for some reason ridley scott decided to focus 50% on josephine. virtually all the scenes with her in it are horrible and boring. lurid nasty sex scenes and shit. why did scott decide to portray napoleon so badly? he's like some loser stumbling around in this. i thought this was gonna be an epic about politics and battle tactics. turns all of it is secondary to boring josephine scenes. whoever exec greenlit this massive budget movie must be dying right now.
shareScott portrayed one of the greatest European military strategists into a brooding simp.
shareI thought they were funny. I also think that in reality all those historical figures weren't like hollywood action movie stars but if you would see them today they would seem ridiculous.
shareYou can say some people rose to the top because of luck, connections or circumstances, but you can not say that about Napoleon, because he rose to the top through his victories.
It is a quality you can't argue. There has to be something exceptional about him, but have you seen any of that in this movie? If it was not about that then what was the point of making a Napoleon movie?
they went so far to make him look weak as to make him cover his ears EVERY TIME a cannon went off. that's how you know they did him dirty on purpose. literally all his soldiers around him and he's the only person covering like a bitch.
shareThat happens when a English director doing a Napoleon film.
Just like Mel Gibson made 'Braveheart' to make the English look bad, I think partially because he was Irish descent.
She was his wife and the Empress of France. The movie was more about Napoleon's personal life so you can expect her to be in it a lot. Not sure why this is such a common complaint. I'd rather watch that than a movie about "battle tactics" with old men pointing at maps for three hours.
share