rynotows

(2013-05-21 20:52:08)

See Waterloo (1970)

Rod Steiger in 1970 NAILED the role of Napoleon. I can't believe thatthis2002 catastrophe is available on dvd and the classic 1970 version withChristopher Plummer as Wellington is not. what a strange and cruel twistthat is.By all means if you are interested in Napoleon, see Waterloo. You won'tregret it.As for the 2002 version, eh, if you have the time and NOTHING better todo.

pvdharten

(2013-05-21 06:26:09)

Beautifully made documentary, superbly casted

Although quite lengthy, this documentary never became boring.Much to the credit of the script writers, there is an excellent balancebetween action scenes, political intrigue and romance. This all leadsto a much better understanding of the character of Napoleon Bonaparte,although more credit could have been given to his constitutional andgovernance reforms which are still tangible for many European nationstoday.The original score and photography is of a very high standard, but whatis even more important, I have rarely come across a movie in which thecasting was this well tailored to the characters. Rather than puttingfamous names in all the lead roles, a true effort has been made tomatch the skills of the actor to the character in a fine, pan-Europeancast.Christian Clavier's accent is quite charming: I guess this is how wethink Napoleon would have sounded, if he would have spoken English....

missmarmite

(2013-05-21 08:18:43)

Excellent performance by M. Clavier

I was never interested in Napoleon. Although I visited the Louvre I didn'tgo to see Napoleon's chambers, which are on display there. I would havenever watched this series if it wasn't for the actors in it. And now, aftersix hours of Napoleon and nothing but Napoleon, I actually got interested inthe chap and think about reading a biography. And I'm sure this is down tothe excellent performance of Christian Clavier. Simple asthat.Okay, his English could be a tiny bit better, agreed, but I rather get usedto an accented English than to a bad performance by English native speakers.Christian Clavier is truly an excellent actor, although he might be bestknown (in France) for his parts in very silly comedies. If he only decidedto take more "serious" parts, maybe more people would notice what afantastic talent he has. What he can express just with his eyes is quitestunning. But that may be a female point of view...The other well known actors had, of course, smaller parts, in comparison.But none of them was miscast. And I especially liked how actors fromdifferent countries once again worked together. This as well is what theEuropean idea is about.One of the few things I didn't like were the flashbacks at the end. Theywere completely out of place and should be cut out. They don't make sense atall at the end of the film.And a last remark about Monsieur Clavier's language skills: The first way hesaid "Ich liebe dich" got me guffawing, the second way he made my heartmelt. Maybe he should think about doing a film in German...?

grimmig-1

(2013-05-20 16:10:37)

Gutless

"One-dimensional" is another word that comes to mind, and one wonderswhat made John Malkovich and Julian Sands (of all people) star in thisseries. Never has exposition been delivered in more boring and unwittyfashion. Never was an audience kept from drawing their own conclusionsmore efficiently and thoroughly. Thousands of extras in historicallyaccurate costumes fail to make for great battle scenes because thescreenplay is extremely weak and the melГѓВ©es are shot from a completelydetached point of view. At hardly any point ever is the viewer able toidentify with any of the characters - let alone the protagonist. Andthe filmmakers even fail to put some decisive historical events likethe Battle of Trafalgar into their proper historical perspective. Inrelation to the obvious production value, this can be termed nothingless than an utter disaster.

Shezan1

(2013-05-18 21:26:15)

