'Napoleon' is a hit with the box office, but not so much with critics

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited November 2023

Ridley Scott and David Scarpa's "Napoleon" for Apple TV+ has been praised as a masterpiece and mocked as a joke, but its early Thanksgiving opening saw it beat "Killers of the Flower Moon" at the box office.

Image Credit: Apple
Image Credit: Apple



"Napoleon" has just begun its theatrical run and according to Deadline has done well. For the Thanksgiving preview screenings, "Napoleon" took in $3 million, ahead of the $2.6 million that "Flower Moon" got.

With screenings beginning at 3 p.m. local time in selected theaters across the country, "Napoleon" easily beat Disney's "Wish," which earned $2.3 million.

However, "Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes" beat all other comers with a November 21, 2023, preview earning $6.5M. That's actually a 24% increase on its screenings for November 20, 2023.

Box office vs critical success



"Napoleon" is not doing so well with critics -- except when it is. The Guardian newspaper, for instance, awarded it five stars and said it was a "thrilling biopic." Except separately, the same publication says its inaccuracies mean the film is a travesty.

And another reviewer in The Guardian, Wendy Ide, says the film "only fully comes alive on the battlefield." Praising the performances and the spectacle, she gives the film three stars.

Currently RottenTomatoes shows the film having a 65% approval rating, based on 132 reviews.

It could well be French reviews that are pulling it down. As first collated by BBC News, French critics have thoroughly taken against the film, its characters, and it's cavalier attitude to historical accuracy.

Le Figaro, for instance, says the film should be renamed "Barbie and Ken under the Empire." French GQ said it was "deeply clumsy, unnatural and unintentionally funny" to see French soldiers in 1793 shouting "Vive La France" with American accents.

Then a Napoleon biographer hasn't just disagree with its accuracy, Patrice Gueniffey says that it is a "very anti-French and very pro-British" movie.

Ridley Scott's response to criticism



Director Ridley Scott, though, has been at best sanguine about France's response, and at worst has sworn at critics.

"The French don't even like themselves" Scott said in one of his more polite moments. "The audience that I showed it to in Paris, they loved it."

Elsewhere, Scott has countered criticism of historical accuracy by asking if the accuser was there in 1793, and telling them to shut up, then.

Apple has not announced a streaming date for the film. However, Ridley Scott has said that he hopes Apple TV+ will stream an extended version.

Read on AppleInsider

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    darkvaderdarkvader Posts: 1,146member
    Main takeaway from this article:  Ridley Scott is a dick.

    And apparently he needs to stick to scifi and stay away from history.  Nobody cares if Alien movies are historically accurate.
    FileMakerFellerwilliamlondonOfer
  • Reply 2 of 22
    darkvader said:
    Main takeaway from this article:  Ridley Scott is a dick.

    And apparently he needs to stick to scifi and stay away from history.  Nobody cares if Alien movies are historically accurate.
    Nobody truly cares if this is historically accurate, outside of history professors and some French film critics. We want to see the spectacle, the huge battlefield sequences that Scott is known for, and want to see Phoenix ham it up. That’s all. Nobody cared that Gladiator wasn’t note for note historically accurate. Good on Ridley for telling them to p*ss off, and come to think of it Adam Driver for doing the same when his film Ferrari got a ridiculous critique…we need more of that from the talent. 
    Fidonet127tmaytrackerozwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 22
    Speaking of criticism, you guys could use a proofreader. Some of that was tough to read. 
    unbeliever2williamlondon
  • Reply 4 of 22
    Wesley HilliardWesley Hilliard Posts: 260member, administrator, moderator, editor
    Speaking of criticism
    Rule number 3. If you've got an issue or see mistakes in the article, please send us an email. Complaining in the forums derails the conversation. The topic should be about the news, not how it was written.

    Thank you
    gatorguyronnForumPostwatto_cobrawilliamlondonOfer
  • Reply 5 of 22
    darkvader said:
    Main takeaway from this article:  Ridley Scott is a dick.

    And apparently he needs to stick to scifi and stay away from history.  Nobody cares if Alien movies are historically accurate.
    Nobody truly cares if this is historically accurate, outside of history professors and some French film critics. We want to see the spectacle, the huge battlefield sequences that Scott is known for, and want to see Phoenix ham it up. That’s all. Nobody cared that Gladiator wasn’t note for note historically accurate. Good on Ridley for telling them to p*ss off, and come to think of it Adam Driver for doing the same when his film Ferrari got a ridiculous critique…we need more of that from the talent. 
    Gladiator = 180 AD or thereabouts. Napoleon = early 1800s. There's a LOT more accurate historical information for the latter than the former. Not really sure why Scott wants to go with insults or boneheaded "were you there" comments for this film. He should just admit that he chose to include inaccurate elements and provide the reasoning.
    HonkersronnFileMakerFellerOfer
  • Reply 6 of 22
    Scott's dickheadedness in interviews has put me off what little interest I had in the film.  Napoleon is too interesting a person for accuracy to be so casuallydisregarded in a favour of a few cinematic set pieces and a whole load of scowling.  It looks like trash.
    ronnFileMakerFellerOfer
  • Reply 7 of 22
    darkvader said:
    Main takeaway from this article:  Ridley Scott is a dick.

