Ridley Scott's Napoleon

[touchingcloth]

The promotional poster used on Wikipedia to illustrate this film resembles a still from a Terry Gilliam animation.



By all means discuss other aspects of Napoleon the man or the movie about him.

[madhair60]

was a bit short

[jobotic]

It gave me a complex

[Ant Farm Keyboard]

It gave me a complex

Nah, you're confusing with the Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof biopic.

[dontpaintyourteeth]

Nah, you're confusing with the Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof biopic.

I keep seeing that everywhere

[dontpaintyourteeth]

Pretty sure that contrary to the thread title Ridley Scott is actually not Napoleon

[Butchers Blind]

The only definitive depiction of Napoleon on film was in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

What about Time Bandits?

[touchingcloth]

Vote for Pedro XVIII

[Butchers Blind]

What about Time Bandits?

Disqualified, no ziggy piggy.

[dissolute ocelot]

Does he say "Not tonight, Josephine?"

[badaids]

He didn't conquer everything though did he? Not Russia. Not the UK. Not Germany.

The poster should say:

"He came from nothing. He conquered France, most of Italy and Spain, occupied the Netherlands and Austria cheers bye".

[iamcoop]

I've visited the house he was exiled to on the Island of Elba and my abiding memory is how most of the rooms absolutely stank of farts so I wonder if Ridley will touch on that

[Terry Torpid]

A lot of people online are complaining about the accents, but I don't mind (the real Napoleon didn't sound French either). The problem is, Phoenix is simply too old. He looks significantly older than Josephine, which is a bit distracting, because she was his senior in real life. He's only three years younger than the real Napoleon was when he died, which could work if it was just the Saint Helena years, but it looks like it's going to cover his whole career. The bloke's about 50, he's just not convincing as a fresh-faced twenty-something artillery officer just out of the Academy.

In this case, I would have been in favour of some Irishman-style de-aging. Still, I'm very very cautiously optimistic.

[touchingcloth]

I went to the cinema at the weekend and caught the very end of a trailer for this, which made it look like the pitch for the studio was something like "you know the forest battle at the start of Gladiator? Well, imagine if that was Napoleon not Maximus, and Joaquin Phoenix not Russell Crowe".

[El Unicornio, mang]

Definitely something in that

[Elderly Sumo Prophecy]

Waterloo playing over the end credits please.

[MattD]

I wonder how this will pan out.

I have a massive debate going on in my head as to whether Ridley Scott is a great director or not.

Of course, you have great films like Alien, Blade Runner, etc, some of my favourite films but he's also got a hell of a lot of stinkers. He can't elevate poor material into an adequate film like other greats. Maybe I'm not paying attention enough but he doesn't seem to have a discernible style to his filmmaking that, if all else fails, can drag a poor film to be watchable.

Because of his track record, I have no idea whether this film will be great or terrible. It could go either way.

What does everyone else think?

[Toki]

If he'd have been bunkmates with Lister, he'd still be in Corsica peeling spuds.

And that's most of what I know about Napoleon. I'm doing a history degree.

[Ant Farm Keyboard]

Usually, when the cast is doing accents, it will be over the top and really annoying.
When they don't do that bit, there's hope. That's House of Gucci vs The Last Duel, both starring Adam Driver.

[Terry Torpid]

I have a massive debate going on in my head as to whether Ridley Scott is a great director or not.

I think he's a great director in terms of sound and image, scale, spectacle, mood and usually acting. He's just not a writer, and doesn't seem to be able to tell a good script from a bad one.

[superthunderstingcar]

I hope Sean Bean can have a cameo as a British officer who sees Napoleon for about a second through the smoke of Waterloo.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

You'd need a sharp eye to see him.

[Johnny Textface]

Has this been shot on film? If not I'm really not interested.

[Toki]

I've enjoyed a fair few of his films, although even the best one was alienating.

[Blinder Data]

i'm no history buff but the casting feels wrong - turning josephine into a sexy young thing fundamentally changes their relationship in a way that is utterly ahistorical

even so, this one looks like it would be worth a trip to the cinema based on the visuals

[greenman]

I wonder how this will pan out.

I have a massive debate going on in my head as to whether Ridley Scott is a great director or not.

Of course, you have great films like Alien, Blade Runner, etc, some of my favourite films but he's also got a hell of a lot of stinkers. He can't elevate poor material into an adequate film like other greats. Maybe I'm not paying attention enough but he doesn't seem to have a discernible style to his filmmaking that, if all else fails, can drag a poor film to be watchable.

Because of his track record, I have no idea whether this film will be great or terrible. It could go either way.

What does everyone else think?

The idea he gtradually shifted into more of a high end gun for hire post Blade Runner seems pretty accepted, someone who as you say would not really look to alter or transend the script.

I would say as well though the visuals did become more generic with time, the films still look "nice" but I don't think they have the genius of his earlier work. The last time I think we saw mad Scott who spends vast amounts of time working out composition, lighting, etc for every shot in the film was probably Someone To Watch Over Me in the late 80's.

[touchingcloth]

i'm no history buff but the casting feels wrong - turning josephine into a sexy young thing fundamentally changes their relationship in a way that is utterly ahistorical

4 Oscars.

[touchingcloth]

Has this been shot on film? If not I'm really not interested.

Do people care about that these days? Digital can simulate film perfectly these days.

[touchingcloth]

I would say as well though the visuals did become more generic with time, the films still look "nice" but I don't think they have the genius of his earlier work. The last time I think we saw mad Scott who spends vast amounts of time working out composition, lighting, etc for every shot in the film was probably Someone To Watch Over Me in the late 80's.

Thelma & Louise (1991) has some lovely photography in it. I've just looked it up to see if Cronenweth did the cinematography, but saw that it was by Adrian Biddle whose name wasn't familiar to me but who, funnily enough, shot James Cameron's Aliens.

I love finding out that cinematographers who have worked on really epic or auteured things have also brought some polish and visual pizazz to films that really didn't need it. Adam Greenberg from off of Terminator/Judgement Day also shot Sister Act and Rush Hour. Robert Yeoman from off of Wes Anderson (1969) also shot most of Paul Feig's films and Mama Mia 2.