History Professor Reviews Napoleon Movie. Fact vs. Fiction

The biggest one was having him return from Elba because Josephine was on the front page in drawing dancing with the russian emperor. That's pure fiction. He returned from Elba in 1815. She died in 1814.

FUN FACT; napoleon was a centimeter or two above the avarage for that time period. UK propaganda machine started that myth to attack his masculinity. and it didnt help that he picked tallest soldiers for his personal guard. basicly, he was often surrounded by tallest ppl. sorry for bad grammar/spelling, english is my 2nd language.

As a history buff, I spent most of my time while watching this movie shaking my head and rolling my eyes. Just talking about Waterloo... there were no trenches at Waterloo, the British infantry didn't ADVANCE into the open to form their squares, the Prussians didn't arrive on the British RIGHT flank they arrived on their LEFT, and - WORST OF ALL - Napoleon didn't LEAD A CHARGE ON HORSEBACK at Waterloo. Just an awful movie, and so sad that many people will think that they're learning real history from this monstrosity of a movie.

It honestly felt like Ridley Scott was just recasting Phoenix as Commodus again.

As a fellow historian and legal history professor, I appreciate your take on the movie. I 100% agree with your assessment. Throughout the media blitz leading up to this movie, I purposely tried to avoid reading or watching anything just to ensure I could go in as unbiased as possible. My wife and I saw it last night and I would have walked out had we not been there with friends. Without going into specifics, the generality that I've been thinking about all day is the movie couldn't decide what it wanted to be: 1) a war epic; 2) a social/political commentary; or 3) a biopic on Napoleon's dysfunctional relationship with Josephine. I kept hoping it would commit to something. There simply wasn't enough time with a little over 2 and a half hours to do all. Personally, I was disappointed we didn't see anything about the intellectual side of Napoleon, specifically the man who actively participated in Council of State sessions, which led to the Napoleonic Code. Overall, despite the fact the movie was obviously biased and a chop shop special attempting to weave a comprehensible narrative of Napoleon's life, I recall a statement a professor in graduate school always said every time someone would complain about historical portrayals in popular media -- "History needs all the help it can get."

Anyone with a genuine interest should read Napoleon The Great (it’s also called Napoleon: A Life) by Andrew Roberts for the definitive account of Napoleon’s life. I also enjoyed Adam Zamoyski’s book on the Russian campaign called 1812: Napoleon’s Fatal March on Moscow.

Vanessa Kirby as Josephine stole/dominated every scene she was in, but she was the wrong actress for that role. Josephine was six years older than Napoleon.

The PBS 4-part documentary on Napoleon can be seen on YouTube and is spectacular--a feast of sights and sounds (brilliant music). It is done in the Ken Burns ("The Civil War") style that makes it far more entertaining. It includes lots of great commentary from noted experts. Do yourself a favor and watch it

The whole movie looks like Ridley Scott had a strong aversion against Napoleon. To start with the beheading of the French queen gives you a dark feeling about what comes next. Napoleon is reduced to an excentric egomanic whiny prick which mirrors Phoenix' role in 'Gladiator'. In addition, he constantly gets humiliated by his wife, so that Napoleon is transformed into a predecessor of Will Smith here. In real life Napoleon had at least 3 sons with other women including one heir to his throne. The battle scene at Austerlitz shows him as a diabolical ice-cold killer who deliberately planned to let the enemy soldiers drown. As if this was his only genius!!! In reality, he stood on a hill inmidst his army like a conductor, constantly planning, reacting, commanding. He didn't need hidden cannons because the gunners opened fire on the ice themselves to prevent the Russians from fleeing. But it was also French soldiers who helped those trapped Russians so that later only very few human corpses were found in that ponds but lots of drowned horses. Altogether an unnecessary misleading movie that shows that human evolution is not straight forward but also retarded.

If you have other questions about the movie leave a comment. Also, let me know what you thought about the movie if you saw it.

I watched the video you made about Napoleon before this one; it was excellent and helpful. Thanks for making these mini documentaries!

Thanks so much. Heading off to see it later today. Really appreciate your analysis

I heard there is a 4 hour director’s cut that will be available on DVD. That will be interesting to see what was missed

Great review, professor. Emperor Bonaparte is such an iconic, larger than life figure. Perhaps the film writers attempted to "humanize" him by highlighting his vulnerabilities more so than his victories. Something may have been lost in translation between Scott, Phoenix, and crew that caused the project to miss the mark in so many ways. Still enjoyable tho.

Thank you for your review. I had the same reaction regarding the actor’s middle age compared to young twenty-something Napoleon. I thought the movie needed more emphasis on the political side of his life and less on the romance.

Just found ur channel super good content !

Thank you for this. Great review!

General Thomas-Alexandre Dumas is represented in the movie though not specifically mentioned by name.

Thank you for this! I enjoyed the film, but this is great information for compare and contrast!

Everyone disappointed by Napoleon should go see Waterloo with Rod Steiger. It’s much better, more historically accurate, and entertaining in general.