It’s astoundingly ironic that President Donald Trump starts his Feb. 19 Truth Social post about the war in Ukraine and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy by saying “Think about it.” Because, as per usual, he is telling you exactly what he wants you to think, not offering an incentive for you to give critical consideration to the known facts and ponder past the barriers of purposeful misinformation. 6e3m2g

What follows that “Think about it,” is a litany of falsehoods and misleading statements that fit this blatantly Russian-friendly – which is another way to say autocrat-endorsing – Trump agenda. In Trumpland, up is down, and down is up if he says so. He calls someone fighting every day for his country’s freedom from tyranny a “dictator,” after having quoted someone who was effectively a dictator a few days earlier.

Related: ‘What sensitive people’: NYU College Republicans’ President forced to resign for describing Barron Trump’s college experience on The Mary Sue

But in this case, the lie is so in-your-face that the word “Dictator” climbed to the trending list on X’s algorithm, prompting GOP to voice disagreement in a rare show of dissidence, and even Piers Morgan had to call it out – albeit without directly pointing the finger at Trump.

Dictator Who? 4c6e5

The sheer number of lies that Donald Trump can fit in a single social media post is Guinness World Records-level impressive. But, in order to not get too disorientated, for now, let’s focus on unpacking one particular aspect: The fact that Trump denominated Volodymyr Zelenskyy as “A Dictator without Elections.” It’s a profoundly hypocritical statement, especially when it comes mere days after quoting a phrase often attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte, the French general who crowned himself Emperor.

Zelenskyy was elected in 2019 on an anti-corruption platform, having won a landslide victory with over 70% of the popular vote. Elections would have been held last year were Ukraine not under martial law because… they are at war…? That’s what martial law is for, after all. While the South Korean President tried to invoke martial law in 2024 to save his own hide – and fortunately failed – that is not at all Zelenskyy or Ukraine’s case.

Although Zelenskyy’s approval rating has since dropped – sort of expected when you’re trying to hold together a country that is ravaged by war on the daily – when Trump claims he “is very low in Ukrainian Polls,” he fails to mention that Zelenskyy’s approval rating is currently higher than his own, after being inaugurated a mere month ago.

If you think Gallup’s poll might be fallacious, Emerson College also projects that Trump’s approval rating currently stands at less than 50%. Furthermore, it’s beyond all levels of hypocrisy known to man to call the rightfully elected Zelenskyy a “Dictator without Elections,” all the while kissing Putin’s ring, a man who has been in power for over two decades, holds sham elections where he unfailingly wins by a literally unbelievable margin (all to give the illusion of a choice), and is considered a war criminal by the International Criminal Court whose arrest warrant was issued in March 2023.

Even though he is often ed as a remarkable military strategist, Napoleon was still a tyrant who byed democratic processes for the sake of his agenda. In recent days, as well as in the post blatantly hinting at the fact that – for all intents and purposes – he perceives himself as being above the law, Trump has been doing everything to undermine democracy not just at home but also abroad.

We are witnessing a very sad moment in American history.

The President of the United States is aligning himself with the dictator of Russia, Vladimir Putin, to undermine the independence of Ukraine and its democracy.

Here are my thoughts: pic.twitter.com/mfogfnQxSK

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) February 20, 2025

As Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) says, Trump “wants a world that is safe for authoritarians and oligarchs, but extremely dangerous for democracies.” While his underlings preach “democratic values” to pro-democracy countries, the U.S. President seems to be setting the stage for expanding his own powers beyond what is constitutionally acceptable or even morally justifiable.

We can always count on Brian Cox to call it like he sees it. The infamously unfiltered Scottish actor recently turned his ever-uncompromising aim towards fellow thespian Joaquin Phoenix, blasting his work on the film Napoleon.

Directed by Ridley Scott with Phoenix as the title Machiavellian emperor, Napoleon was panned by critics and audiences for being disted, tonally confusing, and not particularly enlightening regarding the historical figure at its center. Brian Cox, it seems, was among the dissenters.

Speaking at a London History Festival on April 14, Cox shared his thoughts on the unpopular film, placing the blame almost entirely on Phoenix’s performance.

“Terrible. It’s terrible. A truly terrible performance by Joaquin Phoenix. It really is appalling,” the Succession star said. He went on to say the film’s poor quality was “totally” its lead actor’s “fault,” that his director didn’t do him any favors, and that its narrative was made up of “lies.”

Cox didn’t stop there, either. The 78-year-old Emmy winner affirmed that he would have done a better job than Phoenix before mocking his name. “I think he’s well-named. Joaquin…’whackeen’… whacky. It’s a sort of whacky performance.”

If you’re wondering why Cox was even talking about Napoleon in the first place when he had no part in the film, it’s because the actor’s at London’s Histfest 2024 was precisely about representing history on stage and screen. He was critical of his own filmography in that regard, calling Braveheart, in which he plays the uncle to Mel Gibson’s William Wallace, “a load of nonsense and lies.”

“He never impregnated the French princess. It is a bollocks [sic] that film,” Cox bluntly stated. Well, he calls it like he sees it.

