this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
56 points (95.2% liked)

movies

1776 readers
156 users here now

Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.

πŸ”Ž Find discussion threads

A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome

Related communities:

Show communities:

Discussion communities:

RULES

Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.

2024 discussion threads

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Word has come that Apple has no plans to release Ridley Scott's four-hour cut of Napoleon "any time soon", a monumental loss to fans.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wjrii@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I haven't watched it. Was it bad like Kingdom of Heaven where taking time to explain shit might help somewhat, or bad like Zach Snyder where more would just be... more?

[–] ArgentRaven@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago (2 children)

It's two totally different movies mashed together. The first one is Napoleon being an amazing general and taking over. The second is Josephine and Napoleon's love story.

The problem is, they had to cut out half of each movie to shoehorn in the plots from both, so neither is really well done. Why is Napoleon out in a position of leadership, and why is he so good at being a general? How did he get enough support to essentially take over and become emperor? No idea. Why did Josephine cheat on him, and did he cheat on her? Why did they stay together for so long? Where did she come from, how did she feel about suddenly becoming Empress? Did they start treating each other differently? Was an heir important to either of them personally, or was it a political requirement? Again, no idea.

This movie couldn't figure out if it wanted to be military history, or a love story. Pick a lane!

[–] CraigeryTheKid@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago

We just watched it as well, and as someone who only had BASIC knowledge of Napoleon, your comment is a very good summary.

So many jumps in the movie were not only time jumps of unknown time - but also jumps between good leader, bad leader, good lover, bad lover -- and sometimes it was really hard to keep track. Also, Joaquin was very stoic and flat - was that good acting as Napoleon? Or him being Joaquin?

In the end, we are 2 very easy to please viewers, and our rating is "it was okay".

[–] boogetyboo@aussie.zone 3 points 7 months ago

So Pearl Harbour...

[–] DestroyerOfWorlds@sh.itjust.works 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

He just looks bored and things happen. And then he looks bored again, repeat. I never bought he was Napoleon or what that was supposed to look like. Nothing stood out.

[–] Marin_Rider@aussie.zone 4 points 7 months ago

he was very uncharismatic for a guy that managed to rally a nation to himself several times

[–] littlebluespark@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Wait, you mean to tell me you don't like movies that are little more than the visionary behind it all fellating himself for hours? 🀫