    And apparently he needs to stick to scifi and stay away from history.  Nobody cares if Alien movies are historically accurate.
    Actually it’s the French are total dicks. 
    They hate us Brits, so anything that shows us in a better light than them, really riles them. 
    Tell me a historical film that doesn’t deviate from fact in order to dramatise the story. 
    watto_cobrawilliamlondonentropys
  • Reply 8 of 22
    Afarstar said:  Tell me a historical film that doesn’t deviate from fact in order to dramatise the story. 
    That's the point though: because non-documentary films often have inaccuracies it's kind of odd that Scott has such a defensive attitude about the inaccuracies in Napoleon. He's had a long career in film. Why not provide a more intelligent response about his reasoning for departing from historical accuracy? 
    edited November 2023 ronnFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 9 of 22
    darkvader said:
    Main takeaway from this article:  Ridley Scott is a dick.

    And apparently he needs to stick to scifi and stay away from history.  Nobody cares if Alien movies are historically accurate.
    Nobody truly cares if this is historically accurate, outside of history professors and some French film critics. We want to see the spectacle, the huge battlefield sequences that Scott is known for, and want to see Phoenix ham it up. That’s all. Nobody cared that Gladiator wasn’t note for note historically accurate. Good on Ridley for telling them to p*ss off, and come to think of it Adam Driver for doing the same when his film Ferrari got a ridiculous critique…we need more of that from the talent. 
    Sorry, I disagree. If you are making a historical biopic, be at least reasonably historically accurate! Otherwise, don't call it Napoleon. Call it Nelson Beneficent. There are far too many biopics/historical dramas being created today which completely warp and invent things. It's unnecessary, and leads to further misinformation. I can understand small inaccuracies, but have a real issue when film makers invent characters and interactions that never existed. I can't imagine a reasonably historically accurate Napoleon film could not have as much action, intrigue and passion as a concocted one.

    Having said this, I have not seen the Napoleon film so I can't say if people are nitpicking small inaccuracies, or if there are significant historical inaccuracies. However, I will say I do care about historical accuracy of films that assert themselves to be historical dramas. 
    FileMakerFellerwilliamlondonOfermuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 10 of 22
    mellis88 said:
    Having said this, I have not seen the Napoleon film so I can't say if people are nitpicking small inaccuracies, or if there are significant historical inaccuracies. However, I will say I do care about historical accuracy of films that assert themselves to be historical dramas. 
    Ditto. A good example of this is the HBO docudrama Chernobyl. By and large it seemed to stay true to events and the timeline, but (for example) at the same time consolidating many of the scientists who participated down to just a few for narrative purposes. 
    FileMakerFellerwatto_cobrawilliamlondon
  • Reply 11 of 22
    1348513485 Posts: 374member
    So much criticism about alleged historical inaccuracies, yet not a word describing these !horrors!. I don't know what to think, except I find it amusing that one of you railed about "inventing characters and interactions that never existed". Like every single movie ever made and most documentaries simply because no one was there recording the history, no one captured the thoughts and conversations, no one captured the accents of the speakers. 

    It's a great deal of supposition and second-guessing, at best. And it's entertainment crammed into a couple of hours, not testimony. 
    tmaywatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 22
    NYC362NYC362 Posts: 102member
    As a retired history teacher, inaccuracies in movies often drive me nuts.  When a big film came out, I would go through a list of what it got wrong with my students.  (Braveheart, for instance was one of the worst for accuracy.).  Even good films like Hidden Figures play all sorts of games with the timelines and inventing characters that didn't exist.  Steven Spielberg did that in Schindler's List- combining two or three real people into one fictitious character. The reasons for this is usually just time. Without playing games like that, movies would be two or three times as long.  

    Of course, it can get ridiculous.  I haven't yet seen Napoleon, so I can't comment on that film just yet.  The real problem is people will see a film about some historical event and not look up anything about the real version of things.  I can't watch For All Mankind because it's truly alternate view of history (of course it doesn't pretend to be factual at all) in some people's eyes will thing that's what happened.... UGH! 
    FileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 22
    The basic inaccuracy is the actor's age. Napoleon was 27  when he commanded the French army, 30 when the coup brought him to power. The vigor of his youth is part of the historic story.  Joaquin Phoenix is a weather-beaten 49. 
    ForumPostwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 22
    NYC362 said:
    As a retired history teacher, inaccuracies in movies often drive me nuts.  When a big film came out, I would go through a list of what it got wrong with my students.  (Braveheart, for instance was one of the worst for accuracy.).  Even good films like Hidden Figures play all sorts of games with the timelines and inventing characters that didn't exist.  Steven Spielberg did that in Schindler's List- combining two or three real people into one fictitious character. The reasons for this is usually just time. Without playing games like that, movies would be two or three times as long.  

