Ridley Scott's Napoleon - "Clumsy, Funny" Critics Torch Scott's Latest

[Paul MacLean]

^^

Ouch!

IndieWhire's review is equally uncharitable, and makes reference to "...Martin Phipps’ free-reed score, which Scott often ditches in favor of repurposing the music that Dario Marianelli wrote for Joe Wright’s “Pride & Prejudice”.

https://www.indiewire.com/criticism/mov ... 234926076/

Here's promo interview with Scott -- which includes some clips that do look visually impressive (tho I'm hoping the songs accompanying the images aren't in the film!)...

[AndyDursin]

I'm sure the movie is going to be technically impressive but I think that's a given. Dramatically though it sounds like it's yet another case of Scott being driven more by the action set-pieces than the characters -- and many saying Phoenix's performance is ineffective/bored, which I'm not shocked by.

I just keep going back to this: when was the last time Ridley Scott made a good movie? It's been....a while. It's great he's still working, but is it really when he's not making films even as good as his '80s and '90s misfires?

[AndyDursin]

Ridley getting a little hot under the collar here with the bad reviews now surfacing in France especially -- shades of 1492, another busted historical account of his. Though to be fair, the reviews weren't mixed on 1492, they were just flat out bad. (The thing about the accents absolutely recalls 1492).

Unintentionally funny might get me to watch this eventually though!

Ridley Scott is shrugging off the negative reviews coming out of France for his new historical epic “Napoleon,” which stars Joaquin Phoenix as the infamous French emperor and Vanessa Kirby as his wife, Joséphine de Beauharnais. Reviews are all over the place for the biographical drama. The Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw gave it five stars, for instance, while French GQ wrote it is “deeply clumsy, unnatural and unintentionally funny” to have French characters speaking in American accents.

As recapped by the BBC, other French publications also targeted Scott’s latest. The daily newspaper Le Figaro said the film could be renamed “Barbie and Ken Under the Empire,” while Napoleon biographer Patrice Gueniffey told Le Point magazine that Scott made a “very anti-French and very pro-British” rewrite of history.

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/ridl ... 235801660/

[Paul MacLean]

Good feature on Ridley Scott for CBS Sunday Morning...



I don't know what this film is going to be like, but while I haven't enjoyed all of his films, Scott is still one of my favorites, and there always is something in a Ridley Scott movie that is visually arresting.

[AndyDursin]

Great segment.

Sadly looks like this one is a bust. One of my friends thought it was a train wreck, characters meet, two scenes later its a year afterwards, etc. No flow or rhythm and said Phoenix was totally miscast. Which seems to be the consensus.

Also died quick at the box office but that's par for the course today too.

Hopefully Gladiator 2 turns out ok!

[Eric Paddon]

I saw it Thanksgiving night. The problem is it wastes so much time on the relationship with Josephine (and her failure to give him an heir) that when the battles come up there is ZERO context for why Napoleon is invading Europe in the first place. Not a peep about Napoleon's ambitions of conquest (or for that matter how he stopped the worst of the Revolution's excesses in France to consolidate power) or how he appointed his brothers as puppet monarchs in the other countries. And in a silly moment, Scott has everyone speaking English but for just one brief inconsequential scene we get a subtitles moment that serves no real purpose.

If I hadn't taught Western Civ and known the background to this, I would have been clueless.

[Eric W.]

This is unfortunate. This really should have been a knockout.

I don't have high hopes for Gladiator 2.

[AndyDursin]

Excellent analysis with a historical critique in The Federalist...they HATED it.

Napoleon is rightly revered because he is a testament to the rare great man who harnessed his nature to achieve greatness. Motivated by both self-interest and belief in something larger than himself, he was committed to cause and quite literally changed the world. These are the facts upon which the legend is built.

In failing to depict either accurately, Scott created an awful, unengaging film that will soon be forgotten, unlike its source material.

[mkaroly]

Have no regrets passing on it. Still annoys me that he couldn't get a French actor to portray Napoleon...to be honest, as stupid and immature as it is, that is the one thing that prevented me from watching it in the first place. Now with all the negative press, I will continue to pass on it.

[Paul MacLean]

Oh well.

https://www.joblo.com/ridley-scotts-4-h ... oleon-cut/

[Eric Paddon]

I'm assuming that extra hour is where all the scenes that explained WHY Napoleon was invading other countries went to?

[Paul MacLean]

I'm assuming that extra hour is where all the scenes that explained WHY Napoleon was invading other countries went to?

I know that Kingdom of Heaven was not improved by the restoration of footage. I doubt it will help Napoleon.

[AndyDursin]

Apple must be like, no thanks Ridley, we're not spending any more on this. We're good.

[AndyDursin]

[Paul MacLean]

^^ I'd hazard a guess Ridley Scott won't be casting Brian Cox in his films anytime soon.