Rating: 
Summary: BASED ON THE TV VERSION.....
Review: .....this extended version should be great! A fine performance by Christian Clavier as Napoleon, and a fine supporting cast. Epic battle scenes make this an exciting film! But the reason I don't give it five stars is that I wish they had spent more time on the battle of Waterloo, but I'm sure the eight-hour version should clear that up! Shoul-Be Grade: A+; Grade right now: A-
Rating: 
Summary: Springtime For Napoleon
Review: A major missed opportunity. I tried to like this film - I wanted to like it. But, in the end, I could only watch about half of it. I turned it off wondering why they had even tried to make it in the first place. The main problem - and there are many to choose from - is a script that tries to cram in too much but still manages to leave out even more, and assumes the audience is capable of filling in the gaps. Names are dropped at a furious rate but unless you are familiar with the history of the period, most will not mean anything and none are allowed to ever become anything resembling real people.
I can understand the necessity of compressing and streamlining such an eventful life. But what I find maddening and frustrating is that the decisions of what to include and what to leave out seem so arbitrary. For instance, at one moment we see Napoleon charging across the bridge at Arcole - the next moment he is suddenly back in Paris, the remainder of the Italian campaign forgotten. An important battle such as Marengo is only mentioned in passing. The depiction of the Egyptian campaign is even more muddled than the real thing and feels like it was tossed in as an afterthought. I finally gave up when Napoleon arrived in Poland and encountered Marie Walewska. The clumsy way that episode is handled is typical of this whole sorry enterprise.
The film doesn't even look right sometimes. Too much of it appears shiny and new - the costumes frequently look like they have just come off the wardrobe rack, fresh and never worn. Everything looks sterile - no set looks lived in. Much of it suggests all the authenticity of an old Hollywood swashbuckler filmed on the back lot. In fact, I think that MGM or Warner Brothers, back in the 1930's, would have done a better job.
Which leads us to consider the rather electic assortment of actors assembled to impersonate the historical (and occasionally hysterical) figures. Christian Clavier seems an inspired choice to play Napoleon, even if he occasionally awakens memories of Les Visiteurs. There are brief flashes of brilliance but, for the most part, he is fighting a losing battle against an unactable script. Sometimes his accent doesn't help either. Isabella Rossellini (looking more and more like her mother) is a good actress but displays no hint of the exotic Creole that Josephine was. John Malkovich is almost too good - stealing scenes effortlessly and showing what some of the other performances might have been. Gerard Depardieu, on the other hand, seems at times to be on autopilot which is strange since he is one of the producers. Most of the rest of the cast are so non-descript and one-dimensional that it becomes difficult to remember who is supposed to be who.
If you want to see a really good film about Napoleon, seek out, beg or borrow Abel Gance's silent masterpiece. But if you just want a trashy comic book version...this is it.
Rating: 
Summary: Awesome
Review: A&E did a marvelous job re-creating Napoleons life. I would have liked to see A&E go into more detail concerning historical events and lives of the people involed. Then the movie probably woudnt be titled strictly Napoleon. However, I have a very curious mind and would have like to further explore all faucets of the life, people and events in it. I do wish it were longer it would have definatly had no problem holding my attention. I love to see how Napoleon progressed and refined himself. He transformed himself from rough to refined and I got to watch the whole journey. Just a small example would be when he first took power, his look represented not only by clothes but composure was scratchy at best. As he progressed it unfolded into the definition of a stately ruler. Why wait, if you love a film caputuring genius and their life buy now.
Rating:
Summary: Awesome
Review: A&E did a marvelous job re-creating Napoleons life. I would have liked to see A&E go into more detail concerning historical events and lives of the people involed. Then the movie probably woudnt be titled strictly Napoleon. However, I have a very curious mind and would have like to further explore all faucets of the life, people and events in it. I do wish it were longer it would have definatly had no problem holding my attention. I love to see how Napoleon progressed and refined himself. He transformed himself from rough to refined and I got to watch the whole journey. Just a small example would be when he first took power, his look represented not only by clothes but composure was scratchy at best. As he progressed it unfolded into the definition of a stately ruler. Why wait, if you love a film caputuring genius and their life buy now.