    Of course, it can get ridiculous.  I haven't yet seen Napoleon, so I can't comment on that film just yet.  The real problem is people will see a film about some historical event and not look up anything about the real version of things.  I can't watch For All Mankind because it's truly alternate view of history (of course it doesn't pretend to be factual at all) in some people's eyes will thing that's what happened.... UGH! 
    Don't get me started on U-571...

    Part of the problem is that even when you know the historical record, bits of the movies still come to mind when you think about the subject. It is incredibly difficult to separate the different sources after a while - then again, one should always read the historical accounts with a healthy dose of scepticism as well.

    It's not a recent phenomenon, either - Rameses II erected many monuments celebrating his "victory" over the Hittites in the 13th Century BCE, each monument telling a more fanciful version of events the closer it is to Egypt. The Roman Emperor Octavian (commonly known as Augustus) deliberately publicised events during his reign as happening in a different chronological order some twenty years after the fact.

    So if anyone is going to watch the Napoleon movie, I encourage them to research the available historical documents beforehand. The first time you encounter information about something you assume it is the truth, and that is very hard to shift later on.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 22

    darkvader said:
    Main takeaway from this article:  Ridley Scott is a dick.

    And apparently he needs to stick to scifi and stay away from history.  Nobody cares if Alien movies are historically accurate.
    Nobody truly cares if this is historically accurate, outside of history professors and some French film critics. We want to see the spectacle, the huge battlefield sequences that Scott is known for, and want to see Phoenix ham it up. That’s all. Nobody cared that Gladiator wasn’t note for note historically accurate. Good on Ridley for telling them to p*ss off, and come to think of it Adam Driver for doing the same when his film Ferrari got a ridiculous critique…we need more of that from the talent. 
    I cared. Even a cursory introduction to the history of the Roman Empire shows that their success in battle came from the rigid formations they stuck to; the first battle scene in Gladiator showed a wild free-for-all and a complete lack of discipline that is antithetical to every account of the Roman Army.

    The ending part of the movie where Maximus kills the Emperor and is allowed to live? Moronic.

    There were plenty of ways to tell an inspiring story of a good soldier brought down by powerful enemies who then struggles through adversity to find redemption. The Gladiator movie chose none of those, and is the poorer for it.
    Honkers
  • Reply 16 of 22
    After watching the film, I have to say the rumored four plus hour cut would make more sense, in fact I think this should have been a mini series rather than a movie.  The the jumps in timline are just too great in my opinion.
    edited November 2023
  • Reply 17 of 22
    For All Mankind has been great. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 18 of 22
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,415member
    darkvader said:
    Main takeaway from this article:  Ridley Scott is a dick.

    And apparently he needs to stick to scifi and stay away from history.  Nobody cares if Alien movies are historically accurate.
    Nobody truly cares if this is historically accurate, outside of history professors and some French film critics. We want to see the spectacle, the huge battlefield sequences that Scott is known for, and want to see Phoenix ham it up. That’s all. Nobody cared that Gladiator wasn’t note for note historically accurate. Good on Ridley for telling them to p*ss off, and come to think of it Adam Driver for doing the same when his film Ferrari got a ridiculous critique…we need more of that from the talent. 

    Want to see better Ridley Scott movies watch The Duellist, Alien, and Blade Runner the first three movies made by Ridley Scott in a row in Hollywood and he has never come close since.

    The Duelist is one of the definitive films made about that era starring a young David Carradine and the always great Harvey Keitel. The movie also features a great supporting cast.
    edited November 2023
  • Reply 19 of 22
    Are you not entertained? For any history teacher or academic out there…have you ever thought that perhaps a movie can get students/people interested in history? How man google searches for “Napoleon” do you figure because of the film? Think about that before getting upset at “inaccuracies” from 250 years ago. What is accurate is that no one here now, was there then. So what’s documented in books, is well, a story. A story interpreted in thousands of different ways by academics. Loosen up.
  • Reply 20 of 22
    Dless75 said:
    So what’s documented in books, is well, a story. A story interpreted in thousands of different ways by academics. Loosen up.
    Weak.  Biographies and histories have sources, evidence.  The stories they weave are plausible guesses based on available information.  This film appears to have been indifferent to previous research in favour of full on "entertaining" fiction.  And the reviews coming in suggest that it hasn't paid off all that well, even in the entertainment stakes; very mixed.
    ronn
Sign In or Register to comment.