Movies: 19854 | TV Series: 3309 | Added today: 0 | Storage: 74791 GB
|Country:||Germany, USA, UK|
The year is 1816, and NAPOLEON, held prisoner by the British on the island of St. Helena, is telling the young English girl BETSY his life story. His meteoric rise to military prominence begins with his victory over the Royalists in 1795, which is followed by campaigns in Italy and Egypt. He marries the young and capricious JOSEPHINE DE BEAUHARNAIS, the love of his life, who unfortunately cannot bear him any children. After a coup dtat he seizes power in France and crowns himself Emperor of the French in 1804. After his decisive victory at Austerlitz, Napoleon reorganizes Europe and makes his relatives into princes and kings. Continuing resistance by the Spanish results in some initial losses, however. Meanwhile, Napoleon is increasingly fascinated by other women, including the Polish patriot MARIA WALEWSKA, who bears him a son. Napoleon intends to found an imperial dynasty, however...
|2||Napoleon (TV mini-series) (iPod)||Resolution: 480x368 px||Total Size: 365 Mb||
|1||Napoleon (TV mini-series) (iPod)||Resolution: 480x368 px||Total Size: 343 Mb||
|1||Napoleon (TV mini-series) (DivX)||Resolution: 512x384 px||Total Size: 699 Mb|
|2||Napoleon (TV mini-series) (DivX)||Resolution: 512x384 px||Total Size: 695 Mb|
Movie Photos: We have taken some photos of "Napoleon (TV mini-series)". They represent actual movie quality.
Abusimble1 22 May 2013
This serial is about Napoleon Bonaparte, emperor of the French peopleafter The French Revolution takes place. The only thing really lackingin this film is the war scenes. They simply don't use enough soldiersto give a realistic effect of a battle. The rest of the serial is verygood. The acting is good and what I especially liked is how they showcloseups of the characters at certain times. The music is good andtheatrical sounding. The costumes worn by the characters are expensiveand beautiful (much like French design is in real life) and thearchitecture of the houses was splendidly recreated in great details.I bought this series from A&E and definitely recommend watching it ifyou're a guy who's interested in historical serials. Napoleon is one ofthe most fascinating of them all, so who better to watch one about?
pvdharten 21 May 2013
Although quite lengthy, this documentary never became boring.Much to the credit of the script writers, there is an excellent balancebetween action scenes, political intrigue and romance. This all leadsto a much better understanding of the character of Napoleon Bonaparte,although more credit could have been given to his constitutional andgovernance reforms which are still tangible for many European nationstoday.The original score and photography is of a very high standard, but whatis even more important, I have rarely come across a movie in which thecasting was this well tailored to the characters. Rather than puttingfamous names in all the lead roles, a true effort has been made tomatch the skills of the actor to the character in a fine, pan-Europeancast.Christian Clavier's accent is quite charming: I guess this is how wethink Napoleon would have sounded, if he would have spoken English....
AJS218 21 May 2013
On the plus side: the costumes and interiors are magnificent, IsabellaRossellini is good as Josephine, the historical events depicted arepresented accurately, and the series gets better as it goes along(don't give up after the muddled first episode!).On the minus side: we never really get a feel for what Napoleonactually stood for or why and how he was such a military genius, thefilm dwells on his private life when it could be dealing with the hugesocial and political issues of the time, the actors playing some of thesecondary characters are laughably bad (Murat, Ney, Marie-Louise), andone has to strain to hear the dialogue (due to the foreign accents,background noise and music).As for Christian Clavier, it's amazing how the comments on hisperformance stretch from "brilliant" to "trash." My own view is that hewas off the mark as the younger Napoleon, but as the mature Napoleonhad basically the right look and plenty of gravitas.A good contribution to the body of film about the Emperor but also fullof flaws.
Emperor_Napoleon 20 May 2013
Well I watched the second episode and I recorded the 3rd and the 4th ones,and I was just blown away. I mean, I think, even though many will thinkthatI'm crazy, that this is one of the best movies ever made, even better thanband of brothers. Maybe some of the actors have slight flaws, butChristianClavier is nothing less than excellent as the Emperor. Some points may notbe accurate but the rest is so good it forgives some bad performances andunnecessary moments. The soundtrack is as well excellent, and fitsperfectlywith the movie.Isabella Rosselini wasn't all that great, but Heino Ferch as Calaincourtwasexcellent, playing some sort of a smart guy that at times could be a bitnaive.I loved this and Clavier's performance was great, what is that site ofyoursdude?