Rating:
Summary: Flawed but entertaining
Review: A&E bolsters its already considerable reputation in the field of the mini-series with its lengthy treatment of Napoleon Bonaparte. "Napoleon," starring Christian Clavier as the diminutive conqueror, attempts to condense one of history's great figures into six short hours. Any effort to delve into the world of this complex individual will inevitably run up against time and budget constraints, and this mini-series is no exception to that rule, but A&E gives it the old college try anyway. The result is somewhat of a mixed bag. "Napoleon" generally succeeds in conveying to the audience a sense of selected aspects of the general's life, but simultaneously the program leaves out an enormous amount of important material. A deadly serious interpretation of Bonaparte's life would probably take twenty or thirty hours at the very least. It is possible to adequately cover ponderous topics in a mini-series, as the BBC production of William Makepeace Thackeray's "Vanity Fair" aptly proves, but trying to cover in depth a colossus like Napoleon is impossible. If you are willing to accept that the series will skip significant events, you can still enjoy the program. It helps that several notable actors signed on, specifically Isabella Rossellini as the emperor's wife Josephine, Gerard Depardieu as the wily head of the secret police Fouche, and John Malkovich as the super diplomat Talleyrand. During the later phases of the French Revolution, Napoleon Bonaparte was merely a minor general with a dream for greatness. "Napoleon" emphasizes the military officer's early ambitions quite well as we see him come up with a better plan to quell a riot, presumptuously marry the widow of a man executed during the Reign of Terror, and begin his rapid rise to the top of French politics. The movie covers Napoleon's campaigns in Egypt, his assumption of power during the fall of the Directory, and the consulate period. Napoleon the emperor portrays in some depth his controversial coronation, his fanaticism for heirs, Austerlitz, the invasion of Russia, and the first and second exiles. Too, we see the dramatic return of the emperor known as the Hundred Days, Waterloo, the forming and shattering of internal and external political alliances, assassination attempts, romantic involvements, and the love/hate liaison between the general and his wife. Important characters from history march across the stage, from Czar Alexander to the Pope to the ineffectual Louis the XVIII. A good way to critique the movie, and also an unavoidable one, is to look at what "Napoleon" either slights or ignores entirely. Unfortunately, quite a bit gets left out. The Napoleonic law codes receive short shrift, as does Trafalgar, Borodino, and Leipzig. In many ways, the viewer should expect this. The implementation of new laws throughout Europe just doesn't look that dramatic on the screen. Moreover, some battles had to be left out. How to portray a great naval battle like Trafalgar on a television sized budget? Still, the filmmakers probably should have paid more attention to Borodino. That battle, which Napoleon won at a fatal cost to his empire, in some respects marked the apogee of his power. Perhaps the largest flaw in this production is the lack of proper context. Napoleon rises, rules, and falls without any consideration given to the 1789 revolution that created an environment in which an upstart like Napoleon could assume power. Nor is the effect his rule had on Europe examined. The Congress of Vienna, anyone? How about the "Concert of Europe"? You can't even begin to understand modern Europe without looking at the reactionary backlash following the general's final defeat. The fact that Napoleon Bonaparte spread liberal French ideas about government throughout the conquered territories is more important than romance and battles. Sadly, such complex themes don't make for very interesting television in an era of short attention spans. I don't mean to be too hard on the series. I liked the production on a whole. The battle scenes we do see are fascinating to watch. So are the primary performances. Clavier turns in an effective performance portraying the emperor, as does Rossellini as the gregarious Josephine. The real joy is watching Malkovich ham it up as the inscrutable Talleyrand as he limps around leering and dropping sage political aphorisms. Depardieu is less interesting as the lumpy (there's no other way to say it) Fouche. The set pieces and costumes look divine whether they are historically accurate or not. It pains me to say it after blasting the series for heavy emphasis on dramatic battles, but my favorite scenes in the movie occurred at the beginning when Bonaparte quells that riot. He orders his troops to fire grape shot out of the cannons, and the special effects in these sequences were gruesomely effective. You literally see hunks of metal punching through bodies in slow motion. It's all quite gory, one would think too gory for television. The later battle scenes oddly do not use the same effect. As much as I turn my nose up at some of the blatant omissions in the movie, I must admit the mini-series is well worth watching. A bunch of extras adorn the three discs. While you don't get trailers or commentary tracks like you would on a theatrically released film transferred to DVD, you do get some stuff unique to A&E, such as Napoleon's "Biography" episode, a behind the scenes featurette, another documentary about Napoleon and the Wellington, and cast biographies. A giant in western history, Napoleon Bonaparte will probably never get a film treatment that will equal his life. If you wish to learn more about this amazing figure, plenty of books await your pleasure. Don't forget to read Tolstoy's "War and Peace" for an account of Borodino that will have you biting your nails. Clear six hours off your schedule and give this one a watch. It's entertaining, moderately informative, and looks wonderful. Thanks, A&E!
