Tuesday evening being "cheap night" at Pukekohe cinema for some reason, tickets are reduced from $21.50 each to $15 - so I persuaded my wife to come on a "date night" to the pictures with me! She agreed with some trepidation - in fact her comment was. "It's the first ever spontaneous night out you have ever organised, and it's a 3-hour long film about a general!"
Her misgivings were fully realised unfortunately - there was actually a lot more time spent on battle scenes in this film than I had come to expect from the reviews!
Now, for my part, I enjoyed it. Even with only a passing knowledge of the real history, I could see holes in it - I don't know much about Austerlitz - was there a frozen lake involved?? The invasion of Russia was handled pretty superficially but the basic elements were included - Moscow empty on arrival then torched by its own citizens and the retreat in mid-winter killing off 90% of La Grande Armee.
Certain elements of the return from Elba were recognisable from the classic "Waterloo" film eg when Napoleon was confronted by the 5eme (I think) Regiment, and he talks them over to his side. The actual battle of Waterloo was pretty sketchy and as others have pointed out, there were cavalry charges led personally by Napoleon at both Borodino and Waterloo that never happened, but it did not cause me undue angst.
My verdict is it was an ok film without being great and I am happy I have been to see it but doubt I would go out of my way to watch it again, which is not the case of classics like Waterloo, Cromwell, Zulu, The Great Escape, The Battle of Britain, A Bridge Too Far etc all of which I have on DVD and have watched several times each.
My wife, on the other hand, thought it was about two hours forty minutes too long, and the only parts she liked was the music and choirs during the imperial coronation! I am going to owe her some compensation for making her sit through the film, no doubt!
Go see it for yourselves, I would think you might enjoy it - but probably leave your wife at home, or even in the car - she will have a better time there!
Having read many reviews from wargamers panning the film, seeing a different perspective is welcome. Your advice to go see it for yourself and come to your own conclusion is good practice. At least the musical score was good!
ReplyDeleteBy my count, I have read 2! completely negative, two 50/50 and one positive, Jon! I have to admit, playing Devils Advocate is a favorite role if mine, so I did go with the intention of not being overly critical ! There is plenty in the film that's historically inaccurate, if you want to be offended by that!
DeleteWell I think this is the first OK'ish review I've read Keith! Aside from wargamers generally panning it, two well known film reviewers here in the UK have been distinctly lukewarm in their response, with one really having a go at the Scott's approach to the historical aspects of it.
ReplyDeleteNot for me I'm afraid and might watch it if it comes to Netflix etc at some point. Like you, I'll stick with those classic films of our youth:).
Fair enough Steve! It is quite puzzling that, with all the CGI etc available these days, they could not recreate a more realistic and convincing representation of a Napoleonic battlefield. It must therefore have been intended, which is also confusing....
DeleteIt's nice to read some positive comments about the movie. I have heard nothing but negative comments. I actually haven't heard from anyone that they loved the movie. Universal condemnation from everyone I know...it's kinda sad.
ReplyDeleteThanks John.... I have read some that think it had good aspects, but it's certainly not a great film, and has plenty wrong with it, if you go there looking to be disappointed!
DeleteI'm not sure I could drag my Mrs to see the film, gonna take my Dad, instead, wonder who will fall asleep first, him or me?
ReplyDeleteNo, I think it will be YEARS before she goes to a film I suggest again, Ray! Hope your dad manages to stay awake!
DeleteThanks Keith, not enough to sway me, due to the many ‘thumbs down’ reviews that I have read, but something to add into the total mix - perhaps I should spend the cash on a new rule set and criticise them instead :-).
ReplyDeleteMrs. wargamer is very good at doing the wargame shows and documentaries etc …. But I am guessing that this one would be an ask too far :-)
Thanks Norm, I suspect, for a wargamer, my commitment to military history is low, hence the actual details of 95% of the Great battles of history are unknown to me! I do broad brushstrokes on most things., not micro detail!
DeleteI have commented before on your ability to get your wife along to wargames shows...I am 100% certain mine would refuse that invitation!
I think I still need convincing to spend hard earned cash on watching this. Which is a shame as I had been looking forward to it's release
ReplyDeleteThat's fair enough Scotty...it was OK but not great! $15 is about 20 minutes of my time, so as I was in the cinema nearly 3 hours, it's a reasonable return on investment
DeleteWe saw it on Sunday night and I think I enjoyed it more than I would have because my wife was with me, but was still very disappointed. I was expecting a few short-cuts and tried not to approach it with an open mind but the whole thing felt like Ridley Scott read Wikipedia, thought that'll do and turned it into a film. The uniforms were the best part, but if you're going to spend that much on battle scenes why not put a bit of accuracy into it. The Waterloo climax was hilarious, with the French leaping from their trenches and charging toward the British lead by Napoleon, sword in hand and slashing his way through the British infantry, only to be defeated by the arrival of the Prussians from Hougoumont. It's not often I let out an involuntary gasp in a cinema, and I think this was the first time since Basic Instinct. I read a comment somewhere that the battle scenes reminded them of that Monty Python sketch with the housewives recreating Pearl Harbour, which I think sums it up.
ReplyDeleteCompletely agree Lawrence given the money a huge disappointment.
