Word has come that Apple has no plans to release Ridley Scott’s four-hour cut of Napoleon “any time soon”, a monumental loss to fans.

  • reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 months ago

    They could have cut it into four one-hour chunks and labeled it a mini series. I’m guessing viewership for the existing movie has been low, so it feels like “sunk cost” to put any more effort into it.

    • tacosanonymous@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      That would imply that there were good places to stop and begin. Like mini arcs within the larger movie. But it didn’t even have one.

    • wjrii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I haven’t watched it. Was it bad like Kingdom of Heaven where taking time to explain shit might help somewhat, or bad like Zach Snyder where more would just be… more?

      • ArgentRaven@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s two totally different movies mashed together. The first one is Napoleon being an amazing general and taking over. The second is Josephine and Napoleon’s love story.

        The problem is, they had to cut out half of each movie to shoehorn in the plots from both, so neither is really well done. Why is Napoleon out in a position of leadership, and why is he so good at being a general? How did he get enough support to essentially take over and become emperor? No idea. Why did Josephine cheat on him, and did he cheat on her? Why did they stay together for so long? Where did she come from, how did she feel about suddenly becoming Empress? Did they start treating each other differently? Was an heir important to either of them personally, or was it a political requirement? Again, no idea.

        This movie couldn’t figure out if it wanted to be military history, or a love story. Pick a lane!

        • CraigeryTheKid@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          We just watched it as well, and as someone who only had BASIC knowledge of Napoleon, your comment is a very good summary.

          So many jumps in the movie were not only time jumps of unknown time - but also jumps between good leader, bad leader, good lover, bad lover – and sometimes it was really hard to keep track. Also, Joaquin was very stoic and flat - was that good acting as Napoleon? Or him being Joaquin?

          In the end, we are 2 very easy to please viewers, and our rating is “it was okay”.

      • Destroyer of Worlds 3000@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        He just looks bored and things happen. And then he looks bored again, repeat. I never bought he was Napoleon or what that was supposed to look like. Nothing stood out.

        • Marin_Rider
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          he was very uncharismatic for a guy that managed to rally a nation to himself several times

  • qevlarr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I thought it was fine. Not great but not bad either. No need to see a 4 hour cut