Lisa H. 19 May 2013
Not all movies have the BEST graphics, and maybe this one didn't havegraphics that would blow you away, but that wasn't really the point, anditlooked fine, to me.I caught part of this on A&E, recently. I watched a few minutes, thenturned the channel to watch a regular show. I came back to it, andwatchedthe end of the first half. The next day, I ran into the second part. Imissed quite a bit, but watched the last hour, or so. I started cravingtherest of it. I got online and did a search, found it was out on DVD, andmade a trip to my local video retailer. I got the 3-DVD set and havesincemade a website devoted to Christian Clavier because I thought he did awonderful job, and this movie made me a fan almost instantly. I've alwaysliked Isabella Rossellini, and her role as Josephine was veryconvincing.I've always been a fan of Napoleon movies, and I've seen several, but thisone has to be the best. The interaction between Napoleon and Josephineandthe action during the war scenes had me on the edge of my seat. Mostpeopleknow how the end turned out, but that didn't stop me from thinking thatthings would be different.I highly recommend this movie, in DVD format for the "making of" section.Iwish I had watched this in high school because I would have learned quiteabit.Go watch this movie!
chrsmil16747 19 May 2013
Excellent rendition chronicling Napoleons life. As usual Malkovich &GerardDepardeau were magnificent in their roles and Heino Ferch was a breath offresh air.Christian Clavier brought such a human & at times Humane qualityto Napoleon.
rowe-8 18 May 2013
This mini wasn't bad but it could have been much better. The decisionof using actors of many nationalities and language, even for Frenchcharacters of a French mini, is a very odd decision. There are manyscenes where it's painfully obvious that the actor was dubbed. I don'thave anything against dubbing but going from French actors to dubbedactors was quite annoying.But the main problem was the character of NapolÃ©on himself. The man wasa conqueror and a dictator. Not the meanest dictator ever, but stillsomeone who gave himself complete control of his country. Here, I feelthey were trying to present NapolÃ©on as a nice, misunderstood man.Sure, some scenes did show the massive ego of the man, and his lust forconquest, but it's as if those scenes were there by necessity, becausethey were historical event that had to be dealt with and there was noother explanation they could find. Usually, the following scenes showedus Bonaparte on a better, more likable angle, like those events wereinconsequential. Being partisan is okay but you have to be morecritical. It becomes even weirder when you think that Simoneau isn'tFrench but Canadian, therefor should've had more distance with thesubject.
maxime-20 17 May 2013
Being interested in the subject and seeing the amazing cast it had, Ithought i would enjoy this mini-series and put both DVDs (eps 1-2 andeps 3-4) on my Netflix. What a disappointment! I had to force myself toget through episode 1. I thought it might get better with the secondepisode, but no such luck. The story keeps dragging, the acting isuninspiring, the dialog plain boring and almost laughable. Yes, this isone of the most expensive European productions ever made, but no matterhow much money they spent on this, it still looks cheaply done. Thecolors are so over the top vibrant and colorful that it lacks anyauthenticity. And honestly, with its $46 million budget, would it havebeen so hard to find a real, beautiful sunset near the French sea costinstead of putting Clavier in front of a super fake looking greenscreen??? What was the most disappointing about this production is theacting. And honestly, you can't blame the actors for it. The script anddialog they had to work with is just terrible, over dramatic and waytoo wordy. Not everything needs to be explained. Not every character'sname need to be mentioned in every single line of dialog. Less is more.But here, more is the norm. Well, I now realize I need to log ontoNetflix, and delete my next film in my queue: Napoleon Disc II.
