ShangLuda Admirable film.

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

MartinHafer I was surprised to see that this historical film was made by Sacha Guitry—an auteur known for his comedies. This film is no comedy, but more like a slobbery film that portrays Napoleon as a wonderful guy! Now the fact that it the film liked this evil sociopath isn't completely surprising, as it was made by the French. But why was this film about such an important historical figure so dull?! Instead of telling the story in a conventional way, it's told through flashbacks—and comes off more like a documentary than a bio-pic. In other words, we see little snippets and they often are narrated. Why not just let the story tell itself? Why the device of having an old soldier reminiscing about his beloved Emperor? It's really a shame, as the film is at times quite grand. It was filmed at the various palaces occupied by Napoleon. And, its battle sequences are very good---though the insanely big and expensive Russian version of "War and Peace" sure has "Napoleon" beat by a wide margin in this regard. Overall, it's a very beautiful but dull film—one that certainly should have been more exciting and interesting. Some more energy and emotion sure would have helped! By the way, occasionally the film minimized or ignored Napoleon's failures. For example, there is no mention that his Egyptian campaign was a total failure. Also, they TOLD that Napoleon's retreat from Moscow went badly—but didn't show it or really talk about it! As I said, the film sure seemed very pro-Napoleon and never talked about all the people killed by him nor the countries he enslaved and sacked. Despite what the film asserts, Napoleon was one of history's biggest butt-heads, to say the least.

radu_cucraciun i'm sorry but for such a big fan of hist(e)orical accuracy i think, and it is just a honest opinion that you should have made a spell check on your post. Then you would have acknowledged the fact that the word "emporor" written with a capital E does not restore the Emperor's honor not even when compared to Sacha Guitry's terrible attempt...But your little spelling error tells us more about the "type of cat" you are more then it tells us about Guitry's failure to satisfy your taste in historical re- enactments. I'ts not like you had to direct a whole movie...you just made a small comment on it...and look how it turned out...well good chance in finding something better then Abel Gance's silly re-enactment...as if artistic films should do just that...re-enact things as close as possible to your own petty little view...and i see that you are not only an expert in historical movies and how they should be done, but that you are also an expert in type casting, movie business and what not...it's good to see that people like you are still around, so the whole thing doesn't crumble to pieces... keep up the good work of being you, and long live the Emporor...right right?

pelopen3bc There are people who despise Napoleonic love films, and I am one of them, because they have almost nothing to do with the true character of Napoleon. There are so very few Napoleon war epics that finding this seemed great. This movie makes those sappy love films look good.I start off by saying it is incredibly boring; practically unbearable. Second, cramming Napoleon's life into such a short time frame is ludicrous; that's a job for Kubrick.Now, most people don't like to nitpick, but I do, and these things not only make for a bad historical film, but just a bad film in general.1. Too much reliance on narration; almost no speaking lines.2. Toulon taking place on a bright sunny day? 3. Napoleon's 1790's uniform looks like it was made by a 4th grader's mother.4. "Whiff of grapeshot" taking place on a bright sunny day? 5. Tell me the point of the garden dancing scene.6. Napoleon's charge at the Bridge of Arcole mysteriously morphs into a painting.7. Napoleon's Egyptian servant was a black man in a Santa Clause costume? 8. To transition from the young looking Napoleon to the older Napoleon, the director uses a "new haircut" scene, in which he just switches the actors. Tell me that isn't clever film-making! 9. The mighty Battle of Austerlitz in interrupted by a giant green laser. I'm not kidding.10. The helmets of the Imperial Guard troops are about three times as large as they should be. You cannot look at them without laughing.11. During a battle with Austria, an Austrian grenadier randomly decides to do an awe-inspiring front flip while charging down a hill. Bravo.12. The spectacle of Moscow burning is obviously a model set up 3 feet from the window set piece.13. Waterloo was pathetic. Napoleon had one poorly dubbed line in the entire scene. A British soldiers gets smacked in the face with a cherry bomb. The Old Guard sings. The suspense of whether it was French or Prussian reinforcements lasts about half of a second. French and British troops charge each other, reach each other, and then stand there.14. Orson Welle's "me not talk-talk" acting technique makes him look like Frankenstein in a British uniform.15. Napoleon returns as a zombie at the end of the film.16. The "The End" title card looks like it was borrowed from "West Side Story".This film is good to laugh at, but as far as a Napoleonic film goes, or a film in general, it is by no means worth your time. Avoid it like the plague. Try Abel Gance's "Napoleon" or perhaps "Waterloo".

Chuck-185 This poorly made inexcusable film tries to be too sympathetic to Napoleon and is loaded with innumerable historical inaccuracies. Talleyrand doing the narration is absurd to begin with since he continually back stabbed Napoleon at every turn. Whether one loves the Emperor or loathes him, this movie will only bore you to tears. The acting is wooden and monotonous with the characters all indistinguishable from each other. The famous Battle of Waterloo is given all of one minute without even mentioning Napoleon's opposition and the retreat from Moscow isn't even shown at all. Anything worthwhile that Napoleon did in his lifetime is also completely left out. Lastly, Orson Welles as Sir Hudson Lowe (Napoleon's jailer on St. Helena) is the most incredible case of miscasting I've ever seen in any movie. It just shows how far Welles' stock had fallen in Hollywood to be involved in this farce just for a paycheck. Abel Gance's "Napoleon" from 1927 is still the film to see if one is interested in the life of the Emporer. Napoleon was at least an entertaining and animated conqueror/dictator. In this 1955 version starring Daniel Gelin, he is merely a glaring monosyllabic moron.