Customer Reviews

Napoleon (TV Miniseries) [VHS]

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(15)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

Apparently, many reviewers feel disappointed that the six-hour A&E miniseries on Napoleon did not include every battle, every major incident in the life of the famous Corsican. Let's be realistic for a moment. Even 1,000+ page books likes Chandler's The Campaigns of Napoleon do not cover all aspects of the Emperor's life. In order to provide the kind of in-depth coverage of Napoleon's 22-year career from Toulon to Waterloo, this mini-series would have to have been about 20-24 hours long and obviously cost about four times as much. Does anyone think that is going to happen in our quick-buck entertainment industry? Instead of grumbling about what the mini-series omitted, viewers should appreciate A&E's effort and recognize this mini-series for what it is: marvelous. My review of Napoleon: the Miniseries will discuss what material was included in these six hours, what was minimized, and what was omitted.

The producers of Napoleon get scant credit for packing six major Napoleonic battles (Arcola, Austerlitz, Jena, Eylau, Aspern-Essling, and Waterloo) into this six-hour format. Each battle gets at least 5-10 minutes of coverage, which is enough to convey at least some of the highlights; reviewers who expected a Bondarchuk-style coverage of each action are unreasonable (and even he omitted key details in his film on Waterloo). Key events that receive significant treatment in the mini-series include: Napoleon's suppression of the Paris uprising in 1795, the Coup of Brumaire, an assassination attempt, the murder of Duke d'Enghien, the Treaty of Tilsit, Marie Walewska, the imperial coronation, Napoleon's abdication, the Hundred Days, exile on Elba and St Helena, and his death. Key personalities who receive major speaking roles include Marshals Ney, Murat, and Lannes; Talleyrand, Fouche, Josephine, Marie-Louise, Joseph, Lucien, and the Tsar Alexander. All in all, this is a huge amount of material.

The mini-series covered five battles or campaigns in brief, usually with one quick scene or brief mention: the Egyptian Campaign, Trafalgar, the Peninsula War, the Russian Campaign, and the 1814 Campaign in France. A number of personalities, mostly military men, are also briefly depicted: Captain Muiron, Davout, Augereau, Berthier, Bernadotte, Soult, Grouchy, Eugene, Blucher, and Wellington. The only incidents briefly depicted are Napoleon's schoolboy days at Brienne, which are covered in two historically inaccurate scenes.

Obviously, a great deal of material just could not fit in the six-hour format. Ten major battles or campaigns were entirely omitted: the siege of Toulon, most of the 1796 Italian campaign, the Pyramids, the Syrian campaign, Marengo, Auerstadt, Friedland, Wagram, Borodino, and Leipzig. Omitted incidents include most of Napoleon's first 26 years, Napoleon abandoning armies in Egypt & Russia, and the Treaty of Campo Formio 1797. A number of significant marshals, such as Massena, Oudinot, and Junot are not mentioned once. I think the only valid criticism that can be made about these omissions is that the producers tended to enhance the importance of a few minor characters such as Muiron or Roustam, at the expense of historically more important figures like Berthier.

There are a number of criticisms that could be made about how the historical material is presented. First, the transitions between most of the major events are poor; this mini-series desperately needs brief narrative blurbs to describe what is happening or just happened (e.g. we see the retreat from Moscow, but there is no mention of the scale of this catastrophe. A brief slide could have said, "Napoleon invaded Russia with 600,000 men and only 40,000 made it back to Poland.). Second, there is a general failure to properly introduce Napoleon's family members or marshals properly. The result is that these characters keep appearing out of nowhere and viewers unfamiliar with this period will be wondering, "just how many brothers and generals does this guy have?" Finally, the mini-series makes no real effort to attempt to explain the reasons for Napoleon's rise or fall; things happen, one after another, until he ends up on St Helena. Obviously the 6-hour format is again partly the culprit for this failure to analyze or explain, but part of it lies in the fact that the film tends to see events though Napoleon's eyes (which helps to engender empathy in the viewer). Napoleon was indeed oblivious to many of the events and people working toward his downfall, and this mini-series imposes that same tunnel vision upon the viewer.

