7 ms·
By the way, if anyone likes history flicks, I won’t recommend watching the new Napoleon, unless it’s a pirated hate watch. The classic “Waterloo” remains undef
by ulizzle 3y ago
By the way, if anyone likes history flicks, I won’t recommend watching the new Napoleon, unless it’s a pirated hate watch.
The classic “Waterloo” remains undefeated
- mongol 3y agoI assume you have seen it and didn't like it?
- ulizzle 3y agoWatched it yesterday and hated it. I was looking forward to it too based on the trailers but it turned out to be a big hit ahistorical hit piece. For example, no matter what you think of the guy, Napoleon was a bonafide military genius. In the movie, they made him seem like just one more of the bunch. Napoleon was famous for never being bothered by the gore of battle and the buzzing of billets, in the same vein as general Grant. In the movie they made him seem like a scaredy cat In “Waterloo” you could see why French soldiers joined his cause in droves. Extreme charisma
- jjtheblunt 3y agoWas it a lapse in his judgment to start marching on Russia 3 days after summer solstice? That's not a question meant to be sarcastic: you know more about him than I do, so that always has seemed like a terrible choice of timing.
- ekabod 3y ago100 000 French soldiers caught typhus apparently.
- foobarian 3y agoIt always puzzled me not just with Napoleon but a couple other recent European expansionist dictators, why they kept overextending their reach. Why did they not just stop at a reasonable point and reinforce the conquest, instead of losing it all. Actually maybe Putin is one example where this may be in fact happening.
- Exoristos 3y ago> It always puzzled me ... They're criminal minds of a certain type, and criminal minds often harbor a secret compulsion to be stopped or caught. > Actually maybe Putin ... Maybe this is why democracies have been somewhat long-lasting, because no one mind bears the full madness of crimes of the magnitude e.g. the U.S. or Britain commit fairly continuously.
- jjtheblunt 3y agoSuper interesting point!
- philwelch 3y agoAre democracies long lasting? The longest lasting French Republic lasted from 1870 to 1940, 70 years. The current one started in 1958 so it will be the longest lasting by 2028. In contrast, the pre-revolution Kingdom of France lasted from 987 to 1792.
- raccoonDivider 3y agoThe current French fifth republic started when De Gaulle had a new constitution written, during the fourth republic. A democracy changing its rules by referendum while staying a democracy shouldn't really count as a new regime. Edit: arguably, getting invaded and going back to a republic after a few years shouldn't count as a regime change either. The German occupation was temporary and the country reverted back to a republic immediately after. That's more of an argument for the resilience of democracies than against it.
- philwelch 3y agoThe Fourth Republic was overthrown by a military coup. De Gaulle did manage to restore democracy with his new constitution, largely because the military respected him personally more than they respected the institutions of the Fourth Republic. Military coups are not a sign of a resilient democracy and it’s a very rare thing for a military to reliably subordinate itself to a constitutional government. The Third Republic was also more responsible for its own end than you give it credit for. A minority of the government wanted to keep fighting, from Algeria if necessary, rather than surrender, but the majority were defeatists and fascist sympathizers. The armistice and collaboration was a deliberate choice that came from within the system, as was the reform of the Third Republic into the autocratic Vichy state. In fact, Germany didn’t even completely occupy France until after Operation Torch, when Darlan, the de facto leader of the Vichy government (Petain at this point being more of a figurehead), switched sides and openly cooperated with the Allies, ordering an end to French resistance in North Africa.
- LtWorf 3y agoI wanted to watch it but seeing the "ice lake trap" in the trailer I figured I should read some reviews before going. And yeah it seems brit propaganda about napoleon rather than actual facts, at least according to what I read.
- randomcarbloke 3y agoWhy would it be Brit propaganda, we bested him...it would serve us better to paint him as the genius he was...
- dopidopHN 3y agoPerfide Albion is gonna perfide Albion… muscle memory. It’s fine.
- LtWorf 3y agoIrish famine… indian famine… british people are the kindest and gentlest of all :)
- randomcarbloke 3y agoyou've been reading too much propaganda, get off Reddit once in a while it'll do you some good ;)
- LtWorf 3y agoWhy doesn't the film mention the incoming german army at waterloo (from what I've read)?
