User Reviews

I admit I found it a little hard to stomach Christian Clavier (Jacquouille la Fripouille from « Les Visiteurs » and Astérix from the Astérix films) as Napoléon, especially when that role has been interpreted in English by the likes of Marlon Brando, Charles Boyer, Herbert Lom and Rod Steiger and in French, by the likes of Albert Dieudonné, Daniel Gélin, Sacha Guitry, Raymond Pellegrin and Jean-Louis Barrault. Because of all those famous precedents, one has come to expect in the role a kind of forceful but graceful personality. Clavier plays him a little bit on the educated warthog side, but that's OK because so did Marlon Brando.

IMDb users seem to hate this TV movie for all the wrong reasons. It can't be faulted for historical accuracy. There is every indication that almost every single word spoken in this script was actually said by the protagonists. And here is at least one English-language movie that doesn't show Napoléon's soldiers taking aim at the Sphinx's nose for target practice (an English myth). The sets and costumes are magnificent. The action is a little simplified for my taste but it allows the viewer a more unencumbered comprehension of the timeline. I have seen many French movies that naturally expect their French audience to know all the dates and the battles by heart and take it from there, so to speak. I am sure that the DVD version, which is longer, will reconcile many critics with scenes that seemed a little too short on TV.

I only noticed two major goofs in the whole four hours. John Malkovitch seems to think he is too great an actor to accept suggestions as to the pronunciation of French names, either from his co-stars or from a French coach, which must be responsible for his coasting through every possible phonetic permutation of the words 'Duc d'Enghien' in the course of an hour, some of them successful. Also, the same character warns Joséphine not to go to Poland before Napoléon has even met Marie Waleska, which is mysterious indeed. Did he actually know they would meet and fall in love?

But, all in all, it is a magnificent effort in a TV series, one that is not without its artistic and poetic merits.

I have to admit my knowledge of Bonaparte and French history is sketchy at best. When I saw this DVD set for sale, I grabbed it, being fairly certain that it would be quality and worth watching. Well, four episodes later, having become totally addicted, I hope I have better knowledge because I found it fascinating and enthralling. I don't like battle scenes, they evoke too many emotions for me of the wastage of humankind, but I found the graphics clearly illustrated for me where the campaigns were heading, what happened and I think I learned from it. I found the acting was convincing, I loved Josephine and ached for her when they divorced; I found our hero more sympathetic that I had expected, and that was pleasing because a nation such as France would not blindly follow someone who was not passionate about the country. I thought that this was (given obvious time/money limitations) quite splendid and can't wait to share it!

On the plus side: the costumes and interiors are magnificent, Isabella Rossellini is good as Josephine, the historical events depicted are presented 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 Napoleon actually stood for or why and how he was such a military genius, the film dwells on his private life when it could be dealing with the huge social and political issues of the time, the actors playing some of the secondary characters are laughably bad (Murat, Ney, Marie-Louise), and one 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 his performance stretch from "brilliant" to "trash." My own view is that he was off the mark as the younger Napoleon, but as the mature Napoleon had basically the right look and plenty of gravitas.

A good contribution to the body of film about the Emperor but also full of flaws.

Although I'm a historian, the Napoleonic period isn't exactly my specialty. Even so, I managed to enjoy this miniseries, which lasts about six and a half hours, divided into four films of one and a half hours each. And one of the points that most caught my attention and highlighted is the effort of the production, which brings together several countries, but is led by France, to make a work that is historically accurate, even though it corresponds to the French perspective of his life.

Napoleon Bonaparte is one of the great historical personalities without whom it is difficult to conceive the course of world history. A brilliant military commander, with ideas and tactics that are still the subject of study in military academies, he knew how to take advantage of his prestige among soldiers to impose an almost stratocracy on republican France, and gave solidity and stability to a country tired of political turmoil. However, decades of warfare led the French to despair, and Europe to a unanimous coalition against him. Although he did not get to rule for even twenty years and his achievements were quickly nullified with his removal, he managed to put the whole of Europe in check.

Christian Clavier seems to me a sensible option for the lead role, as he reasonably resembles the emperor. He's also a capable actor, giving his character a certain rough, ungainly, soldier's roughness. Isabella Rosellini was excellent as Josephine, and Gérard Depardieu seemed to me pleasantly hypocritical in the role of one of the ministers of the new emperor. John Malkovich also brings to life an important French political figure, who will go through several governments and adapt as a chameleon. The actor managed to give him that adaptability and latent hypocrisy. Much less interesting was Claudio Amendola, who stripped Murat of all personality to transform him into a mere blind follower of Napoleon.