davidjpeers 15 May 2013
It is probably pointless recommending or not recommending this seriesas there are two types of people that are going to buy this: TheNapoleon nuts like me and the period drama people. The latter will bein their element as the domestic sets are both lavish and authentic.There are also some remarkable likenesses such as Josephine, Murat andCaulencourt.On first viewing I was left a little cold. I thought that at last asubstantial amount of time had been allocated to this, perhaps thegreatest of all individual subjects. However, if there is one thingthat any expert on the subject will tell you, it is that there is noway that you can even begin to condense this subject into 60 hours, letalone 6. The worst mistake that this film makes is attempting toreplicate the battles themselves. The camera angles pan across largeexpanses revealing (at best) eight or nine hundred extras. All thiswhilst regular references are made to 20,000 losses on each side(Austerlitz, Eylau, Essling and especially Waterloo). Sometimes, it isalmost laughable and cheapens the rest of the film. The makers wouldhave been much better off by excluding any military action and justleaving it to innuendo Â after all, Borodino is just referred to byCaulencourt when in Moscow conversing with Murat.. Thank God theydidn't try to replicate that terrible battle! So, the plus points:Napoleon: At first I thought that Clavier was miles off the mark. If,like me you have seen and were bowled over by Rod Steiger's renditionin Waterloo then this will get some getting used to. After all,Napoleon is a red-blooded Corsican genius, capable of flying off thehandle at any time, exhausting his counterparts and friends alike. Notin this version. Yet, Clavier has one saving grace. He introduces ameasured, human approach that we know Napoleon had to have had fromtime to time. Almost schizophrenic some might say (Megalomania is thepreferred terminology). I don't prefer his interpretation of Napoleon'sto Steiger, but it is warmer if not necessarily more Corsican. If wecould introduce this to Steiger's approach you may have the perfectNapoleon.The relationship between Napoleon and Josephine is also one of thebetter points of this series. Clavier's in-love out-of-loverelationship is perfectly handled without the usual mushiness. Here isa relationship based on love, intensity, necessity and ultimatelyfriendship and loss.Finally, Caulencourt is dealt with in some depth, as is Fauche, Muratand Talleyrand. But where is Berthier, Bessieres, Augereau, Davout andNey (who suddenly appears towards the end despite his Russian campaignheroics)? Holes? Yes. But unless we get someone with $500,000,000willing to approach this subject with the endeavour it deserves then weare left with this kind of product. So overall, not too bad. Vivel'Emperor!
jlacerra 15 May 2013
I played this movie with great hopes. I'm a history enthusiast, and now Iwas to see a story about the entire life of one of history's great figures. What a let down. The acting was baaad! Even John Malkovich couldn't mustera decent performance, and the perennially over-rated Isabella Rosselini wasmore than usually dreadful. But the movie's crown jewel of lame performances is Cristian Clavier in thetitle role. Who would follow this mumbly-mouthed, nondescript troll intobattle? He comes off like the creepy guy from the local pizza parlorplaying dress-up and reading lines without his glasses.Possible Spoilers:The plot is disjointed and difficult to follow. For example, we see"Napoleon" leading his troops into a disastrous battle in Italy, and thencut to a Paris salon where his "victory" is being discussed!Later, we are told that Napoleon's disaster in Egypt (where he abandoned hisentire stranded army, they neglected to add) somehow will make himsuper-popular in France. Go figure!Napoleon once said, "To a man like me, the lives of fifty-thousand men isjust so much s_ _ t." Well, to a man like me, this movie is soooo much s_ _t!!!
Vincent Ricci 13 May 2013
The greatest man of all French history is back on TV !Of course, we all know (I hope so !) by heart the life of NapoleonBonaparteand so many films about it have been made but still, this one, maybebecausemade by French people (with some foreign actors) has this little thingwhichattracts the audience interest.The cast is amazing : Christian Clavier as NapolÃ©on, I.Rossellini,J.Malkovich and G.Depardieu are wonderful and on the contrary of what wecould expect, credible.So many talented actors in a TV mini, it's rare so it's inevitablyinteresting. I don't even talk about the fascinating atmosphere whichgiveslight to this movie !Well, from my memory of hard TV watcher, I don't remember of such a goodhistorical TV movie ! I even wonder why it didn't open on theatres!A great movie for the Emperor !
