Thanks for 2 posts worth admonitions, but the movie is still a steaming POS.
Napoleon wasn’t some brooding, whiney cuck to Josephine. He never shot canons at pyramids. He wasn’t a depressive old fart, he was charismatic, in his 30s. He never charged into battle with his cavalry, he was an artillery guy.
The battle scenes were TRASH.... mobs of chaotic nonsense that showed none of the French tactics and formations - only what an ignoramous would THINK these battles looked like.
Despite $200m spent, they couldn’t even a grade-school level historian?
Sorry you’re such a huge fan, but fk your movie.
I agree with your thought on the battle scenes. I was a Marine and been to Waterloo (as well as Gettysburg and Antietum) and it is hard for me to imagine what 200,000 men fighting for 6-7 hours would look like covering that much area, especially presenting only 10 minutes of the battle. The pyramid shots were disappointing and told my wife he never lead cavalry. On all these points I do agree with you.
What are your thoughts on the battle depictions in the 1970 movie Waterloo with Rod Steiger and Christopher Plummer?
Yes, a big Napoleon fan, been to Invalids 6 times.
I’ve seen leftist reviews praising this movie for “dismantling the idea that great men make history.” They love that Napoleon is depicted as a petulant soyboy. Someone in this thread marveled that Ridley is going strong at 85. Looking at his body of work the past 13 years, he just needs to go away.