In sum, Napoleon: the mini-series could not possibly hope to cover all of this man's very busy life in only 6 hours, but A&E makes an honest effort and the result is the best portrayal of the Emperor's life to date. The writers should also be congratulated for depicting Napoleon in a manner that gains empathy for his insights while not hiding his misdeeds. If anything, this is the kind of film that should spur viewers to read more about Napoleon in order to find out more about omitted details. Thank you A&E!

First of all I know that there are those who will fly speck historical accuracy. I agree there are some minor problems.

These problems were made worse by the editing of the English language version (the French version is 6 hours long)...for example; the narration does not exist in the French version...In the English version Napoleon arrives in Egypt, rides along some sand dunes to narration then is teleported to France...in the French version there is more than 20 minutes devoted to the Egyptian Campaign that just disappears in the English version.

The narration is not particularly good and was done by someone who was not terribly familar with the time period and French idiomatic expression...

An example would be when the narration says Napoleon's Ashes were returned to France...In French, what was returned were his "cindres"...which literally does translate as ashes...but in French has a more allegorical meaning, as in "ashes to ashes dust to dust"...a translation of "mortal remains" would have been more accurate...

On the positive side and why I give this movie 5 stars and why you have to buy it is the visual feast...it will make your eyes pop and give you the justification for that large screen TV.

This film had an unlimited budget (and I mean unlimited)...the costumes are very well done with close attention to detail...and what is unusual is that there are a lot of them...I don't mean 10 to 12 people in a scene...I means hundreds and sometimes hundreds and hundreds...the coronation looks like a living version of the David painting. The balls and the court scenes are well populated...The battle scenes are all in vein of those in the Rod Steiger Waterloo film. Literally regiments of reinactors, scenes of hundreds of heavy cavalry charging through the snows of Eylau, Napoleon leading 100's of reinactors in the charge at the bridge of Arcole in the face of several hundred Austrian reinactors...long shots of over a thousand at Jena...fantastic...

(As an aside those who know the Sharpe series will remember that the further one goes into the series the more people horses and carriages there are in the film...)

An example of what I mean by an extravagant budget is a scene on the road during the Polish Campaign when Napoleon receives the news of the birth of Count Leon his first illegitimate child...this scene has the prinicipal actors as you would expect...and not one but two carriages with a third one arriving during the scene...3 count them 3 vintage carriages in the scene when they could have gotten away with the scene shot next to a building...then they go and have the Grande Armee march by while they are in conversion just to let us know how huge their budget was...I mean they had to position cameras and the carriages, the actors and the dispatch rider coming in with the news all so you can see the road and actually watch more several hundred extras march by not in just a generic uniform, but in uniforms which change color accents based on the regiment and the colors of pom poms on the shako's changing with the company....

The use of extras, sets, props is lavish...I felt that this is the world as I imagined. All the props down to the little details are there...the anecdotes...even Mameluke Ali...This is to the Napoleon's Empire what the movie Cleopatra is to Julius and Augustus Ceasar.

This is a fantastic costume drama...if you like the clothes and settings in Duelists, War and Peace, Waterloo, Dangerous Liasons...then "you ain't seen nothin' yet". Superbly turned out cast of thousands in extraordinary sets...

In summary...can you nit pick this movie?...you betcha...and I'll bet I can do it as well anyone else...on the other hand I am extremely appreciative that a decision was made to spend this much money giving me a glimpse into the world of the 1st Empire...

If you like the period then you have no choice but to own this...if you are concerned about the historical accuracy...then I suggest you go Amazon.fr order the 6 hour French version and turn the sound off...you obviously know enough already that you don't need to hear what they are saying.