Rating:
Summary: Awesome
Review: A&E did a marvelous job re-creating Napoleons life. I would have liked to see A&E go into more detail concerning historical events and lives of the people involed. Then the movie probably woudnt be titled strictly Napoleon. However, I have a very curious mind and would have like to further explore all faucets of the life, people and events in it. I do wish it were longer it would have definatly had no problem holding my attention. I love to see how Napoleon progressed and refined himself. He transformed himself from rough to refined and I got to watch the whole journey. Just a small example would be when he first took power, his look represented not only by clothes but composure was scratchy at best. As he progressed it unfolded into the definition of a stately ruler. Why wait, if you love a film caputuring genius and their life buy now.
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointed is the the only word
Review: An interest in Josephine was why I saw this in the first place. But I was terribly disappointed. First of all, Josephine is supposed to be very elegant with a melodious voice, both of which are sadly absent in Isabella Rosellini. No matter how well she was able to capture Josephine's passion, some of it was badly misplaced, especially in the scene where she declares sorrow and curses. I'm not against older women, and I do not belive that all actresses should be like models, but Josephine is terribly miscast. The battle scenes were also very fake and cheap, not able to capture Napoleon valor or courage, nor that of any of his soldiers. Dialogue is more often stiff and uncomfortable than not. However, good performances as usual from Gerard Depardieu and John Malkovich, who played Talleyrand. Malkovich was perfect for the role, and sent chills down my spine. I'd recommend it, but only if you could stomach Josephine portrayed as an old hag and fishwife.
Rating:
Summary: As Good As it Gets in 6 Hours
Review: Apparently, many reviewers feel disappointed that the six-hour A&E miniseries on Napoleon did not include every battle, every major incident in the life of the famous Corsican. Let's be realistic for a moment. Even 1,000+ page books likes Chandler's The Campaigns of Napoleon do not cover all aspects of the Emperor's life. In order to provide the kind of in-depth coverage of Napoleon's 22-year career from Toulon to Waterloo, this mini-series would have to have been about 20-24 hours long and obviously cost about four times as much. Does anyone think that is going to happen in our quick-buck entertainment industry? Instead of grumbling about what the mini-series omitted, viewers should appreciate A&E's effort and recognize this mini-series for what it is: marvelous. My review of Napoleon: the Miniseries will discuss what material was included in these six hours, what was minimized, and what was omitted. The producers of Napoleon get scant credit for packing six major Napoleonic battles (Arcola, Austerlitz, Jena, Eylau, Aspern-Essling, and Waterloo) into this six-hour format. Each battle gets at least 5-10 minutes of coverage, which is enough to convey at least some of the highlights; reviewers who expected a Bondarchuk-style coverage of each action are unreasonable (and even he omitted key details in his film on Waterloo). Key events that receive significant treatment in the mini-series include: Napoleon's suppression of the Paris uprising in 1795, the Coup of Brumaire, an assassination attempt, the murder of Duke d'Enghien, the Treaty of Tilsit, Marie Walewska, the imperial coronation, Napoleon's abdication, the Hundred Days, exile on Elba and St Helena, and his death. Key personalities who receive major speaking roles include Marshals Ney, Murat, and Lannes; Talleyrand, Fouche, Josephine, Marie-Louise, Joseph, Lucien, and the Tsar Alexander. All in all, this is a huge amount of material. The mini-series covered five battles or campaigns in brief, usually with one quick scene or brief mention: the Egyptian Campaign, Trafalgar, the Peninsula War, the Russian Campaign, and the 1814 Campaign in France. A number of personalities, mostly military men, are also briefly depicted: Captain Muiron, Davout, Augereau, Berthier, Bernadotte, Soult, Grouchy, Eugene, Blucher, and Wellington. The only incidents briefly depicted are Napoleon's schoolboy days at Brienne, which are covered in two historically inaccurate scenes. Obviously, a great deal of material just