Napoleon - Ridley Scott's film with Joaquin Phoenix

[ace3g]

My screening didn't have the "ice, it's a trap" line.

[happypred]

Heard this was an English piss-take of the actual Napoleon

[ralfy]

[littlesprout]

Yeah this is just not a very good film.

Someone had hit on this earlier about Scott being a smart ass with reporters about this film, and for me Scott has already been on my slowly getting less likable as a person and director list. His arrogance can be intolerable. I don't like how he handled the Alien franchise acting like the creator, alpha, and omega. I really don't like how he talked to some of the reporters and criticism of this Napoleon movie now that I've seen the final product. He deserves full criticism and responsibility.

Movies like this makes me believe Quentin Tarantinos take on directors getting worse over time and should know when to hang it up. Even Scorsese has had some very bad films lately.

[Nightmare Asylum]

I'd argue that Scorsese's late career work has been right among the best and most impactful of his career.

Ridley's late career is definitely shakier quality wise, but it continues to be endlessly fascinating to me. Also, apart from Barbie and (the opening twenty minutes of) The Killer, Napoleon might just be the funniest movie I've seen all year? The more I think about it the more Phoenix's performance and the way the movie treats him just really clicks for me. I really can't wait for that four hour cut to see how it gives the movie a bit more shape/structure.

[KiramidHead]

Scorsese's last ten or fifteen years have been pretty great. Shutter Island, Hugo, The Wolf of Wall Street, Silence, The Irishman, Killers of the Flower Moon.

Scott's has definitely been shakier but he still takes big swings. Gucci is all over the place tonally but at least it was ambitious.

[littlesprout]

Aside from wolf of Wall Street I think the Irishman was a decent film, but nothing spectacular. Killers of the flower moon was not a good film and easily forgettable.

[nanison]

When you think about it, is it really surprising the film turned out mediocre?

How can you tell Napoleon's entire career/life story in just 3 hours?

Wasn't someone doing a tv series about Napoleon? Only logical thing to do I guess

[𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔈𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱𝔥 𝔓𝔞𝔰𝔰𝔢𝔫𝔤𝔢𝔯]

CBS interview with Ridley featuring new bts footage and Ridleygrams:

[Ingwar]

[𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔈𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱𝔥 𝔓𝔞𝔰𝔰𝔢𝔫𝔤𝔢𝔯]

Old projection:

As for "Napoleon," based on the trailer, the film does look like it cost $200 million. It's currently tracking to have a domestic opening weekend of around $24 million.

It's doing much better than expected:

Napoleon' Conquers With $79M Global Bow; 'Wish' Debuts To $49M WW – International Box Office

Ridley Scott's Napoleon has exceeded expectations with $78.8M global across the five-day opening frame, including $46.3M from the international box office. This is higher than the Friday estimate (see below), and well above pre-weekend projections.

The bulk of play is coming from Europe with $33M, led by the UK's No. 1 $6.6M and France's No. 1 $5.6M (critics be damned, evidently). Germany, also at No. 1, grossed $3.4M, Spain did $3.3M at No. 1 and Italy took $3.1M.

https://deadline.com/2023/11/napoleon-wish-opening-weekend-global-international-box-office-1235637258/

France might be bitchin' about it, but they are watchin' it, they are watchin' it!

[Ingwar]

French critics

[Immortan Jonesy]

When someone defends Scott's film under the premise that it is an artistic representation and not an academic documentary, I see a lot of History snobs saying "yes, but people are stuck with that inaccurate notion, ala Braveheart."

But are the artists to blame for that? Now no one is going to be allowed to make an artistic version of some historical figure, cos people educated themself through movies? give me a f**king break!

I feel the same way about paleogeeks demanding scientifically accurate depictions of dinosaurs in movies. I mean, it wouldn't be a bad thing at all, but it doesn't have to be mandatory, cos i's entertainment and art!

[Ingwar]

Yeah, one must be truly naive (that applies to history snobs and other "experts") to expect Hollywood blockbuster worth $200 million to depict events with historical accuracy. Most historical movies are not really historical. They are quasi-historical or even historical fiction. Historical films are only based on history, which shouldn't stand in the way of good storytelling. To put it another way, you should sacrifice historical accuracy to tell a story.

[Nightmare Asylum]

It's funny, 'cause there are filmmakers that I love because of their way that they are so indebted to striving to accurately portray so and so historical era and/or mythology on screen - Robert Eggers, for example. But there are others (Scott, for instance) that I want to see reinterpret rather than recreate. Like the talk in the Gladiator 2 thread about some of the gladiatorial games that might be featured in the Colosseum in that upcoming film that wouldn't have still been enacted by the point in history when the film is actually going to be set... but that's ok in a film like this, where the first one is almost borderline fantasy to begin with!

It's all about the different voices, the different intent, the different execution... Both approaches are equally valid, with their own benefits, and I'm happy to have very different filmmakers out there doing both.

Eggers' Nosferatu and del Toro's Frankenstein both excite me immensely, and feel like they will be a return to the sort of Gothic horror that I adore. That being said, I know they're going to be very different approaches, with Nosferatu relishing in the reality of its setting (a la The Witch) while Frankenstein is likely to be a much more grandiose, fantastic take on its world.