Michael La Vean,
Fellow, International Napoleonic Society

Napoleon is a gorgeous, lush, and vibrant cinematic feast. It's stunning to watch and reminds me of the earlier films filmed in full Technicolor. The colors are vibrant and over-saturated at times. It's definitely a visual masterpiece.

I bought my version from a Chinese seller on eBay. The version I watched is 8 hours in length and in English with a choice of dubbed Chinese audio or the English audio. I've noticed that many reviewers have complained about the English dubbing on the English version and mention that one should purchase the French version with English subtitles. I'm very confused about this, really, because my version wasn't dubbed English. I realize they didn't film two entirely separate films, however the version I owned is filmed in original English and my husband and I agree we cannot possibly be mistaken about this. We expected dubbing, but there was none. Every single word was enunciated clearly and was absolutely in sync with the actors' mouths. In addition, the English version I watched had no narration as some of these reviewers noted negatively.

I had never even heard of Christian Clavier prior to seeing this film. He was incredible. He seemed born to play this role. Clavier's face is amazingly expressive and he brings sensitivity and empathy to his part. At times I got so caught up in the character and appeal of Napoleon that I found myself dreading the Moscow scenes and then the scenes at Waterloo-- futilely hoping for a different outcome. I've learned that this actor usually plays more comedic roles and I'm surprised since he's wonderfully talented.

Joining Clavier is Anouk Aimee as Napoleon's mother, Isabella Rossellini as Josephine, John Malkovich as Talleyrand, and Gerard Depardieu as Joseph Fouche. Anouk Aimee was perfect-- she definitely brought some depth to Letizia. Both Isabella Rossellini and John Malkovich, though, were really horrible. Josephine was known to be unfaithful and headstrong. Here, we wonder what Napoleon actually sees in her! I don't want to blame this actress completely-- the script could have definitely used some improvement when it came to their interaction. However, she brought no charm to the role of Josephine at all, I thought. Had Josephine been played by Marie Bäumer (who played Napoleon's sister, Caroline), Mavie Hörbiger (Marie Louise of Austria, Napoleon's second wife), or Alexandra Maria Lara (Countess Marie Walewska), we would have all fallen in love with her. But, instead, we were given a flat performance lacking in appeal.

John Malkovich played John Malkovich playing Talleyrand. I don't think I've ever seen him play a role any differently than he played here. Just like Jack Nicholson is known for being wild and erratic, John Malkovich is known for his flat affect and cold demeanor. Additionally, it was a bit off-putting to have Talleyrand speak with absolutely no trace of a French accent, but there you have it. It seemed as if the casting directors took no real note of this when casting- having the names that would draw both the French and the Americans must have been their main concern. John Malkovich wasn't the only one who didn't even attempt to speak with an authentic accent. Julien Sands, (who played Klemens Metternich, the ambassador from Austria) spoke the King's English. Having accents match the characters would have been a bit more helpful, especially when dealing with unfamiliar characters from so many different countries. And although Napoleon was actually from Corsica, his French accent didn't bother me at all. He at least was French (even if originally from Corsica) and, really, he lived in France from age nine. He very well could have lost his Corsican accent (his mother, however, was decidedly French).

So, some of that was a bit strange. Napoleon's speech was beautiful but his own brothers sometimes sounded American. His stepdaughter didn't sound French, his second wife didn't sound Austrian. Where's Meryl Streep when you need her?

Everyone else was very good. Gerard Depardieu actually gets better with age. I've always liked him, but didn't understand his very wide appeal. He was excellent and stole the scenes when on screen.

As noted by so many other reviewers, there are obvious inaccuracies and omissions. Thankfully, my husband (a historian) was right there next to me and I was able to ask him questions when things weren't clear. The transitions from scene to scene are poor and fail to give the viewer ample background and information. Some text would have been helpful between scenes-- especially either prior to major battles, for instance, or afterwards.

Still, with all the film's faults, it was enjoyable and informative (even if it could have been more informative), and Christian Clavier was superb.

