material, but it's objectively a better film.
I found this article that discusses how certain DCs improve the original material (subjective of course), there's this about Kingdom of Heaven which I think we spoke about recently on here:
Good article, thanks. I disagree with almost all of the examples they give there, though.
Agree:
Aliens
The Shining (longer version)
The Abyss
Touch Of Evil
Das Boot
Disagree:
LOTR
Blade Runner
Leon
Haven't Seen DC version:
Superman II
Kingdom of Heaven
Metropolis
Once Upon A Time...
X Men DoFP
Brazil...
Little Shop
Nothing Will Make These Movies Good:
Donnie Darko - Richard Kelly is the definition of a director who can't get out of his own way. (look for a DM from me).
Alien 3
Batman vs. Superman
Doctor Sleep
Watchmen - feck Zach Snyder, I hate his work.
I Am Legend - alternate version is better, but Will Smith was the one who forced the stupid ending that everyone saw.
Last edited:
I‘d love a DC for Rambo - First Blood. The alternative (think originally planned) ending is just so much more fitting to the tone of the movie.
Listen here you little shit
Oh, sorry, is one of your parents home I could talk to?