Critics are having a field day with Napoleon, and bringing the brunt of their analytical prowess to bear on Ridley Scott and Joaquin Phoenix’s new creation. It seems that when taken at face value, nothing is quite as riveting as reading the history of the late 17th and 18th centuries, but all the excitement of real-life events can’t keep up with the requirements of the cinematic medium, culminating in yet another historical Ridley Scott rollercoaster where the natural filmmaking inclination for dramatization overpowers the need for authenticity.

And sure, when you look at Scott’s back catalogue, none of those earlier movies adhered to real history, whether it be Gladiator’s the Roman Empire or Robin Hood dealing with the mythic figure of Sherwood Forest. On the flip side, many cinemagoers seem to believe that a historical movie centering around the life of a real person — and one as prominent as Napoleon — should actually take care not to misrepresent the reality of what went down. At least not too much.

So, whether you find yourself on the side of Ridley Scott irers, or those historians currently lambasting his latest undertaking, we’ve decided to break down everything you need to know about Napoleon and its truthfulness to history, starting with the man himself.

Is Joaquin Phoenix’s Napoleon true to the real generalissimo? 4e2y2i

The first thing historians and those with a keen interest in Napoleon Bonaparte’s life will realize about Ridley Scott’s film is the eccentric portrayal of the titular character by Joaquin Phoenix. While the real-world Napoleon was said to be cunning, witty, brilliant, and self-confident, the film version can come off as unsettlingly erratic.

There’s this great debate about where you could rank Napoleon in the list of history’s most vicious killers. Some make Napoleon out to be a great tyrant. Many even compare him to Hitler. But however one approaches the problem of the millions of people he killed, inadvertently or otherwise, during his ambitious political career, one shouldn’t forget that Napoleon was also a great purveyor of the Enlightenment.

After taking power and becoming the so-called “First Consul” of the newly instated republic, Napoleon used his absolute power to bring about a lot of non-military amendments, including the establishment of the Bank of and the Civil Code of the French, which saved the country from a period of impoverishment and essentially put an end to the aftershocks of the Reign of Terror. (Though the latter happened when Napoleon had taken the crown and proclaimed himself Emperor.)

Ridley Scott’s movie only focuses on Napoleon’s military achievements, which undermines many major aspects of his character. When watching the new flick, it’s not so difficult to draw up the same misguided comparisons to Hitler, but while Napoleon was certainly ambitious and egotistic, he certainly didn’t kill as many people as Hitler did, in a bloodthirsty and genocidal rampage across Europe.

Last but not least, a reason for Napoleon’s unparalleled fame was the mind-numbing scope of his achievements at such a young age. Due to the general’s military genius and unmatched charisma, he managed to become the leader of the French armies and ultimately the de facto ruler of the entire nation by the age of 30. Unfortunately, Joaquin Phoenix was 47 when Ridley Scott began principal photography on Napoleon, so he doesn’t quite embody that zealous youth. This also complicates the matter of his wife Joséphine de Beauharnais, which is a whole different can of worms.

Is Joséphine depicted accurately? 4s654m

Joséphine’s portrayal is perhaps the most truthful out of all the characters who appear in this film. Vanessa Kirby does a wonderful job of portraying the mistress-turned-empress and perfectly captures her worldly demeanor. It’s also accurate that she cheated on Napoleon, but unlike what we see in the movie, the general didn’t leave his campaign in Egypt to rush back home and confront the scandal.

Vanessa Kirby is more than 10 years younger than Phoenix, so watching the two of them as Napoleon and Joséphine is almost like gazing into an alternate dimension where the roles have been reversed. The fact that Vanessa is much younger-looking doesn’t do any favors to her dominant role in that relationship, either.

Lastly, it should be noted that Napoleon didn’t slap Joséphine during their divorce. As historian Michael Broers explains it in blunt during an interview with Time, “It did not happen. Secondly, it’s out of character. He would never do a thing like that.”

The real world Joséphine was said to be ambitious and even power-hungry, attaching herself to powerful men to gain status. Napoleon, on the other hand, was completely besotted with her, so when the two realized that she couldn’t get with child, the Emperor had no choice but to let her go. One needn’t look any further than Napoleon’s alleged last words — “, the Army, the Head of the Army, Joséphine” — to realize that he never stopped loving his former wife.

That said, Napoleon doesn’t escape Elba after hearing about Joséphine’s ailment, like in the movie. He learned about her death when still in exile, driving him to seclusion for a while.

Did Napoleon fire on the pyramids? 421n24

Nothing, no matter how absurd and unrealistic, will stop a filmmaker from shooting a scene he deems to be, so to speak, cool. The controversial pyramids scene in Napoleon unfortunately follows the same philosophy. As mentioned above, Napoleon didn’t leave Egypt because of Joséphine, but due to supply problems, and he almost certainly didn’t shoot at the Pyramids, being himself a patron of arts and history.

Besides, as historian Dan Snow explained after watching the movie’s trailer, it would be physically improbable, if not downright impossible, for those cannons to hit the top of the pyramids.