Terminally boring, but heavenly to look at

This lavish production of "Napoleon", which cost French State TV andothers$40 million, is everything a biopic should not be. Each historicalcharacteris given long historical tracts to mouth as best s/he can, of the "andnowI've vanquished Prussia, I shall conquer Poland" variety (ChristianClavieras Napoleon), to which the Emperor's semi-faithful Foreign MinisterTalleyrand (John Malkovich) answers "I understand Polish women are verybeautiful, Sire." Then, just to ensure we get the hint, Police MinisterFouchГѓВ© (GГѓВ©rard Depardieu) reprises about the same line toabout-to-be-cuckolded Empress Josephine (Isabella Rossellini). "YourMajesty, I advise you not to go to Poland." Etc., etc.; Greta Garbo movieshad better dialogue and far better historical savvy.This mammoth (4 90-minutes eps, for a total runtime of 6 hours)mini-seriesis, however, utterly lovely to look at. Guy Dufaux's cinematography issensitive and beautifully-lit, as effective in intimate scenes betweenNapoleon and Josephine as in great battle scenes. Shot in the castles andpalaces of Eastern Europe, or in Morocco (standing in unconvincingly forEgypt, with the odd CGI-ed Pyramid thrown in), the entire productionachieves the kind of Biennale des Antiquaires look no set decorator couldafford. Clothes, uniforms, carriages all contribute to a splendid museumexperience.But it's not enough. A talented comic in farces like "Les Visiteurs",Christian Clavier is hopelessly miscast as Napoleon, lacking the drive andintensity that mesmerized all contemporaries. He walks dutifully throughthepart, eliciting no sentiment whatsoever. You can't believe Clavier couldwrite a love-letter to Josephine, let alone the entire French Legal Code.His family of Corsican upstarts has been gentrified to the point of utterboredom, with Anouk AimГѓВ©e trying to sound hard as Madame MГѓВЁre LetiziaBuonaparte, and looking merely exhausted. Equally, Isabella Rossellini hasgreat charm, but none of the brittle elegance expected of Josephine. Sheperforms in slightly accented French, which is more than can be said forMalkovich, who's obviously dubbed (English-language viewers will hear hisvoice and get Clavier et al. dubbed: this is a Eurosausage of aproduction,with money from half a dozen channels) but from what we can see has gotthepersonality of the dapper, aristocratic and manipulative Talleyrand, whomheplays as a run-down Valmont from Dangerous Liaisons, wrong.It's mostly not Malkovich's fault. The authors, best-selling popularhistorian Max Gallo and novelist/screenwriter Didier Decoin, have a tinearfor early 19th-century French, and make absolutely no attempt to give anyoftheir characters period sensitivities. Ladies-in-waiting hop into bed withNapoleon like Carrie and Miranda in "Sex and the City"; the Pope expresseshimself with the world-weariness of Peter Jennings tut-tutting the "AxisofEvil" speech. There is no psychological exploration of any kind: next tothis clichГѓВ©ed pantomime, "Friends" could have been scripted by IngmarBergman. Talleyrand, a scion of the oldest French aristocracy turnedsometime revolutionary, suggests the kidnapping and execution of a Bourbonprince after a Royalist bomb nearly blows up Bonaparte's carriage. None ofthe complex political and psychological reasons motivating him are evenhinted at -- he's not just a slimebag, he's an uninterestingslimebag.In the middle of this painted-porcelain debacle, GГѓВ©rard Depardieu provesonce again that he is one of our times' major actors. Given theunderwrittenpart of Police Minister Joseph FouchГѓВ©, Depardieu imbues the least move,thesimplest word, with a haunted complexity he creates entirely on his own(andwhich constitutes a fascinating reading of FouchГѓВ©'s historical character:Depardieu's creation contains more valid historical speculation than theentire screenplay.) His FouchГѓВ© sees the quasi-totalitarian secret policeheinvents and runs (it was FouchГѓВ© who thought of making every concierge inFrance a police informer) as the last defense against the brutality of thedictatorial state. "If we know the thoughts of the citizens," he implies,"we can prevent them from committing crimes, and therefore spare them theexcessive brutalities of widespread repression." It's a flawedrationalization, and his FouchГѓВ© is a dark and tortured bear of a man,hopingvainly but ceaselessly for a goodness that eludes him. Depardieu alonewouldmake this production bearable, but there simply isn't enough of himonscreen.

maxime-20

(2013-05-18 12:03:13)

Another battle Napoleon lost

Being interested in the subject and seeing the amazing cast it had, Ithought i would enjoy this mini-series and put both DVDs (eps 1-2 andeps 3-4) on my Netflix. What a disappointment! I had to force myself toget through episode 1. I thought it might get better with the secondepisode, but no such luck. The story keeps dragging, the acting isuninspiring, the dialog plain boring and almost laughable. Yes, this isone of the most expensive European productions ever made, but no matterhow much money they spent on this, it still looks cheaply done. Thecolors are so over the top vibrant and colorful that it lacks anyauthenticity. And honestly, with its $46 million budget, would it havebeen so hard to find a real, beautiful sunset near the French sea costinstead of putting Clavier in front of a super fake looking greenscreen??? What was the most disappointing about this production is theacting. And honestly, you can't blame the actors for it. The script anddialog they had to work with is just terrible, over dramatic and waytoo wordy. Not everything needs to be explained. Not every character'sname need to be mentioned in every single line of dialog. Less is more.But here, more is the norm. Well, I now realize I need to log ontoNetflix, and delete my next film in my queue: Napoleon Disc II.

jean-no

(2013-05-17 21:31:57)

The worst at his best

Christian Clavier is a french comic actor of the kind of Louis De Funes : hejumps, shouts, takes a stupid voice. Actually he can be funny - well he hasever been funny, like in "les bronzГѓВ©s"... twenty-five years ago. GivingClavier the part of Napoleon was not a very good idea : for the frenchaudience it is ridiculous (just imagine Jerry Lewis in George Washington orRonald Reagan as a president). But that is not the worst. The director'swork is a shame, you can see magnificent places and objects shot just as ifit was a not very good promotional music video. There is a few combat scenesthat really suck. To end, the script is not very clever and some computeranimations used to show geographic facts look like the average BBCdocumentary style. A really awful TV-movie.