Very significant in this film, costumes and sets are an inseparable part of the visual beauty and historical rigor of the production. There was a good team of historians working here, and the details were taken into account down to the smallest detail. The selection of filming locations, from a series of historic French palaces and other imposing locations, was judicious and intelligent. All the filming and photography work, despite not being brilliant, fulfills its role well and does what it has to do. The editing looks good to me. The battle scenes are actually very well staged, despite being few and not relevant... at least if we take into account the countless fights that Napoleon experienced, personally. The soundtrack, amidst all this, is the aspect I have to criticize the most, oscillating between the irritatingly pompous and the bland.

I was never interested in Napoleon. Although I visited the Louvre I didn't go to see Napoleon's chambers, which are on display there. I would have never watched this series if it wasn't for the actors in it. And now, after six hours of Napoleon and nothing but Napoleon, I actually got interested in the chap and think about reading a biography. And I'm sure this is down to the excellent performance of Christian Clavier. Simple as that.

Okay, his English could be a tiny bit better, agreed, but I rather get used to an accented English than to a bad performance by English native speakers. Christian Clavier is truly an excellent actor, although he might be best known (in France) for his parts in very silly comedies. If he only decided to take more "serious" parts, maybe more people would notice what a fantastic talent he has. What he can express just with his eyes is quite stunning. 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 from different countries once again worked together. This as well is what the European idea is about.

One of the few things I didn't like were the flashbacks at the end. They were completely out of place and should be cut out. They don't make sense at all at the end of the film.

And a last remark about Monsieur Clavier's language skills: The first way he said "Ich liebe dich" got me guffawing, the second way he made my heart melt. Maybe he should think about doing a film in German...?

And Prime showing it on a quarantined Wednesday. It was a combination history lesson and entertaining movie for me. I didn't know much about Napoleon but I now have an internal argument that he was a great man or a tinhorn dictator.

I know one thing for sure. Our American forefathers (Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin et al) learned their history lessons well. We could have just as easily been ruled by people like Napoleon but for some unknown reason our founding fathers almost to a man turned their backs on personal gain and founded and set up our country on democratic principles almost to a fault. Why so many man of sterling character lived in one small country is something I will never understand but now appreciate. Only exception was slavery.

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.

This is the first Napoleon epic where the chief speaks with a French accent; that is good. HIs words are his, many of the events are accurate. Because his life was crowded with events, all detail is left out except the love interest of Josephine.

This is a modern interpretation, so any glory of war is ruthlessly stamped out, to the point that great battles are always seen as useless slaughter with piles of corpses. Well, in part they are.

If you're looking for any of La Gloire, a big part of the period, you'll look in vain. The people rarely cheer Napoleon. We know his soldiers often shouted "Vive L'Empereur" as he passed. Instead, in the film, they barely notice him on the battlefield.

Isabel Rossellini as Josephine is seen too often, as (one of the) the women of his life. Murat stands in for all his Marshals, as a film can only pay so many actors. John Malkovich as Talleyrand is very good.

An interesting and intelligent film. Clavier plays the part of Napoleon well, although in the interests of covering all his life, he is a bit one dimensional. If you thirst for battlefield tactics, and scenes of battle, you'll be disappointed. Only one battle is covered in any detail is Austerlitz, his finest victory.

Napoleon was an extremely intelligent and relatively peaceful man. Most of the wars he fought were forced upon him by European nations in the pay of the English, who could not abide him. He was a better man than they were.

This series, consisting (in Germany) of 4 parts, tells the story of the most important figure in French history, Napoléon Bonaparte whose remarkable career started as a mere officer in an artillery regiment. The film focuses especially on Napoléon's (C. Clavier) relationship to his early love, Josephine, who is quite beautiful but also some years older than Napoléon. Indeed, most of the film is centered largerly around the numerous affairs and relationships of the Emperor, who seeks an heir but also to strenghten the french influence in Europe. There are some quite fascinating battle-scenes, although, for a 42 million Euro project, one might say they could've been done better. Obviously most of the money has been spent on the wonderful costumes, and, naturally, on the prominent cast, which includes some famous European, as well as Amercian actors.

Generally, if you are interested in such kind of movies and have a certain knowledge of the historical facts, "Napoléon" is absolutely recommendable. It might have some flaws, and some historical facts may be, to the normally educated, not clear, but then, it's only a TV movie. And it's really rather enjoyable, bringing a fascinating period of European history to life.

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!

As an American I was not familiar with French actor Christian Clavier, but I was pleasantly surprised at his characterization of Napoleon. M. Clavier has the confidence and presence to personify a historical character of amazing charisma. I look forward to seeing him as Asterix! As for the overall production, it was very well-done and was a fair summary of a life that encompassed unimaginable highs and lows.