Did Napoleon really say that line to the British about their boats? 4p174c

While Napoleon had ambitions to invade Britain and eventually conquer it, his defeat at the Battle of Trafalgar proved that there was no defeating the royal navy. As for the famous movie line, where Napoleon says to the British ambassador, “You think you’re so tough because you have boats,” well, those were not his exact words, but according to Broers, he said something very similar to that, and it is indeed based on a true encounter with the British spymaster William Wickham.

Marie Antoinette’s execution, the unexpected cannonball scene, and the meeting with the Duke of Wellington 136b6p

Napoleon didn’t bear witness to Marie Antoinette’s execution, because at the time, he was garrisoned somewhere in the south. Napoleon did, however, see the king and his queen being thrown into jail in 1792, and that must have impacted him greatly. Ridley Scott is combining these two elements, and we’re willing to let it slide.

Another scene in Napoleon shows the titular protagonist reaching a hand inside his dead horse to retrieve the cannonball that killed him. According to Scott’s version, this was during the Siege of Toulon, which marked Napoleon’s first major military victory through unconventional strategy, ultimately contributing to his rise to fame and influence. Well, even if it’s true that Napoleon burned through a number of horses during his military campaigns, there’s no evidence for this gesture. And while the general sustained a leg injury from a nearby cannonball explosion on that fateful night, he pushed on and led his men to victory.

Ultimately, it should be noted that unlike the movie version, Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington never met after the Battle of Waterloo. Napoleon lost Waterloo due to strategic errors, and the tens of thousands of Prussian reinforcements that came to Wellington’s aid. Together, they dealt the ambitious Emperor of his final defeat.

Napoleon spent his remaining days in exile on an island in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. The movie depicts him writing his memoirs, known as Mémoires de Napoléon, which is in keeping with real history.

What does Ridley Scott have to say about these inaccuracies? 2d2q6m

Scott doesn’t seem to care about all of these historical inaccuracies. When confronted by these critiques from historians and French reviewers, this is what the Alien director told The Times.

“Like all history, it’s been reported. Napoleon dies, then, 10 years later, someone writes a book,” he explained. “Then someone takes that book and writes another book and so, 400 years later there’s a lot of imagination.“When I have issues with historians, I ask: ‘Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the f**k up then.'”

We’re not sure if history works quite like that, as Andrew Roberts explains in a recent chat with Sky News. But I guess when all is said and done, this was Ridley Scott’s movie, and it would’ve reflected, one way or another, his particular creative vision for the character.

By all s, Napoleon Bonaparte liked Marie Josèphe Rose Tascher de La Pagerie very much. Not enough to let her keep her name instead of changing it to Josephine, but hey. Love looks different to different people.

Marie, who served as the broad-strokes inspiration for the character Josephine played by Vanessa Kirby in Ridley Scott’s Napoleon, was born June 23, 1763, to the owners of a sugar plantation. The family business changed her life in a number of ways – for one, the market for sugar in the late 1700s was a lot like the NFT market six weeks after people started making NFTs, in that everyone was making too much product, and there wasn’t any money in it. Additionally, with a functionally limitless supply of sugar and a collection of toothbrushes somewhere in the “none at all” range, young Marie’s teeth reportedly looked like a series of tiny, high-value dominos. 

But that didn’t stop her from marrying her aunt’s lover’s son, Alexandre François Marie, after his first choice (her older sister) died and his second choice (her younger sister) was, irreconcilably, 12 years old. The pair had two children, as well as a contentious disunion due to Alexandre’s numerous affairs, and decided to go their separate ways on a permanent basis when Alexandre had his head chopped off by a guillotine on July 23, 1794.

In 1795, she met Napoleon Bonaparte, a military man six years her junior who, judging by his letters, was deeply besotted with Marie’s mouth full of still-decaying teeth. He started calling her “Josephine,” and the name stuck. They were engaged in January of 1796 and married two months later, fudging the numbers on the licenses to make the age difference seem less pronounced. 

The occasionally happy life and wife of Napoleon Bonaparte 541i2s

Which brings us back to where we started: Napoleon really liked his wife. He talked about it a lot. What he didn’t like was the fact that she couldn’t seem to provide him with an heir, a fact that became a bigger deal as the young commander gathered more and more power. He named his wife Empress of when he took over as Emperor in 1804, even after both he and Josephine had carried out loud, illicit affairs – including one between Napoleon and Josephine’s lady-in-waiting, which ended in Josephine catching Napoleon in the act and Napoleon retorting “Well then why don’t you make me a baby?” We are, of course, paraphrasing.

A continuing lack of bouncing baby Napoleons drove his majesty to take drastic action. In November 1809, he took his wife out for a nice dinner and gently explained that he really, really wanted to get someone pregnant. Josephine tearfully understood, and the couple threw a divorce party – not the kind that your aunt keeps throwing at the same dive bar whenever she winds up single, more of a funeral for their marriage. The two read statements of devotion to one another. It honestly sounds like it was probably a bummer.

