TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Senteur As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

cowboyerik Yes, the "Eagles" or monarchs of Europe and England did ultimately defeat Bonaparte. They did destroy his armies. They did crush the people's revolution. Napoleon made mistakes, mistakes that were already in history and would be repeated again. Even now in our century. His war against the Kings of Europe was the good fight. His men, his people wanted an end to eat. They didn't want to just eat cake. They wanted bread. The despotic rulers of Europe sowed the seeds of their own end. Had Bonaparte made a few less mistakes, or maybe just one, he would have been successful. As it was, it would be another 75 to 100 years for Kings/Queens to be eliminated and freedom to reign. Today, I am often disgusted at how these figure head Kings and Queens, Prince and Princess's carry on, most prominently in England, these kids need to come out and admit they are nothing. God didn't place them in power, the are just people that happen to have been born into their palaces and estates. It's a waste of money. Had Napoleon not weakened them, and showed the world that they were beatable, the people may not have eventually overthrown them. If Napoleon had been successful it is possible there would have been no WORLD WARS. Both world wars were cause by and set off by various ruling house having treaties and loyalties to each others by cousins, families and in-laws and it was so confusing it lead to WW1. Then the miserable outcome of WW1 led to WW2, then the Cold War and beyond. The World is still un-dividing and disarming and we still have incredibly huge militaries and expenditures when we can't take care of people around the world. Napoleon tried to end 100 years war before it started. This is the story of his attempt to end it. Truly his story. Well told. Teaser bits of battles, the agony and cost of defeat, his love for people and his women. Not fat drunk. Not a murderer or executioner. An honorable Battlefield Commander in the name of his people, and the people of the world. A liberator that showed the way to freedom, the way to democracy, that path out of tyranny. Most interesting figure in history. Can't be touched or denied.

davidjpeers It is probably pointless recommending or not recommending this series as there are two types of people that are going to buy this: The Napoleon nuts like me and the period drama people. The latter will be in their element as the domestic sets are both lavish and authentic. There are also some remarkable likenesses such as Josephine, Murat and Caulencourt.On first viewing I was left a little cold. I thought that at last a substantial amount of time had been allocated to this, perhaps the greatest of all individual subjects. However, if there is one thing that any expert on the subject will tell you, it is that there is no way that you can even begin to condense this subject into 60 hours, let alone 6. The worst mistake that this film makes is attempting to replicate the battles themselves. The camera angles pan across large expanses revealing (at best) eight or nine hundred extras. All this whilst regular references are made to 20,000 losses on each side (Austerlitz, Eylau, Essling and especially Waterloo). Sometimes, it is almost laughable and cheapens the rest of the film. The makers would have been much better off by excluding any military action and just leaving it to innuendo – after all, Borodino is just referred to by Caulencourt when in Moscow conversing with Murat.. Thank God they didn't try to replicate that terrible battle! So, the plus points: Napoleon: At first I thought that Clavier was miles off the mark. If, like me you have seen and were bowled over by Rod Steiger's rendition in Waterloo then this will get some getting used to. After all, Napoleon is a red-blooded Corsican genius, capable of flying off the handle at any time, exhausting his counterparts and friends alike. Not in this version. Yet, Clavier has one saving grace. He introduces a measured, human approach that we know Napoleon had to have had from time to time. Almost schizophrenic some might say (Megalomania is the preferred terminology). I don't prefer his interpretation of Napoleon's to Steiger, but it is warmer if not necessarily more Corsican. If we could introduce this to Steiger's approach you may have the perfect Napoleon.The relationship between Napoleon and Josephine is also one of the better points of this series. Clavier's in-love out-of-love relationship is perfectly handled without the usual mushiness. Here is a relationship based on love, intensity, necessity and ultimately friendship and loss.Finally, Caulencourt is dealt with in some depth, as is Fauche, Murat and Talleyrand. But where is Berthier, Bessieres, Augereau, Davout and Ney (who suddenly appears towards the end despite his Russian campaign heroics)? Holes? Yes. But unless we get someone with $500,000,000 willing to approach this subject with the endeavour it deserves then we are left with this kind of product. So overall, not too bad. Vive l'Emperor!

Jack Jensen As a historian, I thought this movie was lacking in certain parts. Yet it had a lot of history in it, which I seemed to me to be correct and well done. There are a lot of beautiful shots, wonderful colors and the art department did a great job in this movie. The costumes of Napoleon and the foreign minister was almost magic. I was taken away by the details of the costumes and the scenery. I was most likely not filmed at Versailles or Paris, yet you had the impression that they were filming there. It was generally well edited and filmed. That said, there are several things that bothered me. For example, when Napeolon moves across Europe with his army and confronts the Allied forces or even the Prussians; they animated this by computers. I didn't think this was at all necessary, I think it would have been a better movie if the director simple left this out (that is what most directors do anyway). The maps rather bothered me, too many details; names and dates of battles covered were enough. The other thing that really bothered me was the whole accents. We are supposed to be watching a movie set in Napoleonic France where people spoke French. Most of the actors don't come from France and so speak with a heavy American or German accent. I first noticed this when Murat was attacking the Directoire and so says "attack" in a clear American accent; this bothered me. I would have preferred to have the movie in French and subtitled.

avilr What a shocking disappointment. I bought the Napoleon 2 DVDs edition, as a gift to myself for Christmas and, what a waste of money . and time waiting for it. The product is so bad in contents as in features; it even lacks the actual almost standard Close Captioning.I have read some biography and historical books about Bonaparte and his time, and I can't stand for Depardieu casting Fouche, I think it could be better as a Marshal, Ney, Lannes of somebody like them.Napoleon casting actor is anything but `imperial', for the man who forged by himself the greatest empire in human history. Where are the famous Marshals? Across hours and hours of soap opera, all we see is two or three puppets in uniform. The top of ridiculous is the mid-eastern bodyguard Napoleon got from his Egypt campaign, remarkable.You get tired of see Napoleon, alone, reading papers or playing with maps and lead soldiers, lost in the immensity of the palaces, and the overacting (as many of his plays) Malkovich spying through doors. Napoleon spent his years as France head of state, when in office, surrounded by tens and hundreds of clerks, messengers, ministers (not only Police - Fouche and Foreign Affairs - Talleyrand), aides du camp, and . in first place, his `Joint of Chiefs', leaded by the superb Marshal Berthier.At last, but not least in the insanity, the time (and the weight on the drama) gift to Josephine de Beauharnais. She was an important lady of French high society, but the emperor's romance with her was short in time - against the almost 20 years he commanded France destiny - and, more important, probably was calculated from his part, because the important connections and relations she had in society, but he, as a young officer of provinces, lacked.Is true, he was fair with her son, Eugene de Beauharnais, named him general, prince of the empire and Viceroy of Italy. Eugene was fighting for his stepfather from 1796 to 1814. But, he earned all these awards because his own merits as a fine officer and not because his mother influenced over the emperor.