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.

Not all movies have the BEST graphics, and maybe this one didn't have graphics that would blow you away, but that wasn't really the point, and it looked fine, to me.

I caught part of this on A&E, recently. I watched a few minutes, then turned the channel to watch a regular show. I came back to it, and watched the end of the first half. The next day, I ran into the second part. I missed quite a bit, but watched the last hour, or so. I started craving the rest of it. I got online and did a search, found it was out on DVD, and made a trip to my local video retailer. I got the 3-DVD set and have since made a website devoted to Christian Clavier because I thought he did a wonderful job, and this movie made me a fan almost instantly. I've always liked Isabella Rossellini, and her role as Josephine was very convincing.

I've always been a fan of Napoleon movies, and I've seen several, but this one has to be the best. The interaction between Napoleon and Josephine and the action during the war scenes had me on the edge of my seat. Most people know how the end turned out, but that didn't stop me from thinking that things would be different.

I highly recommend this movie, in DVD format for the "making of" section. I wish I had watched this in high school because I would have learned quite a bit.

Go watch this movie!

in my opinion, the major flaw of this production is that it doesn't aim properly. there is no way to capture the entire napoleonic era, not in 6 hours and not in 60 hours. the best angle is to pick one topic and focus on it. picking napoleon is of course the most natural thing to do. focusing on his character alone is slightly more problematic. it could've been done better if the character wasn't written so flatly - there is a lot of conflict inside him considering his origin, his position and the many pressures from all sides that he constantly struggles against, quite successfully at times. none of that is shown. we get a cardboard figure, with many good points missing (like the jena battle, where his victory was sidelined by one of his marshals' success at the same time in auerstadt, and napoleon's dilemma regarding the man), many interesting characters missing or lacking depth (massena, bernadot, ney) and other faults. the small scale of the massive battles is a shame, also, although judging from other comments here, the DVD version could have them more on the wide-scale.

all in all, it could've been better. TV movies are judged less harshly then "real" movies. maybe if the creators where put more to the test, this work could've achieved a higher standard.

Excellent rendition chronicling Napoleons life. As usual Malkovich & Gerard Depardeau were magnificent in their roles and Heino Ferch was a breath of fresh air.Christian Clavier brought such a human & at times Humane quality to Napoleon.

Christian Clavier gives a excellent performance. The sets and battle scenes are done well. There were times when I was not sure which city/location they were in.

This is an excellent mini series. Although it is 6 hours, it can't even begin to tell Napoleon's eventful life. The mini series tried to captured all the important points in Napoleon's life but can only spend so much time on each. From Napoleon's battles to love affairs, they were all represented beautifully. I didn't find any part of the series to be dry or rigid and the plot moved at a good pace separating each episode that corresponds to 3-4 years of Napoleon's life. The battle scenes (which is initially what drew me to this series), was nicely done. Not the Hollywood style high-def scenes but it conveys the message nicely. Although I have never seen this actor in any movies, his performance was flawless and greatly contributed to Napoleon's character. I definitely recommend this mini series to anyone who'd like to know Napoleon Bonaparte a little bit more.

All my life I was fascinated by the Emperor of the French so I was glad to find this movie on DVD. As far as I know this is a pretty accurate description of the life and - particularly - the wars of Napoléon. I liked most of the actors and certainly Christian Clavier. However, three things could have been done better. To begin with there are too many battle scenes while it's impossible to keep overview; instead I would have preferred more attention for the political developments in the Napoleontic era. Then I don't understand why the movie is in the English language; Napoléon and his friends spoke French! My main objection is that it's difficult to identify with the main characters. Why does Napoléon do what he does, what's going on in the minds of Murat or Ney, what exactly attracts Walewska to Napoleon, etcetera? For people interested in what Napoléon might have moved, I strongly recommend the film 'Waterloo' (Bondarchuk 1970) with an overwhelming Napoléon played by Rod Steiger!

This is a gorgeous production, with great make-up, costumes, locations, battle scenes etc. (which were nominated for Emmys and other awards). But there are so many weak links in the cast that it makes the film difficult to enjoy.

I guessed (correctly) early on in watching that this must have been a dual-language film, with one cast shot in both English and French, which explains why so many of the actors seem uncomfortable with their lines. Clavier's delivery is often so uncertain that the emotion of the scene is lost. Besides, he lacks the handsome bravura that all the paintings of Napoleon convey so strongly. How can we believe that a whole country blindly followed this soft-spoken, dumpy little person?