Napoleon got remarried two months later to Marie-Louise of Austria, but spoke openly about how he was basically just getting hitched to a baby oven. It wasn’t particularly romantic. In 1811, his son, Napoleon II, was born.

By 1814, Josephine had been living comfortably in a chateau outside of Paris, enjoying the luxuries afforded her by her titles. With Napoleon in exile, she reached out to the emperor of Russia, asking for permission to live with her ex-husband on the island of Elba. Shortly after making the request, Josephine died of pneumonia at age 50. 

When Napoleon got word of Josephine’s death, he was beyond dismayed, reportedly locking himself in his room for two days without food, companionship, or a fresh oversized hat. He lamented that he had loved his first wife, but not respected her. He was so devastated that he went nearly five years without escaping from exile and trying to overthrow the French government which, if you know about Napoleon, you’ll understand was a pretty dramatic stretch for the guy. 

It’s apparent that the French king and military mastermind continued to think about his first wife for the remainder of his relatively short life, up to the very moment of his ing. Lying in bed on May 5, 1821, the deposed leader said roughly “, the army, head of the army, Josephine,” then died. 

The ‘man of destiny’ trope is a bunch of rubbish. Social movements, economic conditions, and natural phenomena are all more important than any singular person when it comes to shaping human history, and even the greatest and most daring of figures are usually slaves to larger forces.

There are a few exceptions to that rule, and Napoleon Bonaparte undoubtedly falls into that category. So, it’s no surprise people keep making films about him, with the latest being the straightforwardly titled Napoleon.

Stanley Kubrick, who famously failed to get his movie about the French general made, called Napoleon “one of those rare men who move history and mould the destiny of their own times and of generations to come.” The difficulty of capturing everything Bonaparte represents, plus financial issues and bad timing, goes some way to explaining why even one of the best directors of all time couldn’t make a picture worthy of the man who conquered Europe.

Of course, Kubrick wasn’t perfect (take his interpretation of Lolita, which manages to miss the point of Nabokov’s novel so spectacularly it would be impressive if it wasn’t so gross), but other attempts to tell the on-screen story of the military genius who conquered Europe have also fallen flat. Legendary director Ridley Scott is the latest to take up the mantle, and has been his usual confident and curmudgeonly self in his attempt to commit a biopic about the Corsican to film. Now, we finally have the outcome.

The first thing to say about Napoleon is that the crowd at the cinema in my ultra-liberal, university city was full of people of a certain vintage. Older generations came of age in the world of Thatcher and Reagan so perhaps it makes sense that the all-conquering, singular genius Napoleon appeals to this audience, just as it makes sense that it appealed to Kubrick, Scott, and Spielberg, who has long been said to be interested in making a TV series about Napoleon with Kubrick’s notes. Or, maybe it was just because the screening was in the middle of the afternoon, and retirees were the only ones about.

What this means for the movie is that Napoleon’s string of successes defy narrative structure, until the final few years when he can be recast as an Icarus figure. This means the first half of Scott’s film feels disted and flat, stitched together by on-screen exposition in the form of dates and events.

These written asides belie the director’s anger against those who called out Napoleon‘s lack of historical accuracy, an issue that has dogged its promotion period. When questioned about Napoleon’s fabricated trip to the pyramids, Scott invoked a Trumpish defence that involved the phrase “you weren’t there,” only adding to my boomer theory.

Then again, this isn’t a documentary. It’s Hollywood, baby, so it’s all about narrative, not facts. With that in mind, the story Scott is telling begins in the same place as the metric system: with the French Revolution. We get a visceral close-up of Marie Antoinette being beheaded, followed by devolving into the Terror. Soon, a young, upstart general is commanding troops and beating off the superior British Navy. The audience is supposed to be impressed by Napoleon’s genius – and we are – but during this time Scott does something else vital for the story: he makes the great conqueror seem human.

Much of this is thanks to the excellent Joaquin Phoenix. His Napoleon stumbles off horses and falls down stairs, as ungraceful as the famous general’s battle plans aren’t. He pines after Josephine (Vanessa Kirby, also brilliant) like a teenage boy whose body is too small for his feelings, and is unable to enforce his iron will on her as he does everything else. This is the only plotline carrying tension in the first half of the film, and it does it irably, but it isn’t enough.

Napoleon even seems to fear cannon fire a little at the beginning, as he slams his palms towards his ears when one’s about to go off. This action is dropped when he’s in the ascendancy in the movie’s triumphant middle section, but the gesture returns in the final battle at Waterloo. Film is a visual medium, after all.

On that note, Napoleon is an aesthetic feast as much as it’s an attempted character study, but that’s to be expected from the man who crafted Blade Runner and Gladiator, and who is known for his elaborate, artistic, and bordering-on tyrannical storyboarding. The pacing, especially in the much better latter part of the film, keeps things engaging, although that’s helped by the fact the story of Napoleon’s life takes on more of a familiar narrative during its second act.