- hef19898 3y agoArguably, I know more about WW1 and 2 than the Napoleanic wars. I always had the impression so, tgat Napoleon came incredibly close to winning at Waterloo. Two things, mainly, sealed his defeat: one of his Generals failure to pin, defeat of aggressivle pursue Blüchers Prussian army and said armies arrival at the Battle of Waterloo. And arrival Napoleon didn't exepect due to his generals "failure" mentioned above. I am not sure how history would have gone had Napoleon won there: France was again confined to its orld borders, Napoleons alliances across Europe were history and Spain a lot stronger. All in all, pretty much the situation he found himself in before the first coalition. Or maybe the Prussians would again have fallen in line, Great Britain exited the war. Highly unlickely so, if you ask me.
- fastasucan 3y ago> they made him seem like just one more of the bunch No? They showed how he excelled to eventual be crowned as a king of France due to his military's success.
- romanhn 3y agoWe must have seen different movies, because this one didn't showcase any of his genius. Instead, they opted to show an unambitious little man (not talking about his height) whose fortunes are pushed forward by others rather than himself. Very odd indeed.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jbc1 3y agoIs that the only thing to hate about it? That's it's ahistorical? If someone was capable of separating the Napoleon they read about in books from the Napoleon on the screen and was interested in watching a movie with some good cavalry charges glued together by a story about some undeserving wuss finally getting his comeuppance, would you recommend it in that case?
- ulizzle 3y agoThat’s a good question. No, I wouldn’t. It’s not one of Ridley Scott’s best works. I’d say if you enjoyed kingdom of heaven then you may like it. I’d rather watch “The Terror” again
- jbc1 3y agoPerfect review because i really did not like kingdom of heaven. Thanks!
- rickstanley 3y agoMan, "The Terror" is such good series, I love the eerie/dread feeling of the first season. The actors are top notch too.
- CogitoCogito 3y agoNo the movie really just was bad. I’m not even sure what the goal of the movie was. To make Napoleon look bad? To show his human side with his relationship with Josefine? Honestly afterwards I just have no idea. Really it was just a weird speed run through history. They just jumped from random event to random event over the course of like 25 years. Contrast this with the movie Lincoln which portrayed him during a relatively short period of his life. Ignoring everything else (there are many reasons why the Lincoln film is much better), the fact that the Napoleon film tries to cover so much really is an odd choice. I personally would have walked out of the movie, but I was seeing it with a group of people and didn’t want to be too overly negative. (Afterwards I found out that most felt the same.)
- 3y ago
- csours 3y agoEven without the historical problems, it's a real weird movie.
- SuperNinKenDo 3y agoSeconded. If you don't already know your Napoleonic history, you'll find it impossible to follow, if you do, you'll find it impossible to endure, and in either instance you'll be bored to tears.
- tuatoru 3y agoVery pithy! And almost certainly spot-on accurate. Thanks! You could have a side hustle in capsule movie reviews. I'm plo[w|ough]ing my way through Adam Zamoyski's "Rites of Peace: The Fall of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna". It has lots of maps and pictures of the dramatis personae but it's still very confusing. And I know it's been simplified for a modern audience, and to keep the book to a reasonable length. 1. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/138831.Rites_of_Peace https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/138831.Rites_of_Peace
- SuperNinKenDo 3y agoThanks for the feedback. I really do appreciate it. Under the advice of half the people I've ever known in my life, I recently decided to give becoming a writer a genuine crack. Of course, once you start trying to make this a reality the voices start spinning reasons why you're no good and bound to fail, so this little bit of encouragement made my day. As for books, I recently picked up a copy of The Wars Against Napoleon on the (very) cheap by luck, so I'm about to devour that. It's not a meaty volume by any stretch, but I've been meaning to read it for the better part of a decade now, so better late than never.
- echelon_musk 3y agoJust to clarify, you're recommending Waterloo (1970) [0]? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_(1970_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_(1970_film)
- turndown 3y agoYes, they are. Enjoy and be astounded by the scale of it.
- Lamad1234 3y ago[dead]
- puppymaster 3y agoI read andrew roberts napoleon front and back three times and I still love the new movie. must be the odd one out. then again I love gladiator and walked into that one knowing it's not gonna be a real representation of historical accuracy. i am always curious what other folks interpretation of Napoleon (and other rome emperors for that matter) and it's very interesting to see this is what Ridley thinks of him. Definitely a new perspective worth dinner table chat.
- odiroot 3y agoI just watched it. Considered it very funny. Let's just treat it as a comedy!
- renewiltord 3y agoSaw Napoleon today and it made him seem like a bumbling buffoon.
- boppo1 3y agoNaturlich, the movie is by an Englishman.