As an addendum, when this film was made, there was only speculation regarding the cause of Napoleon's death. He believed he was being poisoned and suffered horrible pain during his last months. However, only last year it was discovered that Napoleon actually died of gastrointestinal bleeding due to gastric cancer.

Edited to add: I just confirmed that this version is NOT dubbed, despite reports to the contrary! In fact, the English version was dubbed into French, not the other way around. And, although the French version has a longer running time than the narrated English version, this particular Chinese import version (with no narrator) runs the same length as the French version.

On October 10, 2005 Reviewer A. Garza asked: "this dvd did no have close captioned, and for me I prefer them with closed captioned. Don you have it with cc.??? In the page you stated this dvd was closed captioned"

Yes,there is another version of the same program which has only French audio but does have a menu choice of French or English subtitles. It is the other one mentioned in the Spotlight Review of "April 12, 2003 Reviewer: M. La Vean "LaVean".

I have that other (French) version which is superior to the TV miniseries 3-Disk collector's edition for these few reasons, IMO.

1) The French version is on four disks, each one plays slightly longer than 1-1/2 hours = 6h:19m total. According to La Vean this provides a slightly longer program, I hate to miss anything :).

2) The audio is original and does not sound phony nor slightly out of lipsynch. Back ground noises appear natural, not restaged. Of course it is in French but with good large English subtitles, not a problem ;).

3) The box & disks have very deluxe graphics, gift quality indeed!

4) The amazon title is "Napoleon (Napoléon ORiginal French Version with English Subtitles) DVD ~ Gérard Depardieu" and the ASIN is B00070JRU2.

5) It is truly widescreen format, 1.78:1 ratio.

On the other hand there are no extras, no A&E 2 hour Wellington bonus nor Biography show, so take your pick...

A major missed opportunity. I tried to like this film - I wanted to like it. But, in the end, I could only watch about half of it. I turned it off wondering why they had even tried to make it in the first place. The main problem - and there are many to choose from - is a script that tries to cram in too much but still manages to leave out even more, and assumes the audience is capable of filling in the gaps. Names are dropped at a furious rate but unless you are familiar with the history of the period, most will not mean anything and none are allowed to ever become anything resembling real people.

I can understand the necessity of compressing and streamlining such an eventful life. But what I find maddening and frustrating is that the decisions of what to include and what to leave out seem so arbitrary. For instance, at one moment we see Napoleon charging across the bridge at Arcole - the next moment he is suddenly back in Paris, the remainder of the Italian campaign forgotten. An important battle such as Marengo is only mentioned in passing. The depiction of the Egyptian campaign is even more muddled than the real thing and feels like it was tossed in as an afterthought. I finally gave up when Napoleon arrived in Poland and encountered Marie Walewska. The clumsy way that episode is handled is typical of this whole sorry enterprise.

The film doesn't even look right sometimes. Too much of it appears shiny and new - the costumes frequently look like they have just come off the wardrobe rack, fresh and never worn. Everything looks sterile - no set looks lived in. Much of it suggests all the authenticity of an old Hollywood swashbuckler filmed on the back lot. In fact, I think that MGM or Warner Brothers, back in the 1930's, would have done a better job.

Which leads us to consider the rather electic assortment of actors assembled to impersonate the historical (and occasionally hysterical) figures. Christian Clavier seems an inspired choice to play Napoleon, even if he occasionally awakens memories of Les Visiteurs. There are brief flashes of brilliance but, for the most part, he is fighting a losing battle against an unactable script. Sometimes his accent doesn't help either. Isabella Rossellini (looking more and more like her mother) is a good actress but displays no hint of the exotic Creole that Josephine was. John Malkovich is almost too good - stealing scenes effortlessly and showing what some of the other performances might have been. Gerard Depardieu, on the other hand, seems at times to be on autopilot which is strange since he is one of the producers. Most of the rest of the cast are so non-descript and one-dimensional that it becomes difficult to remember who is supposed to be who.