While the battle scenes are wonderfully choreographed, when it comes down to it this is a story about Napoleon’s life, and here Scott fails to do anything of interest. The way he showcases the general’s obsessive love of Josephine is heavy-handed and, frankly, a bit awkward, especially during early sex scenes when the general humps her like a chihuahua. Phoenix and Kirby try their best, and are often compelling, but at times it feels clunky and awkward, and not in the way that Scott wants it to.

Scott has been candid about how much he’s put into the film, which is probably why he’s so tetchy about the outcome. Aside from his feud with historians, he also butted heads with French detractors of the film. His very British dismissal of his critics was to claim that the French “don’t even like themselves.”

The Alien director isn’t exactly known for biting his tongue, but it’s obvious he’s on the defensive here. And, that’s probably the film’s biggest weakness: it tries to take on too much and ends up stretching itself too thin, despite its immense runtime. It’s no surprise the final, better half of the film covers a period of a few short years, versus the sweeping arc that defines the first. If anything, this could have been a great 90-minute film about the Napoleonic Wars, but because it’s a ion project, it’s bloated.

The thing about Napoleon as a character is that he proves that yes, some people are special. And Scott, with his extensive and beloved oeuvre, also shows that. The problem with Napoleon is, despite being gorgeous to look at and backed by great performances, it’s distinctly not special. If anything, unlike its immense subject matter, it’s easy to forget.

Ridley Scott’s Napoleon is about to invade the global box office and install itself as supreme leader for the next few weeks. Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby are already picking up awards season buzz for their portrayals of Napoleon and his wife Joséphine and there’s a chance Scott could finally score the Academy Award for Best Director he’s been cruelly denied for so long.

But Napoleon Bonaparte has been a fixture of cinema for almost as long as there have been moving pictures, so let’s look back at these depictions and pick the ten best. And yes, Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure makes the cut.

Joaquin Phoenix – Napoleon (2023) 4p461y

Let’s get the latest hotness out of the way early on. Joaquin Phoenix has been absolutely nailing it to the wall with his recent performances and his Napoleon is no exception. While many reviews have issues with Scott’s historical accuracy, few are finding any fault with Phoenix. Perhaps the best summary comes from The Guardian‘s five-star review, which concludes by saying Phoenix is the key to the movie: “a performance as robust as the glass of burgundy he knocks back: preening, brooding, seething and triumphing.”

Albert Dieudonné – Napoléon (1927) 50615a

Let’s zip back almost a century to Abel Gance’s incredible silent epic starring Albert Dieudonné. Gance’s movie demolishes the notion that silent films are stuffy and dull and is crammed with incredible camera work, nifty effects, groundbreaking use of montage, and a cast of hundreds.

But Dieudonné is at the heart of the movie, delivering a truly committed Napoleon throughout many years of his life. Dieudonné was so happy with his performance that, in accordance with his last wishes, when he died in 1976 he was buried in his Napoleon costume. Now that’s commitment!

Dennis Hopper – The Story of Mankind (1957) 17q3x

The Story of Mankind covers many key moments in world history, though one true highlight is a very early performance from Dennis Hopper as Napoleon at the beginning of his career. Hopper would go on to cement himself for his eccentric and intense performances in later years, and the glimmering of his future success can be seen in his ambitious Napoleon brooding over conquering Europe and outlining his plans to become an Emperor. We only wish we’d gotten a full movie of this!

Ian Holm – Time Bandits (1981) 5t6j6g

Terry Gilliam’s Time Bandits is about thieves stealing treasure from important events in the past, so doesn’t particularly try for historical accuracy. Even so, we’ve always loved The Lord of the Rings and Alien icon Ian Holm’s all-too-brief scenes as Napoleon, all delivered in an accent that somehow straddles realism and parody.

Holm would later return to Napoleon in 2001’s The Emperor’s New Clothes, but we prefer this weirder take.

Marlon Brando – Désirée (1954) 1b5p67

Acting legend Marlon Brando stepping into the boots of Napoleon Bonaparte? How can you go wrong? Well, while Brando predictably nails it as Bonaparte (and is playing opposite Jean Simmons as Josephine), there’s a reason Désirée isn’t generally counted among the great Napoleon movies. The first is that this is a romance movie more than a war film, and the second is that any Brando retrospective will inevitably focus on his other release that year, On the Waterfront. But hey, Brando as Bonaparte? Can’t turn down that!

James Tolkan – Love and Death (1975) 6c441c

The jury may still be out on whether it’s okay to enjoy a Woody Allen movie, though I’ve always liked 1975’s Love and Death, which pokes fun at pompous adaptations of Russian literature. James Tolkan plays Napoleon, with Woody Allen’s character conceiving of a plan to assassinate him in order to spend time with his wife. Tolkan’s Napoleon is very broad, but still draws some very goofy chuckles.

Rod Steiger – Waterloo (1970) y1s53

Sergei Bondarchuk’s Waterloo didn’t skimp when it came time to recreate the titular battle. 15,000 extras were hired for its Battle of Waterloo scene, all in authentic period costume, and all recreating the battle as it was fought. This remains the record for the highest number of costumed extras on screen and, as battles like this would now be almost entirely CGI, is likely to take that crown.

