rkmsand To all of the fans of this film We know why we have this in our personal collection. To all of the critics .......You are way way way jaded. Give it a rest.I need more lines. the color was awesome. The acting was awesome. The picture was awesome.If you did not like this movie you are a spoiled snob that needs a vacation. I can not wait to share this movie with my friends .Hey snobs .....what the hell do you want from people anyway?? Why am I typing a review that no one will read anyway?Why am I wasting my time anyway?What is the point of all of this? Hello go watch the movie idiots.

cowboyerik Yes, the "Eagles" or monarchs of Europe and England did ultimately defeat Bonaparte. They did destroy his armies. They did crush the people's revolution. Napoleon made mistakes, mistakes that were already in history and would be repeated again. Even now in our century. His war against the Kings of Europe was the good fight. His men, his people wanted an end to eat. They didn't want to just eat cake. They wanted bread. The despotic rulers of Europe sowed the seeds of their own end. Had Bonaparte made a few less mistakes, or maybe just one, he would have been successful. As it was, it would be another 75 to 100 years for Kings/Queens to be eliminated and freedom to reign. Today, I am often disgusted at how these figure head Kings and Queens, Prince and Princess's carry on, most prominently in England, these kids need to come out and admit they are nothing. God didn't place them in power, the are just people that happen to have been born into their palaces and estates. It's a waste of money. Had Napoleon not weakened them, and showed the world that they were beatable, the people may not have eventually overthrown them. If Napoleon had been successful it is possible there would have been no WORLD WARS. Both world wars were cause by and set off by various ruling house having treaties and loyalties to each others by cousins, families and in-laws and it was so confusing it lead to WW1. Then the miserable outcome of WW1 led to WW2, then the Cold War and beyond. The World is still un-dividing and disarming and we still have incredibly huge militaries and expenditures when we can't take care of people around the world. Napoleon tried to end 100 years war before it started. This is the story of his attempt to end it. Truly his story. Well told. Teaser bits of battles, the agony and cost of defeat, his love for people and his women. Not fat drunk. Not a murderer or executioner. An honorable Battlefield Commander in the name of his people, and the people of the world. A liberator that showed the way to freedom, the way to democracy, that path out of tyranny. Most interesting figure in history. Can't be touched or denied.

Gui1999 Detailing the life and times of Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, Napoleon the four part mini-series is a stunning portrayal of one of Europe's greatest men. One minute we are in a tent somewhere in the olive fields of Italy the next we are in a ball watching Napoleon meet the beautiful Comtesse Walweska. Christian Clavier plays a fantastic Napoleon Bonaparte with that cunning and yet short tempered mind that the Emperor is so famous for. Isabella Rossellini does a good job at playing Josephine De Beauharnais and Marie Horbiger plays an equally good Marie-Louise matching the real Empress's personality well. Out of the three women however Alexandra Maria Lara played the strongest character as Comtesse Walweska, the enigma who in the latter stage of the series takes a prominent role. I found John Malkovich's portrayal of Charles-Maurice Talleyrand yet another fantastic performance. Napoleon's family was also represented with great representations of Caroline and of Murat Bonaparte. The role of Fouche was well represented by Gerard Depardieu. In total however I found the series too short, I thought it should have been double the size. The Peninsular Campaign is way to brief in the series and many of the battles are not accurately represented nor really showing Napoleon's real genius which was on the battlefield as well as at the drawing table. The 16 Marshals are badly represented with only a couple being mentioned and Marshal Ney 'The Fearless' is briefly added in at the end to fit the story line. Many of the key points of the era are missing from this otherwise stunning portrayal of one of Europe's Greatest Men.

davidjpeers It is probably pointless recommending or not recommending this series as there are two types of people that are going to buy this: The Napoleon nuts like me and the period drama people. The latter will be in their element as the domestic sets are both lavish and authentic. There are also some remarkable likenesses such as Josephine, Murat and Caulencourt.On first viewing I was left a little cold. I thought that at last a substantial amount of time had been allocated to this, perhaps the greatest of all individual subjects. However, if there is one thing that any expert on the subject will tell you, it is that there is no way that you can even begin to condense this subject into 60 hours, let alone 6. The worst mistake that this film makes is attempting to replicate the battles themselves. The camera angles pan across large expanses revealing (at best) eight or nine hundred extras. All this whilst regular references are made to 20,000 losses on each side (Austerlitz, Eylau, Essling and especially Waterloo). Sometimes, it is almost laughable and cheapens the rest of the film. The makers would have been much better off by excluding any military action and just leaving it to innuendo – after all, Borodino is just referred to by Caulencourt when in Moscow conversing with Murat.. Thank God they didn'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 rendition in Waterloo then this will get some getting used to. After all, Napoleon is a red-blooded Corsican genius, capable of flying off the handle at any time, exhausting his counterparts and friends alike. Not in this version. Yet, Clavier has one saving grace. He introduces a measured, human approach that we know Napoleon had to have had from time to time. Almost schizophrenic some might say (Megalomania is the preferred terminology). I don't prefer his interpretation of Napoleon's to Steiger, but it is warmer if not necessarily more Corsican. If we could introduce this to Steiger's approach you may have the perfect Napoleon.The relationship between Napoleon and Josephine is also one of the better points of this series. Clavier's in-love out-of-love relationship is perfectly handled without the usual mushiness. Here is a relationship based on love, intensity, necessity and ultimately friendship and loss.Finally, Caulencourt is dealt with in some depth, as is Fauche, Murat and Talleyrand. But where is Berthier, Bessieres, Augereau, Davout and Ney (who suddenly appears towards the end despite his Russian campaign heroics)? Holes? Yes. But unless we get someone with $500,000,000 willing to approach this subject with the endeavour it deserves then we are left with this kind of product. So overall, not too bad. Vive l'Emperor!