Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Sammy-Jo Cervantes There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

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.

dbdumonteil Among the historical works of Mister Guitry who epitomizes French humor,French wit and French spirit ,"Napoleon" is to my eyes the least interesting:it lacks the sweep of "Si Versailles M'Etait Conté " the absurd humor of the underrated "Si Paris M'Etait Conté" ,the madness of the "Perles de la Couronne ".Well and there is also "En remontant les Champs Elysees "....These big budgets works-there were only a few in France of the fifties ,foreign users would be surprised if they were told that only a very small percentage of movies were shot in color - have all something in common: the main character,Napoleon or La Fayette is played by not-very-famous actors (Here Raymond Pellegrin,in Gance's "Austerlitz " (not to be mistaken for his silent movie of 1927),it's Pierre Mondy ,and in Dreville's "La Fayette" ,it's Michel Le Royer,whereas the supporting cast includes all the who's who of the FRench cinema (not only ,Orson Welles shows up from time to time).For instance,in "Napoleon" there are plenty of stars:Michèle Morgan ,Danielle Darrieux,Jean-Pierre Aumont,Henri Vidal,Jean Gabin,Michel Simon,Jean Marais,Serge Reggiani,Pierre Brasseur,Daniel Gélin (as a young long-haired Napo) etc etc etc The film when you watch it in FRench is obviously desperately in need of humor,Guitry's forte.It looks like a beautiful pictures book which could be summarized as "Napoleon was a great man.Period".The less glorious episodes are almost passed over in silence ,like the Trafalgar disaster or the Russian retreat.Only Montand's song and Lannes ,now a legless cripple,pointing to the ambulance full of dying men and screaming "Enough!" have some emotional power.The crowning in Notre Dame is botched (Abel Gance found a better treatment of that scene in his own "Austerlitz ")Get the follow -up "Si Paris M'Etait Conté" instead !This was to be Guitry's testament

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.

Kirasjeri For the ultimate "Napoleon" experience we have to go to 1927 and Abel Gance's masterpiece. Guitry's version is solid - but it crams almost thirty years into one movie. Gance had a longer movie - but it ended in 1797; Waterloo was in 1815, and Guitry's account even went beyond Napoleon's death: it concluded with the glorious return of Napoleon's remains to Paris much later. Nonetheless, even though it moved from scene to scene too quickly and needed more character development, this is a solid historical account worth seeing. BEST OF ALL, both the Gance and Guitry versions give us an alternative interpretation of Napoleon instead of the usual Anglophile hate-filled anti-French propaganda, as seen in "Horation Hornblower" and others.