blaine3 13 May 2013
Overall I was disappointed in comparing it to Sergei Bondarchuk's version of"Waterloo". However I realize that to make a film of Napoleons entire Careeron that scale would be impossible now (perhaps even then) due to financialand political considerations (there is no Red Army now to use in the battlescenes!)Isabella Rossellini as JosÃ©phine de Beauharnais was perfectly beautiful butnot nearly as calculating as the real JosÃ©phine.GÃ©rard Depardieu as Joseph FouchÃ© the minister of police was not nearly assinister as the character called for.Alexandra Maria Lara as Countess MarieWalewska didn't quite make it. Alain Doutey as MarÃ©chal Ney was too much ofan old fogey..he showed nothing of the reckless daring of the real Ney. Lastbut not least Christian Clavier as NapolÃ©on gave an uneven performance.Sometimes he was good in the more introspective scenes but I could not seethe charisma that would have inspired troops on to victory in thisNapoleon.On the plus side I thought John Malkovich was perfectly slimy as Tallyrand,although he looked nothing like the real Tallyrand. I appreciated that theyportrayed Armand Augustin Louis, (Marquis de Caulaincourt)as one ofNapoleon's closest confidants during his imperial period. Most films giveCaulaincourt short shrift. I think Caulaincourt was one of the morehonorable men associated with Napoleon.Toby Stephens as Tsar Alexander I wasone of the better portrayals of the Tsar. The scene where one of Napoleonsclosest confidants (I forget his name) had his head taken off by a cannon ashe was beside Napoleon was historically accurate as was Napoleons closerelationship with Marshal Lannes. Sebastian Koch as Marshal Jean Lannes, inhis death scene was good and I think the last words of Lannes werehistorically accurate, where he urged Napoleon to give up his lust forwar.Murat was shown to be Napoleons favorite commander right from the beginningwhen Napoleon saved the Assembly from the Royalist mob with a "whiff ofgrapeshot". Was this accurate?Where did that character with the turban playing the part of Napoleons valetcome from? Napoleon said he picked him up in Egypt. Napoleons valet most ofhis career was a Frenchman named Constant.I felt a bit of sadness when the loutish British governor was seenmistreating Napoleon, the depression and sense of isolation that must haveovercome Napoleon was evident. Napoleons relationship with the governorsdaughter (of whom Napoleon became quite fond) was not explored.
Andrew Kim 09 May 2013
With an exceptional performance by Clavier, and the rest of theNapoleon cast, this multi-million dollar miniseries is highlyunderrated. It depicts Napoleon's life well for such a short lifespan,but there are a few mistakes that accompany the film.First, Malkovich wasn't the best choice to play the renowned diplomatTalleyrand. Malkovich portrays him in a rather bland and placid manner,and the director shows him as a bit of a weakling, whereas Talleyrandwas one of the most powerful men in all Europe -- even after Napoleon'sdefeat.Second, Alain Doutey as Marshal Ney... not as enthusiastic as the realMarshal Ney would have been. His famous line, repeated in the film, wassaid unenthusiastic and without spirit.Simoneau would have done better had he shown elements of the Duke ofWellington to contrast the two military leaders... we definitely didn'treally want to see the blubbering Louis XVIII, or the King/Prince ofSpain, for that matter.Other than that however, the rest of the performances were fantastic.Josephine, Caulaincourt, Caroline Bonaparte, Murat -- and of course,the Emperor Napoleon, were all shown true to form.
rynotows 09 May 2013
Rod Steiger in 1970 NAILED the role of Napoleon. I can't believe thatthis2002 catastrophe is available on dvd and the classic 1970 version withChristopher Plummer as Wellington is not. what a strange and cruel twistthat is.By all means if you are interested in Napoleon, see Waterloo. You won'tregret it.As for the 2002 version, eh, if you have the time and NOTHING better todo.
S Bodmann 08 May 2013
This series, consisting (in Germany) of 4 parts, tells the story of themostimportant figure in French history, NapolÃ©on Bonaparte whose remarkablecareer started as a mere officer in an artillery regiment. The filmfocusesespecially on NapolÃ©on's (C. Clavier) relationship to his early love,Josephine, who is quite beautiful but also some years older than NapolÃ©on.Indeed, most of the film is centered largerly around the numerous affairsand relationships of the Emperor, who seeks an heir but also to strenghtenthe french influence in Europe.There are some quite fascinating battle-scenes, although, for a 42 millionEuro project, one might say they could've been done better. Obviously mostof the money has been spent on the wonderful costumes, and, naturally, onthe prominent cast, which includes some famous European, as well asAmercianactors.Generally, if you are interested in such kind of movies and have a certainknowledge of the historical facts, "NapolÃ©on" is absolutelyrecommendable. It might have some flaws, and some historical facts may be,to the normally educated, not clear, but then, it's only a TVmovie.And it's really rather enjoyable, bringing a fascinating period ofEuropeanhistory to life.
chips76309 08 May 2013
As an American I was not familiar with French actor Christian Clavier, butIwas pleasantly surprised at his characterization of Napoleon. M. Clavierhas the confidence and presence to personify a historical character ofamazing charisma. I look forward to seeing him as Asterix!As for the overall production, it was very well-done and was a fairsummaryof a life that encompassed unimaginable highs and lows.
