LostInSauce
12-15-24, 06:00 AM
I wanna start by saying that I actually trudged out to the theater, and paid for a ticket for this movie, as opposed to acquiring it at a 100% discount by other means which is actually a big deal. If I actually go to see your movie in theaters and pay for a ticket, then that's a huge vote of confidence from me, because I'm terribly selective about what I watch, and even more selective about what I pay to watch and even more selective about what I leave my house and pay to watch. My vote of confidence was completely misplaced, and if I could, I would get a refund. In fact, were it not for the fact that I'd paid real money to see this movie, I'd have left early.
At its core, the problem of the movie is this: who is this designed to appeal to? You can go with a multitude of routes. For instance, Gladiator (also made by Scott) tossed historical accuracy to the wind, but effectively catered to people who like action and drama and therefore went on to be a success. Another route you can take is that of the historically themed chick flick. While I wouldn't be enticed to see it if it were a chick flick, I'm sure some women out there would go and watch it. And of course, being a historical film, you could take the route of historical accuracy, and cater to a slightly...older and/or nerdier male audience. That might net you a bit less money (Waterloo (1970) was a commercial failure) but you can still make a good movie that will be fondly remembered. Waterloo (1970) is after all, regarded as one of, if not the greatest historical war movie about that time period.
What we got instead was an attempt to do everything, and a failure to do anything. The battle scenes were too short, too small, and too inaccurate to satisfy enjoyers of history (excluding the good first 30 minutes or so at Toulon). Spain, if I recall correctly, was not mentioned once despite being very impactful on the war. It tied down something like two or three hundred thousand French troops. Wellington was not some stiff old man. He was young, charismatic, and generally well liked by the men. Snipers did not use scopes back then, and the whole, "sir, should I take the shot" thing was...depressing and amusing simultaneously. I'm not sure the Prussians even entered the field from the correct direction in the movie.
Attempts were also obviously made to cater to a female audience by portraying some very weird dynamic between Napoleon and his first wife Josephine. The thing is that these scenes also were not long enough or fleshed out enough to rope anyone in, and they turned away the history fans. Their portrayal of Napoleon as some dithering, impotent, insecure, needy teenager also didn't do the movie any favors.
Finally, I'd just like to add that Joaquin Phoenix, as good an actor as he is, should not have been cast for this role. He neither looks, nor sounds the part, and he's too old. Josephine was also miscast, although that's less relevant because she existed in that movie to cater to the female demographic, so making her younger and more attractive worked okay. The movie can, in some way, be summarized by the scene where Napoleon throws a tantrum at a British ambassador. "YOU THINK YOU'RE SO GOOD BECAUSE YOU HAVE BOATS." It's an amusing scene. I even chuckled, which is rare. But...what the hell is this comedic scene doing in this movie? What the hell is going on in this movie?
At its core, the problem of the movie is this: who is this designed to appeal to? You can go with a multitude of routes. For instance, Gladiator (also made by Scott) tossed historical accuracy to the wind, but effectively catered to people who like action and drama and therefore went on to be a success. Another route you can take is that of the historically themed chick flick. While I wouldn't be enticed to see it if it were a chick flick, I'm sure some women out there would go and watch it. And of course, being a historical film, you could take the route of historical accuracy, and cater to a slightly...older and/or nerdier male audience. That might net you a bit less money (Waterloo (1970) was a commercial failure) but you can still make a good movie that will be fondly remembered. Waterloo (1970) is after all, regarded as one of, if not the greatest historical war movie about that time period.
What we got instead was an attempt to do everything, and a failure to do anything. The battle scenes were too short, too small, and too inaccurate to satisfy enjoyers of history (excluding the good first 30 minutes or so at Toulon). Spain, if I recall correctly, was not mentioned once despite being very impactful on the war. It tied down something like two or three hundred thousand French troops. Wellington was not some stiff old man. He was young, charismatic, and generally well liked by the men. Snipers did not use scopes back then, and the whole, "sir, should I take the shot" thing was...depressing and amusing simultaneously. I'm not sure the Prussians even entered the field from the correct direction in the movie.
Attempts were also obviously made to cater to a female audience by portraying some very weird dynamic between Napoleon and his first wife Josephine. The thing is that these scenes also were not long enough or fleshed out enough to rope anyone in, and they turned away the history fans. Their portrayal of Napoleon as some dithering, impotent, insecure, needy teenager also didn't do the movie any favors.
Finally, I'd just like to add that Joaquin Phoenix, as good an actor as he is, should not have been cast for this role. He neither looks, nor sounds the part, and he's too old. Josephine was also miscast, although that's less relevant because she existed in that movie to cater to the female demographic, so making her younger and more attractive worked okay. The movie can, in some way, be summarized by the scene where Napoleon throws a tantrum at a British ambassador. "YOU THINK YOU'RE SO GOOD BECAUSE YOU HAVE BOATS." It's an amusing scene. I even chuckled, which is rare. But...what the hell is this comedic scene doing in this movie? What the hell is going on in this movie?