could not fit in the six-hour format. Ten major battles or campaigns were entirely omitted: the siege of Toulon, most of the 1796 Italian campaign, the Pyramids, the Syrian campaign, Marengo, Auerstadt, Friedland, Wagram, Borodino, and Leipzig. Omitted incidents include most of Napoleon's first 26 years, Napoleon abandoning armies in Egypt & Russia, and the Treaty of Campo Formio 1797. A number of significant marshals, such as Massena, Oudinot, and Junot are not mentioned once. I think the only valid criticism that can be made about these omissions is that the producers tended to enhance the importance of a few minor characters such as Muiron or Roustam, at the expense of historically more important figures like Berthier. There are a number of criticisms that could be made about how the historical material is presented. First, the transitions between most of the major events are poor; this mini-series desperately needs brief narrative blurbs to describe what is happening or just happened (e.g. we see the retreat from Moscow, but there is no mention of the scale of this catastrophe. A brief slide could have said, "Napoleon invaded Russia with 600,000 men and only 40,000 made it back to Poland.). Second, there is a general failure to properly introduce Napoleon's family members or marshals properly. The result is that these characters keep appearing out of nowhere and viewers unfamiliar with this period will be wondering, "just how many brothers and generals does this guy have?" Finally, the mini-series makes no real effort to attempt to explain the reasons for Napoleon's rise or fall; things happen, one after another, until he ends up on St Helena. Obviously the 6-hour format is again partly the culprit for this failure to analyze or explain, but part of it lies in the fact that the film tends to see events though Napoleon's eyes (which helps to engender empathy in the viewer). Napoleon was indeed oblivious to many of the events and people working toward his downfall, and this mini-series imposes that same tunnel vision upon the viewer. In sum, Napoleon: the mini-series could not possibly hope to cover all of this man's very busy life in only 6 hours, but A&E makes an honest effort and the result is the best portrayal of the Emperor's life to date. The writers should also be congratulated for depicting Napoleon in a manner that gains empathy for his insights while not hiding his misdeeds. If anything, this is the kind of film that should spur viewers to read more about Napoleon in order to find out more about omitted details. Thank you A&E!
Rating:
Summary: As Good As it Gets in 6 Hours
Review: Apparently, many reviewers feel disappointed that the six-hour A&E miniseries on Napoleon did not include every battle, every major incident in the life of the famous Corsican. Let's be realistic for a moment. Even 1,000+ page books likes Chandler's The Campaigns of Napoleon do not cover all aspects of the Emperor's life. In order to provide the kind of in-depth coverage of Napoleon's 22-year career from Toulon to Waterloo, this mini-series would have to have been about 20-24 hours long and obviously cost about four times as much. Does anyone think that is going to happen in our quick-buck entertainment industry? Instead of grumbling about what the mini-series omitted, viewers should appreciate A&E's effort and recognize this mini-series for what it is: marvelous. My review of Napoleon: the Miniseries will discuss what material was included in these six hours, what was minimized, and what was omitted. The producers of Napoleon get scant credit for packing six major Napoleonic battles (Arcola, Austerlitz, Jena, Eylau, Aspern-Essling, and Waterloo) into this six-hour format. Each battle gets at least 5-10 minutes of coverage, which is enough to convey at least some of the highlights; reviewers who expected a Bondarchuk-style coverage of each action are unreasonable (and even he omitted key details in his film on Waterloo). Key events that receive significant treatment in the mini-series include: Napoleon's suppression of the Paris uprising in 1795, the Coup of Brumaire, an assassination attempt, the murder of Duke d'Enghien, the Treaty of Tilsit, Marie Walewska, the imperial coronation, Napoleon's abdication, the Hundred Days, exile on Elba and St Helena, and his death. Key personalities who receive major speaking roles include Marshals Ney, Murat, and Lannes; Talleyrand, Fouche, Josephine, Marie-Louise, Joseph, Lucien, and