Gerard Depardieu seems to have forgotten whatever he learned about speaking English back when he was an English film "flavor of the month" in the 1980s, although he hasn't lost his strong, menacing presence. Some of the supporting actors are wooden enough to have been Al Gore's stunt doubles, delivering their lines like a child reciting at a class play. John Malkovich practically phones in his part; haven't we seen enough of his mumbling, poker-faced, pursed-lipped villains for one lifetime?

The ladies in the cast fare much better, with Isabella Rossellini taking the top prize for believability and realistic emotions. But the Oscar goes to Napoleon's war horse, who puts on a great show of fancy stepping in one unforgettable scene! The production was shot in many of the actual buildings and rooms in which the action really took place, which lends some excitement and credibility. It is lovely to look at...if it weren't for all those darned PEOPLE cluttering up the scenery.

I just finished watching this series and it's just brilliant. Being Australian, I'm not aware of Christian Clavier's other films, but I'm told he's better known for his comedy roles. If that's true, the Clavier must've also had a knack for drama, because he has given quite possibly the most human interpretation of Napoleon.

However, he also had an incredible supporting cast to back him up. Isabella Rossellini and John Malkovich are fantastic, as usual. Gérard Depardieu was brilliant as Fouché. Alain Doutey and Claudio Amendola were excellent as Marshal Ney and Marshal Murat respectively.

The costumes are very well-designed, so it's not hard to see why it won an Emmy for it. Among the well-done parts are the battle scenes. While few and far between, they are utterly fantastic.

Overall, 10/10

At the end of the film after Napoleon's death at St. Helena, the narrator comments that "his ashes were subsequently taken to Paris..."

Please, a little basic research would show that Napoleon Bonaparte died in 1821 and was buried [not cremated]on the island and not transferred to Paris until 1840 where the casket was opened and much to the surprise of all, that although his body had not been embalmed, it was intact after all those years. Which to some confirmed that he indeed had been slowly poisoned with arsenic over the years at the orders of the Bourbons who feared his return. Arsenic acts as a perservative.

Christian Clavier is a french comic actor of the kind of Louis De Funes : he jumps, shouts, takes a stupid voice. Actually he can be funny - well he has ever been funny, like in "les bronzés"... twenty-five years ago. Giving Clavier the part of Napoleon was not a very good idea : for the french audience it is ridiculous (just imagine Jerry Lewis in George Washington or Ronald Reagan as a president). But that is not the worst. The director's work is a shame, you can see magnificent places and objects shot just as if it was a not very good promotional music video. There is a few combat scenes that really suck. To end, the script is not very clever and some computer animations used to show geographic facts look like the average BBC documentary style. A really awful TV-movie.

The Napoleon miniseries was a pretty ambitious attempt at Napoleon's life. It got the job done but couldn't quite encompass the sheer scale of Napoleon, the Empire and the wars.

First the bad, the battle scenes. If you are looking for a military series about the Napoleonic Wars this will not be your series. If all of the battle or military scenes are added together they would encompass maybe 30-40 minutes. Napoleon fought at least 60 major battles and 12 military campaigns. 9 battles were covered with some scenes as short as 30 seconds. The best battle scene by far was Eylau. Second, the battle scenes have relatively few extras. The battles look like they were fought between regiments not armies. Every battle presented (w the exception of Arcole) had more than 100,000 men present (Leipzig had 500,000) but at most extras amount to 1,000 or less. Most of this was cost I'm sure but it shows.

Another bad item, the series has many foreign actors acting in English. As a result it comes off forced. Many actors were quite good. Josephine, Fouche, Caulincount and to a less extent Napoleon were good. However there are many smaller actors that hurt the series.

For the good: the costumes, uniforms and filming locations were all nice. The story is largely accurate minus a few liberties to make the story flow. The series also moved at a good clip, first episode being the weakest.

Perhaps the part in my opinion is the imagery and attention to detail relating to the wars. Images of burned out churches in graveyards after Eylau, horrors of war in Spain, bodies piled up at Aspern and images of teenage soldiers in 1813 do hit well. The scene with the peasant woman telling Napoleon how her sons were killed in the wars and the desperation faced by many in France at the end also was well done and does homage to a war that killed 5 million people and likely killed a larger percentage of the French population than any other modern war. This made Napoleon a mixed figure in the series, something historians still reflect today.

In the end it was too ambitious of a target for a miniseries. They should have stuck either with the personal/political life or the military not both. To cover Napoleon in true fashion would require an entire actual series covering 10 seasons (not a bad idea). So I cannot blame the series for failing to encompass the totality of Napoleon but is was a disappointment. Still if you know nothing about Napoleon (not the case with me) it gives you a good overview and could leave you wanting to learn more. In that regard it succeeds.