this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Movies & TV

22880 readers
37 users here now

Rules for Movies & TV Discussion

  1. Any discussion of Disney properties should contain a (cw: imperialism) tag. If your post isn't tagged appropriately it will be removed.

  2. Anti-Bong Joon-ho trolling will result in an immediate ban from c/movies and submitted to the site administrators for review.

  3. On Star Trek Sunday only posts discussing how we might achieve space communism are permitted. Non-Star Trek related content will be removed and you will be temporarily banned until the following Sunday.

Here's a list of tons of leftist movies.

AVATAR 3

Perverts Guide to Ideology

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Joaquin Phoenix gives the absolute worst performance of his career as Napoleon Buonaparte, choosing to portray one of history’s most famously charismatic leaders, as a wooden cutout. No movie these days would be complete without Reddit/Marvel-tier quipped dialogue, and this screenplay provides it in spades. Many of the events that would naturally adapt to the big screen are skipped in favor of shots of Phoenix crawling under tables like some fucked up dog. No mention is made of Italy, and Spain and Haiti are skipped over as to avoid portraying the subject in any kind of negative light. Irresponsible and reactionary filmmaking shines through in a script that truly feels like it was written by chatgpt. The film concludes with him suddenly dying in a part that reminded me of the poochy “my planet needs me” bit. Do not waste your time. I was expecting a cheesy Hollywood retelling and it didn’t even do that, despite having more than enough source material to do so.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Egon@hexbear.net 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

I lost all interest in the movie when Ridley Scott trashed historians for suggesting he might try to study history for his historical biopic. He had Napoleon shoot the Sphinx because it "was a quick way to show he conquered Egypt".
Fucking idiot

[–] Fishroot@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I lost all interest when Ridley Scott decided to cut the part where Napoleon falsely tries to convert to the true faith of the prophet Mohammed which led to his downfall in waterloo

[–] Red_Sunshine_Over_Florida@hexbear.net 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

A movie just on Napoleon in Egypt would have been more interesting. Its a less explored topic than say the battle of Waterloo.

[–] huf@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago

or napoleon in italy. poor, badly equipped soldiers, little plucky nobody napoleon betting big AND ACTUALLY PULLING IT OFF.

and it's not fucking waterloo. who cares. most covered part of the whole thing, because the english were in it.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

"Auteur" theory is fucking bullshit and it's ruinous.

[–] VILenin@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago

Well it did give us Reds. So what I’m saying is it’s ok when we do it. Most of the time it just gives us dumb bullshit from long-past-relevant prehistoric filmmakers trying to relive their glory days by making shitty mobster films and casting their prehistoric actor buddies and deaging them so they look like an affront-to-god experimental lab creature that looks 35 but acts 100.