Andrew Kim

(2013-05-17 12:19:07)

A Magnificent Work... Underrated, but a few Errors..

With an exceptional performance by Clavier, and the rest of theNapoleon cast, this multi-million dollar miniseries is highlyunderrated. It depicts Napoleon's life well for such a short lifespan,but there are a few mistakes that accompany the film.First, Malkovich wasn't the best choice to play the renowned diplomatTalleyrand. Malkovich portrays him in a rather bland and placid manner,and the director shows him as a bit of a weakling, whereas Talleyrandwas one of the most powerful men in all Europe -- even after Napoleon'sdefeat.Second, Alain Doutey as Marshal Ney... not as enthusiastic as the realMarshal Ney would have been. His famous line, repeated in the film, wassaid unenthusiastic and without spirit.Simoneau would have done better had he shown elements of the Duke ofWellington to contrast the two military leaders... we definitely didn'treally want to see the blubbering Louis XVIII, or the King/Prince ofSpain, for that matter.Other than that however, the rest of the performances were fantastic.Josephine, Caulaincourt, Caroline Bonaparte, Murat -- and of course,the Emperor Napoleon, were all shown true to form.

Lisa H.

(2013-05-14 16:44:09)

Excellent

Not all movies have the BEST graphics, and maybe this one didn't havegraphics that would blow you away, but that wasn't really the point, anditlooked fine, to me.I caught part of this on A&E, recently. I watched a few minutes, thenturned the channel to watch a regular show. I came back to it, andwatchedthe end of the first half. The next day, I ran into the second part. Imissed quite a bit, but watched the last hour, or so. I started cravingtherest of it. I got online and did a search, found it was out on DVD, andmade a trip to my local video retailer. I got the 3-DVD set and havesincemade a website devoted to Christian Clavier because I thought he did awonderful job, and this movie made me a fan almost instantly. I've alwaysliked Isabella Rossellini, and her role as Josephine was veryconvincing.I've always been a fan of Napoleon movies, and I've seen several, but thisone has to be the best. The interaction between Napoleon and Josephineandthe action during the war scenes had me on the edge of my seat. Mostpeopleknow how the end turned out, but that didn't stop me from thinking thatthings would be different.I highly recommend this movie, in DVD format for the "making of" section.Iwish I had watched this in high school because I would have learned quiteabit.Go watch this movie!

S Bodmann

(2013-05-14 11:16:51)

Well-made and interesting

This series, consisting (in Germany) of 4 parts, tells the story of themostimportant figure in French history, NapolГѓВ©on Bonaparte whose remarkablecareer started as a mere officer in an artillery regiment. The filmfocusesespecially on NapolГѓВ©on's (C. Clavier) relationship to his early love,Josephine, who is quite beautiful but also some years older than NapolГѓВ©on.Indeed, most of the film is centered largerly around the numerous affairsand relationships of the Emperor, who seeks an heir but also to strenghtenthe french influence in Europe.There are some quite fascinating battle-scenes, although, for a 42 millionEuro project, one might say they could've been done better. Obviously mostof the money has been spent on the wonderful costumes, and, naturally, onthe prominent cast, which includes some famous European, as well asAmercianactors.Generally, if you are interested in such kind of movies and have a certainknowledge of the historical facts, "NapolГѓВ©on" is absolutelyrecommendable. It might have some flaws, and some historical facts may be,to the normally educated, not clear, but then, it's only a TVmovie.And it's really rather enjoyable, bringing a fascinating period ofEuropeanhistory to life.

Jerry Kelly

(2013-05-13 12:15:44)

Christian Clavier is Napoleon

But for Americans like me who don't know that Christian Clavier is a merecomedian, he is the essence of Napoleon come to life. An excellentactingjob with a great supporting cast.

Emperor_Napoleon

(2013-05-12 23:21:57)

Brilliant

Well I watched the second episode and I recorded the 3rd and the 4th ones,and I was just blown away. I mean, I think, even though many will thinkthatI'm crazy, that this is one of the best movies ever made, even better thanband of brothers. Maybe some of the actors have slight flaws, butChristianClavier is nothing less than excellent as the Emperor. Some points may notbe accurate but the rest is so good it forgives some bad performances andunnecessary moments. The soundtrack is as well excellent, and fitsperfectlywith the movie.Isabella Rosselini wasn't all that great, but Heino Ferch as Calaincourtwasexcellent, playing some sort of a smart guy that at times could be a bitnaive.I loved this and Clavier's performance was great, what is that site ofyoursdude?

blaine3

(2013-05-12 10:51:24)

This Version of Napoleon did not quite make it.