But even against that spectacle Rod Steiger’s Napoleon stands out a mile. Some scenery is chewed, but when you’re playing a man who wants to conquer Europe that’s understandable.

Phillipe Torreton – Monsieur N (2003) 2b6m3q

Everyone knows that Napoleon died on Saint Helena. What this film presupposes is… maybe he didn’t? Monsieur N is a very fun alt-history exploring how Napoleon might have evaded his captors and retired to a quiet life in Louisiana, going so far as to imagine him attending his own burial in Paris.

It’s a goofy story and Phillipe Torreton makes for a fun Napoleon – and it’s relatively rare to see his later days in confinement on film. Torreton is aided by his English nemesis being played by Richard E. Grant, who’s always good value for money.

Mel Blanc – Napoleon Bunny-Part (1956) 1v5t6

While not a movie per se, Napoleon Bunny-Part was indeed screened in theaters. And hey, it’s Bugs Bunny vs Napoleon, what more do you want? As you would expect this is a very goofy caper in which Napoleon plays the unwilling straight man to Bugs as he wreaks havoc with his plans.

There is – perhaps inevitably – a scene in which Bugs cross-dresses and pretends to be Josephine, with Napoleon deeply dippy over his suspiciously bunnylike lover. Voice acting titan Mel Blanc provides the voice for both Bugs and Napoleon and, well, it’s great.

While a movie in which a time-travelling Napoleon discovers the joys of bowling and water slides isn’t particularly educational, this was my first exposure to Napoleon Bonaparte and between the silly gags I learned a lot about him. Napoleon remains Camilleri’s most recognizable role, though he’s popped up in a number of TV shows, most recently on Preacher. Even among the above cinematic titans we’ll always have a soft spot for Bill & Ted Napoleon – aka “The short dead dude from our history review!”

Napoleon arrives in theaters on Nov. 22.

Ridley Scott’s epic Napoleon is now just a week away from release and is currently receiving positive reviews, with particular praise reserved for Joaquin Phoenix’s lead performance. The historic icon’s life story has already made it to the big screen on multiple occasions, but one fascinating story relating to him that probably won’t be covered anytime soon is the tale of Napoleon’s boner part.

That’s right folks, we’re talking about the surprisingly complex story of Napoleon’s penis, and this goes places you may not expect!

The death of Napoleon 235s3m

After being defeated at the Battle of Waterloo in June 1815, Napoleon realized the French legislature and people had turned against him and surrendered to the British a month later. His request for political asylum in England was refused and he was sent to the remote island of Saint Helena in the Atlantic Ocean.

Seven years later, in 1821, he died on the island at the age of 51, with current medical opinion that he was suffering from gastric cancer. He was buried on Saint Helena, but was exhumed in 1840 and returned to . To this day you can visit his grand tomb at Les Invalides in Paris. But not all of him made it there…

Immediately after this death, an autopsy was conducted by sco Antommarchi, during which Napoleon’s penis was cut off. The story goes that the doctor had been bribed to do this by Napoleon’s chaplain, Ange Vignali, after the former Emperor had insulted him by calling him “impotent.”

Whatever the real reason Vignali departed Saint Helena to his home in Corsica, with Napoleon’s penis concealed about his person.

The further adventures of Napoleon’s penis 651j36

It remained in Ange Vignali’s possession right up until he was killed in “a bizarre blood vendetta.” It was ed down through the Vignali family, who kept it until 1916 when it was sold to London-based antiquarian bookseller Maggs Bros Ltd, responsible for some of the most expensive book purchases in history.

In 1924 Maggs Bros Ltd sold it on to the American collector of rare books and manuscripts Abraham Rosenbach, who transported it across the Atlantic to New York City. Clearly recognizing the historic value, Rosenbach had Napoleon’s penis mounted “in a case of blue Morocco and velvet” and is said to have brought it out at dinner parties to stimulate conversation (which we imagine went something like “wow, that’s Napoleon’s penis!”). Rosenbach even loaned this prized possession to the Museum of French Art in New York, where for the first and only time in its history it was exhibited to the public.

A reviewer attending described it as looking like a “maltreated strip of buckskin shoelace” and an attendee compared it to “a shriveled eel.” It was judged to be “very small” at about one-and-a-half inches long, though to be fair it was over a century old at this point.

Napoleon’s penis was then sold by Rosenbach to lawyer Donald Hyde, who kept it in his possession until his death. Hyde’s wife, perhaps understandably, wanted to be rid of the morbid member and gave it to bookseller John F. Fleming.

Somewhere around this time, it was offered to the French government, potentially to be reunited with Napoleon himself at Les Invalides. The French said “non,” and according to Napoleon penis historian Tony Perrotet, “They didn’t touch the penis. They wouldn’t have anything to do with it.” Fleming sold it to a collector named Bruce Gimelson, who eventually sold it to urologist John K. Lattimer in 1977 for $3,000.