Libs 05 May 2013
It sounds good in theory, but once you start watching it, it clearlystinks.Silly might be the most accurate word to describe this stinker. Sillyacting, silly directing, silly casting. It is particularly difficult tomakegood historic epics and the pitfalls are numerous. In Napoleon's case, notonly did it fall in each and every one of them, it managed to invent somenew ones...You will NEVER believe that hundreds of thousands men fought against eachother in napoleonic battles. Not with the clumsy 40 fools you'll see onscreen. Simoneau couldnt direct actors if his life depended on it. Most ofthe amateur work in battle re-enactment (a la SCA or the civil war buffsinAmerica) is a lot better than this.You will NEVER believe that Napoleon was such a fascinating man and thatheconquered most of Europe and created an empire. Not with the very funnylooking Clavier trying to do his best to get some respect. He's a comedianand not a very skilled one at that. He managed to get some laughs infrenchcomedies, but as an epic figure, he falls flat on his face. Mind you, hewasnt really helped by the script...The "script" is in fact like a big gaping hole trying to suck up thedialogues in an attempt to patch itself. All the lines uttered by theactorsare used to pump details in the story because the script wasnt able tokeepup with its own pace. Most of the important events are shown infast-forwardso you just cant think about them. It's like tv fast food..And finally, nobody in his right mind will be able to retain from laughingwhile viewing the very cheap CGI and the lame special effects. God, evenStar Trek TOS looked better. Nothing looks even remotely real. From SpaintoMoscow, everything looks like it was shot in your backyard.If you want some good Napoleon stories, I'd say watch a documentary orreada book, because this big empty tv dungpile will leave youdisappointed.
missmarmite 05 May 2013
I was never interested in Napoleon. Although I visited the Louvre I didn'tgo to see Napoleon's chambers, which are on display there. I would havenever watched this series if it wasn't for the actors in it. And now, aftersix hours of Napoleon and nothing but Napoleon, I actually got interested inthe chap and think about reading a biography. And I'm sure this is down tothe excellent performance of Christian Clavier. Simple asthat.Okay, his English could be a tiny bit better, agreed, but I rather get usedto an accented English than to a bad performance by English native speakers.Christian Clavier is truly an excellent actor, although he might be bestknown (in France) for his parts in very silly comedies. If he only decidedto take more "serious" parts, maybe more people would notice what afantastic talent he has. What he can express just with his eyes is quitestunning. But that may be a female point of view...The other well known actors had, of course, smaller parts, in comparison.But none of them was miscast. And I especially liked how actors fromdifferent countries once again worked together. This as well is what theEuropean idea is about.One of the few things I didn't like were the flashbacks at the end. Theywere completely out of place and should be cut out. They don't make sense atall at the end of the film.And a last remark about Monsieur Clavier's language skills: The first way hesaid "Ich liebe dich" got me guffawing, the second way he made my heartmelt. Maybe he should think about doing a film in German...?
Nico Koolsbergen 04 May 2013
All my life I was fascinated by the Emperor of the French so I was gladto find this movie on DVD. As far as I know this is a pretty accuratedescription of the life and - particularly - the wars of NapolÃ©on. Iliked most of the actors and certainly Christian Clavier. However,three things could have been done better. To begin with there are toomany battle scenes while it's impossible to keep overview; instead Iwould have preferred more attention for the political developments inthe Napoleontic era. Then I don't understand why the movie is in theEnglish language; NapolÃ©on and his friends spoke French! My mainobjection is that it's difficult to identify with the main characters.Why does NapolÃ©on do what he does, what's going on in the minds ofMurat or Ney, what exactly attracts Walewska to Napoleon, etcetera? Forpeople interested in what NapolÃ©on might have moved, I stronglyrecommend the film 'Waterloo' (Bondarchuk 1970) with an overwhelmingNapolÃ©on played by Rod Steiger!
Jerry Kelly 04 May 2013
But for Americans like me who don't know that Christian Clavier is a merecomedian, he is the essence of Napoleon come to life. An excellentactingjob with a great supporting cast.