Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

dwpollar 1st watched 11/3/2013 -- 8 out of 10 (Dir- Abel Gance): ** version watched w/music score by Carmine Coppola, 235 minutes, best available on media currently ** Amazingly ahead of it's time representation of Napoleon's early life and battles. This silent movie uses a lot of techniques that had to be extremely difficult for the time -- including an attempt at widescreen using 3 separately filmed sections shown together in the final scenes, hand-held cameras, and extremely inventive flashbacks. The movie itself is enthralling most of the time with a slight lull in the section where Napoleon is on trial(seems to be missing some things). It start with an epic snowball fight with Napoleon as a child where conquest is encouraged by the school masters. Napoleon, of course, wins the battle which starts his foray into being a leader on these fronts. The French film uses a very skinny actor in Albert Dieudonne to portray the character who has a very eerie gaze that almost hypnotizes people into following his commands. The movie follows the path thru the ranks until he eventually becomes a general. His relationship with Josephine is also represented as he is shown multi-tasking his love life and his conquering in an almost comical way. Josephine early on becomes infatuated by his presence and the slightly plump actress, Gina Manes, portrays her well. A downfall is that the movie pretty much portrays everyone else as incompetent and is pretty one-sided emphasizing Napoleon's brilliance. The film teaches as well as entertains especially for those who really don't know much about the character besides the famous painting. The length of the movie didn't phase me -- in fact I'd like to see the original 330 minutes --- once it's available. The movie kept your interest despite this and is not to be missed for anyone who would like to know more about Napoleon Bonaparte or just want to delve into silent movies.

kubrick2899 Upon completing this film for the very first time, I had an experience I had never had before. I was breathless. For the first time, I can honestly say that a film took my breath away. The word "awesome" isn't awe-inspiring enough to describe how I felt. Every passing second of this nearly four hour long film brought new surprises and pulled my interest and attention closer and closer. I never wanted it to end. I'm sorry, but I just can't put into words exactly how I feel about this film. It's remarkable, groundbreaking, and the fastest four hours you're ever likely to spend watching a film. I watched it in one sitting, and it was over before I realized it.Okay, let me pause for a moment, catch my breath, and explain a little bit about the film itself.Originally, Abel Gance wanted to make a series of films about the French leader, but this is as far as he got. Therefore, the film mainly covers Napoleon's younger years, up to his first Italian campaign, just after his marriage to Josephine. What makes the film so groundbreaking is its many varied techniques, most of which are utilized today and taken for granted. For example, Gance used many different filming techniques, from hand-held cameras, to strapping the camera onto a horse, to hanging the camera on wires, to rapid-fire style editing, to overlapping images, and most famously, to the mind-blowing climax. Napoleon marks the first appearance of "widescreen". By setting three cameras side-by-side-by-side, Gance shot simultaneously, creating a 3.99:1 widescreen image. In original theatrical showings, the final 20 minutes of the film were projected on to three separate screens, expanding the image, and consuming the audience. As I said before, though, words can not do the film justice.So, do yourself a favor and buy a copy of this film. It's not easy to come by, but go on ebay, half.com, Amazon.com, or somewhere and buy a VHS or laserdisc of this film. It's an essential film for any film collection, especially for the film buff. The word "masterpiece" is just to puny a word.

Michael_Elliott Napoleon (1927) 1981 cut **** (out of 4) Abel Gance's technical marvel was certainly years ahead of its time but I'd guess that most people would find it a chore to sit through today. The film follows Napoleon as a child all the way up to mid-life where the film ends because the director had planned on making five more films in the series but could never get the backing. Storywise, there really isn't anything new here that we haven't seen in previous epics from Griffith or DeMille. What really separates this thing is its technical beauty, something that could be lost on those who don't know much about how films were back in the day. If anyone has a decent amount of knowledge about the silent era then this film will certainly knock their socks off. I would argue that the actual battle scenes were better in Intolerance and Ben-Hur but the scope here is certainly multiplied. The director was highly influenced by Griffith and even asked for his advice before going into this film and it's clear what Griffith told him, he took it to the next level. For starters, the first big battle takes place when Napoleon is a child and he and his friends are having a snowball fight. This might sound simple but the director makes a great battle of it. The next big moment happens when Napoleon is stuck on a small boat out at sea when a storm hits. The way this is edited together creates some great tension and even better are the various (at the time) strange camera movements that get you right into the storm. Another battle, taking place at night, during a rain storm, also looks wonderful. Not to mention the final battle scene where the director uses an early example of widescreen. This effect (three cameras side by side shooting) might not stand up to today's standards because it's easy to see where the "next screen" is but it still looks great.

Ninja Doll My recollection of "Napoleon" is of a wonderful evening of first-rate movie and first-rate score, with Gance's work on three screens and Carmine Coppola conducting a full orchestra. While it may not do justice to the continually evolving cinematic extravaganza described in the other review, it is nonetheless the version I've grown up with and viewing it remains one of my favorite life experiences.I applaud anyone who has had a hand in this project and has continued to update, revise, and otherwise revisit this very noble film. It seems to have taken on a life of its own in terms of restored versions. The newly performed work may be superior to Coppola's initial resurrection but without Coppola's vision, would it have become the phenomenon it is today? I'm pretty sure he's entitled to protect his initial investment (of time, energy, money, and media) even as the movie itself changes with each new find. In the end, the consumer (from any country) will seek out the version he wishes to own -- passing judgement by consumption.I would not hesitate to acquire both versions, frankly. It's not about who did the better job, it's about the evolution of the film since it was first dusted off.