The man who respected Napoleon’s penis 2l3536

Lattimer would go on to amass a bizarre collection of artifacts at his home in Englewood, New Jersey. These included medieval armor, dinosaur eggs, World War II machine guns, and sketches by Adolf Hitler. More morbidly he also owned one of the two cyanide capsules the Nazi general Herman Göring used to kill himself, the blood-stained collar Abraham Lincoln was wearing when he was shot, and upholstery from the car JFK was assassinated in.

But, above all else, Lattimer prized Napoleon’s penis. He was upset that it had historically been treated as “an object of derision” and refused to exhibit it, placing it in a briefcase and keeping it safely under his bed. Lattimer maintained his guardianship over Napoleon’s penis for the rest of his life, fearful that observers would poke fun at it.

Lattimer died in 2007 and the penis was inherited by his daughter, Evan Lattimer. She has maintained her father’s strict custodianship over Napoleon’s penis to this day and has refused all permission to film or photograph it, saying:

 “Dad believed that urology should be proper and decent and not a joke.”

Just ten people have ever seen it in the flesh, one being the aforementioned Perrottet, who described it thusly:

“An amazing thing to behold. There it was: Napoleon’s penis sitting on cotton wool, very beautifully laid out, and it was very small, very shriveled, about an inch and a half long. It was like a little baby’s finger,”

We are now two centuries on from the death of Napoleon Bonaparte, but this very personal part of him remains resident in a box in New Jersey. Maybe one day it will be returned to its original owner, but somehow we suspect that the saga of Napoleon’s well-travelled penis is far from over.

And now, some history: On July 21, 1798, Napoleon Bonaparte pointed at some pyramids.

It was probably a cool moment once you put aside the imperialism and the smell of 20,000 French soldiers marching through a desert in wool pants. “40 centuries look down upon you,” Napoleon shouted, gesturing at the world’s most instantly recognizable triangles with dead guys inside them. Later that day, he led his men to war in what historians would as the Battle of the Pyramids.

Historians are dramatic, though. The “Battle of the Pyramids,” which was named by Napoleon in a characteristic fit of awesome self-publicity, was actually fought the better part of 10 miles from the Great Pyramid of Giza, nowhere near close enough for the French soldiers to loose cannons into the sides of the monuments as depicted in Ridley Scott’s Napoleon. For his part, Scott could give a very large hat about the film’s historical accuracy.

While we’re here, we might as well nip another misconception in the bud: Napoleon didn’t shoot the nose of the Sphinx. Giant stone noses are just really hard to keep on your face after the first few thousand years. Also, according to the Smithsonian, a guy in the 1300s knocked that schnoz down when he saw people praying to the statue for water – that might or might not be the case. Just be glad historians didn’t call the act of vandalism “The Battle of the Sinus” or something.

That said, Napoleon did enjoy the pyramids while he was visiting. Napoleon expert Shannon Selin writes that he had his troops race to the top of one, promising that the winner would get – well, nothing. The winner didn’t get anything. Man, people were bored back then.

Anyway, there you have it. Napoleon didn’t shoot the pyramids with a cannon. In the future, if you’re wondering if someone shot something with a cannon, a helpful mnemonic tool is to look for giant, cannonball-sized holes in the thing and, if there aren’t any, assume the best.

There aren’t many names in Hollywood on either side of the camera who would flat-out tell a journalist to go f*ck themselves in the middle of an interview after taking issue with a question, but that’s Ridley Scott for you.

The legendary director has developed a habit as being arguably the most high-profile curmudgeon the industry has to offer, although he’s allowed to get cranky considering he’s been responsible for a laundry list of classics dating back decades.

His 21st Century output has largely been defined by a number of historical epics, though, a field he’s returning to shortly when the blockbuster Napoleon arrives. Artistic and creative license is required for projects of such scale and ambition, but Scott’s latest rebuttal is positively quaint by his standards.

When asked by The New Yorker for his thoughts on TV historian Dan Snow posting a blow-by-blow breakdown of what the movie gets wrong in regards to the facts and then posting it online for the world to see, all Scott could muster was a derisory “get a life.”

He’s said a lot worse, to be fair, so Snow got off pretty easy all things considered. Despite making it his genre of choice repeatedly over the last couple of decades, the jury is still out on whether or not Napoleon will turn out more like Gladiator or Exodus: Gods and Kings, even if a stellar central performance is guaranteed by virtue of Joaquin Phoenix playing the title role.

If critics don’t like it, will Scott even give so much as a rat’s ass? Based on his previous responses to such matters, we’re going to go out on a limb and say absolutely not.

Ridley Scott‘s Joaquin Phoenix-led historical epic Napoleon already boasts a 2.5-hour runtime, but the director has now teased a longer, 4.5-hour extended cut that might be a delight for Vanessa Kirby fans. Scott’s “fantastic” cut of the movie features more scenes of Kirby’s Empress Joséphine, and he wishes to release it too.

Napoleon‘s story mainly focuses on the French leader Napoleon Bonaparte’s rise to power and his volatile relationship with the Empress of and Queen of Italy, Joséphine de Beauharnais. Joaquin Phoenix hopes the theatrical cut of the film “captured some of the most interesting moments,” but the latest tease has fans excited for the 4.5-hour version.