the Tsar Alexander. All in all, this is a huge amount of material. The mini-series covered five battles or campaigns in brief, usually with one quick scene or brief mention: the Egyptian Campaign, Trafalgar, the Peninsula War, the Russian Campaign, and the 1814 Campaign in France. A number of personalities, mostly military men, are also briefly depicted: Captain Muiron, Davout, Augereau, Berthier, Bernadotte, Soult, Grouchy, Eugene, Blucher, and Wellington. The only incidents briefly depicted are Napoleon's schoolboy days at Brienne, which are covered in two historically inaccurate scenes. Obviously, a great deal of material just could not fit in the six-hour format. Ten major battles or campaigns were entirely omitted: the siege of Toulon, most of the 1796 Italian campaign, the Pyramids, the Syrian campaign, Marengo, Auerstadt, Friedland, Wagram, Borodino, and Leipzig. Omitted incidents include most of Napoleon's first 26 years, Napoleon abandoning armies in Egypt & Russia, and the Treaty of Campo Formio 1797. A number of significant marshals, such as Massena, Oudinot, and Junot are not mentioned once. I think the only valid criticism that can be made about these omissions is that the producers tended to enhance the importance of a few minor characters such as Muiron or Roustam, at the expense of historically more important figures like Berthier. There are a number of criticisms that could be made about how the historical material is presented. First, the transitions between most of the major events are poor; this mini-series desperately needs brief narrative blurbs to describe what is happening or just happened (e.g. we see the retreat from Moscow, but there is no mention of the scale of this catastrophe. A brief slide could have said, "Napoleon invaded Russia with 600,000 men and only 40,000 made it back to Poland.). Second, there is a general failure to properly introduce Napoleon's family members or marshals properly. The result is that these characters keep appearing out of nowhere and viewers unfamiliar with this period will be wondering, "just how many brothers and generals does this guy have?" Finally, the mini-series makes no real effort to attempt to explain the reasons for Napoleon's rise or fall; things happen, one after another, until he ends up on St Helena. Obviously the 6-hour format is again partly the culprit for this failure to analyze or explain, but part of it lies in the fact that the film tends to see events though Napoleon's eyes (which helps to engender empathy in the viewer). Napoleon was indeed oblivious to many of the events and people working toward his downfall, and this mini-series imposes that same tunnel vision upon the viewer. In sum, Napoleon: the mini-series could not possibly hope to cover all of this man's very busy life in only 6 hours, but A&E makes an honest effort and the result is the best portrayal of the Emperor's life to date. The writers should also be congratulated for depicting Napoleon in a manner that gains empathy for his insights while not hiding his misdeeds. If anything, this is the kind of film that should spur viewers to read more about Napoleon in order to find out more about omitted details. Thank you A&E!
Rating:
Summary: A Good Spectacle
Review: As with any other movie dealing with historical figures on the magnitude of Napoleon (i.e. Alexander The Great or Caesar) there are many ommissions and poetic licenses to gripe about. Despite its limitations, the film does cover a lot of the important characters who were involved in Napoleon's rule and is complemented by good sets, costumes, and acting.
Christian Clavier played the part of Napoleon quite well as a man driven by passion and ambition. I found Isabella Rossellini's Josephine to be a good depiction of the flirtatious opportunist whom Napoleon loved so dearly. One of the best performances was by John Malkovich as the scheming archbishop, Talleyrand, whom Napoleon thought of as a pile of s**t in a silken glove. I thought Gerard Depardieu's performance as Fouche to be also quite good. It's unfortunate that the film decided to omit some of Napoleon's earlier campaigns such as the one in Egypt where, standing in front of the pyramids, he told his men to remember in awe as here the work of 40 centuries stands over them.
Overall it was a good mini-series with a good screenplay and sets. The actors were all performed very well. A good movie to watch alone or with the family.
|