If you want to see a really good film about Napoleon, seek out, beg or borrow Abel Gance's silent masterpiece. But if you just want a trashy comic book version...this is it.

These are the pros: an excellent performance by Clavier!, gorgeous costumes, beautiful location and set photography, and the amazing story of a man who fought one war after another, changed the course of history, and ended, as all mortals, alone to face his maker. The cons? Very few. The Egypt and Waterloo sequences were much too brief, considering how important they are historically. I saw the complete series on DVD back to back, which is something I rarely do. It was compulsively watchable: thoroughly enjoyable and involving. The Abel Gance silent movie may be more "cinematic", but this one, by being straightforward, conveys more and is less distracting visually. The minisieries is not a work of art, but it is great entertainment.

French comic actor Christian Clavier ("Asterix") looks nothing like Napoleon Bonaparte, but he does speak with a believable French accent. Which is a little inappropriate, since the real Napoleone de Buonaparte was a Corsican of Italian decent, and never learned to speak French without a distinct Italian accent, let alone write it properly.

Still, it's not Clavier's fault that this 2002 mini series ends up a three-star experience. The script simply isn't very good, and a lot of people are bound to wonder what the big deal was with this guy Napoleon. Why were his soldiers so fond of him? Why did 99% of French voters elect him as their emperor? This tepid and seriously underdeveloped version of the Emperor doesn't seem likely to have inspired that kind of admiration, and you never come close to learning what makes him tick, either.
And why do they always have to portray him as a small man?! Napoleon Bonaparte was of completely normal height for a man born in the 18th century, and his nickname, "the little corporal", had nothing to do with his physical appearance.

The battle scenes are very much less than impressive...apparently money was short or something, so many potential highlights, like the famed battle of the Nile, are barely mentioned, and the battle scenes in general are, well, lousy. Napoleon commanded an army hundreds of thousands strong. This is a few hundred extras running around. And the armies' long marches are displayed in Discovery Channel-fashion, as a computer-generated arrow running across a computer-generated map. Honestly...

The talents of the great character actor John Malkovic are wasted on an odd, unsympathetic and socially awkward portrayal of the sublime (and very socially apt) diplomat Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigord. But Gerard Depardieu is very good as Joseph Fouche, duke of Otrante and minister of police, and British actor John Wood is subtle and memorable in his small role as Barnaba Chiaramonti, pope Pius VII.

Still, "Napoleon" remains a shallow affair on the whole. You never get to know, or care about, this dull and inconsistantly portrayed Emperor Napoleon, and you'll most likely end up asking yourself "why the hell is this guy at war all the time? Who is he fighting, and why?" Dunno. Well, yes, I'm sure you know why he was fighting "all the time", but the makers of this mini series either didn't know or didn't think it mattered. He just is.

By the way, "Napoleon" is not 480 minutes as stated on this page. It was shown in the US in a horribly mutilated three-hour version, but restored to its original six-hour France 2-glory for the DVD-issue. Six hours (sans commercials), not eight.
And not horrible, but not excactly good either. Bit of a shame.

First off, this is not a six part series!! It may have been six parts in the French language edition, but this 3 disk set from A&E is not six parts, it is FOUR parts, each about 90 minutes long. The four episodes are on the first two disks, the third disk is devoted to extras, such as two documentaries, one on the life of Napoleon and one on Napoleon and Wellington (there is substantial overlap between the two documentaries).

Christian Clavier is too old to play the young Napoleon (and remember that this man became sole ruler of France at age 35). Isabella Rossalini is also much too old to play the young Josephine de Beauhernais, who was 32 when she met Napoleon, but she is a very fine actress and does a good job with the role.