Scott revealed to Empire Magazine that his cut of the film would feature “more of Joséphine’s life before she meets Napoleon.” He also gave a green light for its release, saying he would “love Apple to eventually screen it.” The film will mark Scott’s second collaboration with Joaquin Phoenix, who previously played a fictionalized version of Roman Emperor Commodus in the 2000 film Gladiator.

Kirby has nothing but praise for Phoenix’s portrayal of Napoleon, saying that “Joaquin studies the psyche, and the psyche of Napoleon is so strange.” She compares the film to Gladiator, adding “Napoleon wasn’t stoic and wonderful like Russell Crowe was in Gladiator. He was a dictator, a war criminal, really.”

Meanwhile, Kirby’s character Empress Joséphine is an equally intriguing historical figure who was the only person ever deeply loved by a man who killed hundreds of thousands of men just for an empire. The tumultuous relationship between the two became an important factor in Napoleon’s changing psyche who was never loved equally by Joséphine.

Napoleon offers “an original and personal look at Napoleon’s origins and his swift, ruthless climb to the emperor, viewed through the prism of his addictive and often volatile relationship with his wife and one true love, Josephine.” Catch the film in theaters on Nov. 22, 2023.

One of the best memes of the summer is Barbenheimer — not just because it’s led to amazing fan art of Barbie standing in a cloud of nuclear vapor, but also because it seems to be an expression of genuine interest in both of the films going head to head over the July 21 weekend. And while we all eagerly anticipate Greta Gerwig’s Barbie and Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer, some film fans are gazing toward the winter to come up with the next movie-mashing meme.

The results? Well, see below:

First of all, these two films aren’t releasing on the same day. Secondly, it’s a stretch to suggest either is as widely anticipated as Barbie or Oppenheimer. Indeed, trailers for both Napoleon and Wonka recently dropped, and the hype trains aren’t exactly moving at top speed.

Turns out, the internet agrees with us:

Another issue is that “Wonkpoleon” isn’t even the best version of that joke:

Regardless of what we’re calling it… well, we’re not calling it. Because it’s not a thing. “Barbenheimer” is a beautiful accident. “Napoleonka,” meanwhile, is our new drag name.

Just for fun, though, here are a few mashups of famous movies that actually released on the same day. No, we’re not trying to make these memes. They don’t belong in the zeitgeist. We’re just trapped in our air-conditioning and have nothing else to do: The Thing Runner, Gremlinbusters, The Wrath of Poltergeist, and of course, A Fish Called Die Hard.

If we see these anywhere on Twitter, we’ll deny all involvement.

After delivering some of the biggest entries in the realm of historical epics and biopics such as Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, House of Gucci, and The Last Duel, to name a few, filmmaker Ridley Scott will be introducing a new piece of work, Napoleon, a historical biopic on one of the most powerful emperors to have reigned in history – Napoleon Bonaparte.

Our curiosity is certainly piqued. So, what do we know so far about the film?

Napoleon: A glimpse into the release date, trailer, plot, and cast 4c2j69

It’s confirmed that the film will see a theatrical release on Nov. 22, 2023, and then stream on Apple Plus.  The trailer, which gives a glimpse into the events and politics paving the way for the emperor’s rise to the zenith of power begins with chaos on the streets of in the year 1793 – which is almost eleven years prior to Napoleon’s coronation as ’s emperor.

War scenes, battlefields, and interactions between various characters that look like political machinations occupy a major portion of the trailer, which could mean that the focus will be exclusively on the action, politics, and drama of the era. Based on the trailer, we can expect the movie’s efforts to explore the origins of Napoleon’s ascension to megalomania. The engaging storyline and striking visuals make this a promising historical biopic.

However, Scott has his own reasons for choosing Napoleon as his next project, being his fascination with the authoritative, historical figure. Explaining in detail to Deadline on this subject at the onset of the production, he explained,

“Napoleon is a man I’ve always been fascinated by. He came out of nowhere to rule everything – but all the while he was waging a romantic war with his adulterous wife Josephine. He conquered the world to try to win her love, and when he couldn’t, he conquered it to destroy her, and destroyed himself in the process.”

With the confirmation of the release date, trailer, and the expected storyline comes an eagerness and increasing curiosity about the casting . Not unlike the previous movies by Scott, Napoleon too is laden with a star-studded cast.

Who will star in Ridley Scott’s Napoleon? 5b2c1z

Aside from Ben Miles, Matthew Needham, Phil Cornwall, Tahar Rahim, Vanessa Kirby as Empress Josephine, and various others who will be starring in significant ing roles, the role of the titular character goes to none other than the immensely talented Joaquin Phoenix. Extolling the latter’s performance, Scott told Empire that Phoenix was “the most special, thoughtful actor I’ve ever worked with.” Adding to the compliment, he stated,

“Joaquin is about as far from conventional as you can get. Not deliberately, but out of intuition. That’s what makes him tick. If something bothers him, he’ll let you know. I had to respect that, because what was being said was incredibly constructive. It made it all grow bigger and better.”

Napoleon will be released in theatres on Nov. 22, 2023.