DeleteLol...not fans then guys?!
DeleteI am guessing there is an extra word in your comment " I tried not to approach it with an open mind" Lawrence?!
DeleteYes, I was originally going to say I tried not to approach it with a wargamer's button-counter mentality, although paradoxically the buttons/uniforms were one of the few highlights for me.
DeleteLol, yes as far as I could tell, they got the uniforms right...bicornes in 1790's and shakes in later battles. To be fair to all the critics, there were a lot of jarring parts, like the cavalry all charging higgledy piggledy, lancers, hussars, cuirassiers and dragoons all mixed up together...and yes, with Napoleon on his white horse leading them.... 😞
DeleteBloody auto correct on my phone must have changed shakos to shakes!
DeleteWe watched it last night. I had try to avoid the negative reviews although my son gave me his thoughts in advance. I won’t write too much, I am an extremely keen watcher of films and a regular at the cinema. Given that Ridley Scott made three excellent films Gladiator, Black Hawk Down and Kingdom of Heaven, all of which I have happily watched many times and will continue to watch. Napoleon in my view is one of the worst films he has made. Given the huge budget it is hard to understand how they could make such rubbish. It is not just the horrific historical nonsense in pretty much every battle scene, but the film itself doesn’t hold together, it is disjointed, poorly scripted and with no real plot other than Napoleons life. The only redeeming factor in my view were the costumes. My view is you always need to make your own mind up but as somebody interested in Napoleonic Military history it was a massive disappointment 😢
ReplyDeletePs if somebody gave me a free CD of the film I would throw it in the bin !
DeleteHaha....I did say it wasnt a great film Matt. Personally, I find Gladiator as believable as Braveheart...which I enjoyed but the majority of which is BS too....I do agree about Black Hawk Down but maybe if we were Somalians who had witnessed the actual event depicted, we could pull holes in that too?
DeleteAnyway, I heard our most popular current affairs/talk back host mention the film on his show today and apparently it did OK in the US over their holiday weekend. He was debating going, as he said he is a dialog person and not much interested in ten minute detailed battle scenes, and the feedback from his listeners was "don't worry about, most of the film isn't battle scenes, it's mostly about his relationship with Josephine!" That's probably a good summation of what the vast majority will think about it.
I went alone. Which is great, because it means my wife still owes me, after she chose a Moroccan film about a tailor and she got to see The Great Escaper in return, which she really enjoyed.
ReplyDeleteJust had to remind myself of your comments Chris....not a fan then!
DeleteI do agree that it seems odd so much that is easily checkable and with CGI, relatively easy to recreate, was not done....is the the director deliberately thumbing his nose at a "Soviet Realist" approach to historical film making, and claiming his is an art form that is allowed to transcend the limitations of reality...or some bollox?!
We did of course have the obligatory black French general too....
We are due to go this weekend...
ReplyDeleteGood luck Mark.....Waterloo, it ain't! Hopefully you can enjoy some of it, nonetheless!
DeleteDisappointing your wife did not enjoy it Keith. By the sounds of it the film is mediocre at best which is a shame.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest Ben, I did not really expect her to enjoy the film - and not because she is an expert on Napoleonic infantry tactics! She would not enjoy A Bridge Too Far or The Great Escape either!
DeleteYes, its not the best film I have ever seen but it was ok and I am still happy I went to see it!
I went on Sunday and enjoyed it, it was epic and I managed to leave my wargaming hat at the door, my wife and the other couple we went with enjoyed it too, I thought the sets and costumes were good, of course there was a lot of nonsense but it's a drama not a documentary and as my wife said it should really have been called Napoleon and Josephine , about £18 a ticket and £20 travel to see it at Piccadilly circus, even after spending all that money I had a good time!
ReplyDeleteBest Iain
Thanks Iain and good to know I am not the only one who enjoyed it! In my terms, you spent about $70 - my wife and spent a bit more than that, including an Indian meal before it started - so I think we had the better deal! In some ways, it would have been improved if they just left the battles out entirely, and just referred to them obliquely. I wonder if all the letters were genuine - ie the ones allegedly knocked off by her valet? I could probably Google it and find out!
Deletewe went on a north shore club outing , the highlight was the post mortem after. Duellist's it ain't
ReplyDeleteI have never seen The Duelists, although a lot of people have referenced it in contrasting what a great job Scott did on that film, versus this new one...I might have a look for it on YouTube
Deleteits really beautifully shot , Scott's best game is shooting things rather than people. You tube might be a bit low resolution to do it justice. I wouldn't hesitate to buy a decent DVD copy for the stash
DeleteMight have a look for a DVD copy then...thanks Bruce!
Deletehttps://www.trademe.co.nz/a/marketplace/movies-tv/blu-ray/classics/listing/4442138859
DeleteI read your review to my wife. She has now decided not to accompany me to see it. More popcorn for me!
ReplyDeleteOh dear, and mine is one of the more positive reviews!
DeleteI saw similar reviews - also didn't expect too much except for stunning visuals. Early on, I thought Phoenix looked way too old and haggard to play Napoleon except for the last days.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree Dean. One of the "professional" reviews I read mentioned that too...at the Siege of Toulon, he was only 24 years old!
Delete