Napoleon - new Ridley Scott film
- Thread starter agricola
- Start date
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
True.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
I occasionally have to look that film up to remind myself that it was real. Surely nobody would have done something that shit?
See also: that King Arthur movie with Clive Owen.
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
He's also a dead ringer physically for Brian Cox's depiction of Logan Roy in Succession...
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
And Sweeny with Plan B
I also think that Gladiator doesn't really hold up. The action sequences and production design are good, but Maximus is too much of a Mary Sue and the 'politics' is just shit. Derek Jacobi and John Shrapnel are wasted. It should have either been a shorter, sharper action film, or a longer film with more developed subplots.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Had no idea that existed. Looks quite extraordinarily shit.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
The actual story of Commodus would have made a better movie.
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
You have no idea. Imagine the shitest movie you can: it's worse.
The Fall of the Roman Empire covers a lot of the same ground and is marginally more historically accurate.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
My theory on Hood films is: If they include the river crossing quarterstaff fight with littlejohn, its bound to be OK.
Here's someone who's never seen Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham.
He isn’t playing Robin Hood though
Precisely
(((Olivia De Havilland and Claude Rains)))
bellaozzydog
rolling turds in glitter
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Agreed.
Scott's output post 2000 does not make me want to rush to see this - but I would be interested from those that have seen both how it compares to his previous film set during the Napolionic Wars - The Duelists?
(not a great film but a very solid one, and one that manages to develop plenty in character in a mere 100 minutes)
krtek a houby
Anger is Hi-NRG
He's gone down the Napoleonic route before. The Duellists was pretty good, iirc.
Am not expecting a masterpiece. Wasn't bowled over by Gladiator, either.
Am not expecting a masterpiece. Wasn't bowled over by Gladiator, either.
I've just seen it.
So, the good. The battles/marching through vast swathes of countryside scenes are very well done and the sailing ships are fab. (We could've done with more sailing ships.) Lots of work for British actors in small roles (lots of talent very underused though). Nice costumes.
The bad. Where to start..? So it tries to cram too much in. There's little sense of why he rose through the ranks or why he commanded such loyalty from his troops and his skill as a tactician isn't really covered. He comes across as a bit of a prat tbh so how he got to where he did feels pretty inexplicable. It's also unclear who he's fighting and why (the bits between the battles feel very disjointed).
The worst. It's a tie between Joaquin Phoenix Acting (with a capital A) and the script. The dialogue is so bad in places, coupled with the way Phoenix delivers it and the terrible music, that it feels like it has to be a parody except...I don't think it is. (Quite a lot of incredulous laughter from the audience in places.) Phoenix seems to be in a completely different film to everyone else. They're all playing it straight and I can't work out if Phoenix is too and his acting is just awful or whether he's taking the piss. It's very strange.
So the tl:dr is -- nice battle scenes, the rest is a bit...weird and not in a good way.
So, the good. The battles/marching through vast swathes of countryside scenes are very well done and the sailing ships are fab. (We could've done with more sailing ships.) Lots of work for British actors in small roles (lots of talent very underused though). Nice costumes.
The bad. Where to start..? So it tries to cram too much in. There's little sense of why he rose through the ranks or why he commanded such loyalty from his troops and his skill as a tactician isn't really covered. He comes across as a bit of a prat tbh so how he got to where he did feels pretty inexplicable. It's also unclear who he's fighting and why (the bits between the battles feel very disjointed).
The worst. It's a tie between Joaquin Phoenix Acting (with a capital A) and the script. The dialogue is so bad in places, coupled with the way Phoenix delivers it and the terrible music, that it feels like it has to be a parody except...I don't think it is. (Quite a lot of incredulous laughter from the audience in places.) Phoenix seems to be in a completely different film to everyone else. They're all playing it straight and I can't work out if Phoenix is too and his acting is just awful or whether he's taking the piss. It's very strange.
So the tl:dr is -- nice battle scenes, the rest is a bit...weird and not in a good way.
Last edited:
pieandmashfirm
backwardly forward .I worked it out with a pencil
same as sue ....wouldn't rush out to watch it ,very disappointing
krtek a houby
Anger is Hi-NRG
Appreciate the reviews here. Should have realised when my mate, who's a war nut, started banging on about it.