Overall I was disappointed in comparing it to Sergei Bondarchuk's version of"Waterloo". However I realize that to make a film of Napoleons entire Careeron that scale would be impossible now (perhaps even then) due to financialand political considerations (there is no Red Army now to use in the battlescenes!)Isabella Rossellini as JosГѓВ©phine de Beauharnais was perfectly beautiful butnot nearly as calculating as the real JosГѓВ©phine.GГѓВ©rard Depardieu as Joseph FouchГѓВ© the minister of police was not nearly assinister as the character called for.Alexandra Maria Lara as Countess MarieWalewska didn't quite make it. Alain Doutey as MarГѓВ©chal Ney was too much ofan old fogey..he showed nothing of the reckless daring of the real Ney. Lastbut not least Christian Clavier as NapolГѓВ©on gave an uneven performance.Sometimes he was good in the more introspective scenes but I could not seethe charisma that would have inspired troops on to victory in thisNapoleon.On the plus side I thought John Malkovich was perfectly slimy as Tallyrand,although he looked nothing like the real Tallyrand. I appreciated that theyportrayed Armand Augustin Louis, (Marquis de Caulaincourt)as one ofNapoleon's closest confidants during his imperial period. Most films giveCaulaincourt short shrift. I think Caulaincourt was one of the morehonorable men associated with Napoleon.Toby Stephens as Tsar Alexander I wasone of the better portrayals of the Tsar. The scene where one of Napoleonsclosest confidants (I forget his name) had his head taken off by a cannon ashe was beside Napoleon was historically accurate as was Napoleons closerelationship with Marshal Lannes. Sebastian Koch as Marshal Jean Lannes, inhis death scene was good and I think the last words of Lannes werehistorically accurate, where he urged Napoleon to give up his lust forwar.Murat was shown to be Napoleons favorite commander right from the beginningwhen Napoleon saved the Assembly from the Royalist mob with a "whiff ofgrapeshot". Was this accurate?Where did that character with the turban playing the part of Napoleons valetcome from? Napoleon said he picked him up in Egypt. Napoleons valet most ofhis career was a Frenchman named Constant.I felt a bit of sadness when the loutish British governor was seenmistreating Napoleon, the depression and sense of isolation that must haveovercome Napoleon was evident. Napoleons relationship with the governorsdaughter (of whom Napoleon became quite fond) was not explored.

Vincent Ricci

(2013-05-11 23:46:23)

TV at Cinema's level !!!

The greatest man of all French history is back on TV !Of course, we all know (I hope so !) by heart the life of NapoleonBonaparteand so many films about it have been made but still, this one, maybebecausemade by French people (with some foreign actors) has this little thingwhichattracts the audience interest.The cast is amazing : Christian Clavier as NapolГѓВ©on, I.Rossellini,J.Malkovich and G.Depardieu are wonderful and on the contrary of what wecould expect, credible.So many talented actors in a TV mini, it's rare so it's inevitablyinteresting. I don't even talk about the fascinating atmosphere whichgiveslight to this movie !Well, from my memory of hard TV watcher, I don't remember of such a goodhistorical TV movie ! I even wonder why it didn't open on theatres!A great movie for the Emperor !

LCShackley

(2013-05-11 15:11:40)

A well-tempered Clavier makes a boring emperor

This is a gorgeous production, with great make-up, costumes, locations,battle scenes etc. (which were nominated for Emmys and other awards).But there are so many weak links in the cast that it makes the filmdifficult to enjoy.I guessed (correctly) early on in watching that this must have been adual-language film, with one cast shot in both English and French,which explains why so many of the actors seem uncomfortable with theirlines. Clavier's delivery is often so uncertain that the emotion of thescene is lost. Besides, he lacks the handsome bravura that all thepaintings of Napoleon convey so strongly. How can we believe that awhole country blindly followed this soft-spoken, dumpy little person?Gerard Depardieu seems to have forgotten whatever he learned aboutspeaking English back when he was an English film "flavor of the month"in the 1980s, although he hasn't lost his strong, menacing presence.Some of the supporting actors are wooden enough to have been Al Gore'sstunt doubles, delivering their lines like a child reciting at a classplay. John Malkovich practically phones in his part; haven't we seenenough of his mumbling, poker-faced, pursed-lipped villains for onelifetime? The ladies in the cast fare much better, with Isabella Rossellinitaking the top prize for believability and realistic emotions. But theOscar goes to Napoleon's war horse, who puts on a great show of fancystepping in one unforgettable scene! The production was shot in many ofthe actual buildings and rooms in which the action really took place,which lends some excitement and credibility. It is lovely to lookat...if it weren't for all those darned PEOPLE cluttering up thescenery.