Interestingly, the Battle of Lodi is depicted, but inexplicably made into a loss rather than a victory, which is strange because it was at Lodi that Napoleon became convinced he was chosen by destiny for great things. Generally, the battles are not given much coverage, but staging Napoleonic-era battles has proven prohibitively expensive even for big-budget cinema, never mind television. There are a few great scenes of Napoleon surrounded by his Old Guard, complete with bear-skin hats. There is also a great scene of Murat leading a heavy cavalry charge (curaissiers with breastplates and helmuts) at the battle of Eylau. (Think about what percentage of the Napoleonic-era European gross national product was plowed into military uniforms, considering that we cannot afford to reproduce very many of them today for purposes of Television or Motion Pictures).

The most puzzling ommission is the 1812 campaign in Russia; it was the disaster that doomed Napoleon, but it gets less than 5 minutes of screen time in this six-hour miniseries.

The production values are sky-high for television. Apparently, the producers were given access to every palace they wanted to film in.

As with any other movie dealing with historical figures on the magnitude of Napoleon (i.e. Alexander The Great or Caesar) there are many ommissions and poetic licenses to gripe about. Despite its limitations, the film does cover a lot of the important characters who were involved in Napoleon's rule and is complemented by good sets, costumes, and acting.

Christian Clavier played the part of Napoleon quite well as a man driven by passion and ambition. I found Isabella Rossellini's Josephine to be a good depiction of the flirtatious opportunist whom Napoleon loved so dearly. One of the best performances was by John Malkovich as the scheming archbishop, Talleyrand, whom Napoleon thought of as a pile of s**t in a silken glove. I thought Gerard Depardieu's performance as Fouche to be also quite good. It's unfortunate that the film decided to omit some of Napoleon's earlier campaigns such as the one in Egypt where, standing in front of the pyramids, he told his men to remember in awe as here the work of 40 centuries stands over them.

Overall it was a good mini-series with a good screenplay and sets. The actors all performed very well. A good movie to watch alone or with the family.

NAPOLEON is a splendid A&E mini-series about one of the most famous generals/conquerors/rulers/reformers in history. This is an international production based upon the book by Max Gallo and is sympathetic towards BONAPARTE. Even at six hours, it can't cover all the details covered in hundreds of pages in hundreds of books. There are plenty of times you wish they had given a bit more background. Yet, it does an admirable job in giving you the essence and understanding of the period while being highly entertaining.

Some of the international supporting cast seem a little wooden, but the stars do well in enlightening the characters and events. Christian Clavier gives a convincing, sympathetic, and understanding portrayal of Napoleon, although with little of his darker side. Isabella Rossellini enables you to see why Napoleon loved Josephine despite her philandering while he was away in his early years. (Yes, there is more to Josephine than appearances). John Malkovic plays a really smooth Talleyrand who as Foreign Minister survived and served multiple masters in the revolution, empire, and monarchy.

The film begins in 1795 when Napoleon is a promising young officer. One of the most fascinating aspects of celebrities is seeing how they got to the top. The film adequately shows how Napoleon defended the revolutionary government against the rabble, was rewarded with a command in Italy where his brilliant leadership ability begin to shine, and overthru the murderous government ostensibly to forestall a return of the monarchy. Although his reign was relatively brief, less than twenty years, these were some of the most momentous events in European history and the film covers a variety of his personal, military, and political highlights. You see little of his lasting political reforms, but see why he was so momentous. His return from Elba with a handful of supporters, winning back the army to his side, and retaking the government illustrates his appeal and popularity.

The film shines with lavish settings, palaces, and military maneuvers. Of course there are plenty of battles including Arcola, Austerlitz, Jena, Eylau, Aspern-Essling, and Waterloo. None of the battles get the full treatment like the Soviet version of many years ago, but while short, they are well done. You'll have to read books to find out why he was a military genius and pore over his tactics, but the film's battles make it clear that conquering, holding, and losing most of Europe wasn't easy.

In sum, the film fulfills its promise to entertain and enlighten viewers with a brief overview about one of the most fascinating individuals in history and to show why our interest endures today. Then go on to learn the details by reading a book or reliving the era by playing a game. Napoleonic era boardgames is one of the largest and most detailed areas of gaming.