pulp150

(2013-05-11 02:45:11)

wish Abel Gance were here

This is the best film about Napoleon I've ever seen!This is even the best than every remake abel gance himself madelater.Excellent! Voted 10!This I wrote for the 1927 version by Abel Gance.I wish he directed this epic. What a disappointment this mini serieswas.This was the dream of Abel Gance to make a series like this. I wish hedirected this. He would've made a marvelous epic. Not a boring one likethis.voted 5.

Nico Koolsbergen

(2013-05-09 17:13:11)

Interesting and accurate, but....

All my life I was fascinated by the Emperor of the French so I was gladto find this movie on DVD. As far as I know this is a pretty accuratedescription of the life and - particularly - the wars of NapolГѓВ©on. Iliked most of the actors and certainly Christian Clavier. However,three things could have been done better. To begin with there are toomany battle scenes while it's impossible to keep overview; instead Iwould have preferred more attention for the political developments inthe Napoleontic era. Then I don't understand why the movie is in theEnglish language; NapolГѓВ©on and his friends spoke French! My mainobjection is that it's difficult to identify with the main characters.Why does NapolГѓВ©on do what he does, what's going on in the minds ofMurat or Ney, what exactly attracts Walewska to Napoleon, etcetera? Forpeople interested in what NapolГѓВ©on might have moved, I stronglyrecommend the film 'Waterloo' (Bondarchuk 1970) with an overwhelmingNapolГѓВ©on played by Rod Steiger!

AJS218

(2013-05-09 13:25:36)

A mixed bag

On the plus side: the costumes and interiors are magnificent, IsabellaRossellini is good as Josephine, the historical events depicted arepresented accurately, and the series gets better as it goes along(don't give up after the muddled first episode!).On the minus side: we never really get a feel for what Napoleonactually stood for or why and how he was such a military genius, thefilm dwells on his private life when it could be dealing with the hugesocial and political issues of the time, the actors playing some of thesecondary characters are laughably bad (Murat, Ney, Marie-Louise), andone has to strain to hear the dialogue (due to the foreign accents,background noise and music).As for Christian Clavier, it's amazing how the comments on hisperformance stretch from "brilliant" to "trash." My own view is that hewas off the mark as the younger Napoleon, but as the mature Napoleonhad basically the right look and plenty of gravitas.A good contribution to the body of film about the Emperor but also fullof flaws.

Jack Jensen

(2013-05-09 03:32:56)

Strange movie

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

(2013-05-08 17:04:25)

Napoleon's epic in .... soap opera style

What a shocking disappointment. I bought the Napoleon 2 DVDs edition, asagift to myself for Christmas and, what a waste of money . and timewaitingfor it. The product is so bad in contents as in features; it even lackstheactual almost standard Close Captioning.I have read some biography and historical books about Bonaparte and histime, and I can't stand for Depardieu casting Fouche, I think it could bebetter as a Marshal, Ney, Lannes of somebody like them.Napoleon casting actor is anything but `imperial', for the man who forgedbyhimself the greatest empire in human history. Where are the famousMarshals?Across hours and hours of soap opera, all we see is two or three puppetsinuniform. The top of ridiculous is the mid-eastern bodyguard Napoleon gotfrom his Egypt campaign, remarkable.You get tired of see Napoleon, alone, reading papers or playing with mapsand lead soldiers, lost in the immensity of the palaces, and theoveracting(as many of his plays) Malkovich spying through doors.Napoleon spent his years as France head of state, when in office,surroundedby tens and hundreds of clerks, messengers, ministers (not only Police -Fouche and Foreign Affairs - Talleyrand), aides du camp, and . in firstplace, his `Joint of Chiefs', leaded by the superb MarshalBerthier.At last, but not least in the insanity, the time (and the weight on thedrama) gift to Josephine de Beauharnais. She was an important lady ofFrenchhigh society, but the emperor's romance with her was short in time -againstthe almost 20 years he commanded France destiny - and, more important,probably was calculated from his part, because the important connectionsandrelations 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 himgeneral,prince of the empire and Viceroy of Italy. Eugene was fighting for hisstepfather from 1796 to 1814. But, he earned all these awards because hisown merits as a fine officer and not because his mother influenced overtheemperor.