Napoléon

1927
Napoléon
8.2| 5h33m| en| More Info
Released: 07 April 1927 Released
Producted By: Pathé Consortium Cinéma
Country: France
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A biopic of Napoleon Bonaparte, tracing the Corsican's career from his schooldays (where a snowball fight is staged like a military campaign) to his flight from Corsica, through the French Revolution (where a real storm is intercut with a political storm) and the Terror, culminating in his triumphant invasion of Italy in 1797.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Pathé Consortium Cinéma

Trailers & Images

  • Top Credited Cast
  • |
  • Crew

Reviews

rdjeffers March 24, 25, 31 and April 1, 1:30pm, The Paramount, Oakland The Eagle of Destiny The life of Napoléon Bonaparte as the heroic savior of France is revealed from age ten to twenty-seven. Beginning with his boyhood at military school in Brienne, Boneparte is viewed as an outcast and a leader. Emerging as a young officer during the Revolution, the adult Boneparte (Albert Dieudonné) is first seen in Paris at the Club des Cordeliers where Danton introduces La Marseillaise to the mob as their national anthem. Bonaparte then attempts to unify his native Corsica, survives The Terror, becomes the hero of Toulon and embarks on his conquest of Italy.Directed by Abel Gance, Napoleon (1927) was initially conceived as the first of six chapters on the life of Bonaparte. Cut by MGM from an original 29 reels to eight for its 1929 American release (with von Stroheim's Greed a fresh memory), restoration of Napoleon became the life work of film preservationist Kevin Brownlow in 1954.
Michael_Elliott Napoleon (1927) 1981 cut **** (out of 4) Abel Gance's technical marvel was certainly years ahead of its time but I'd guess that most people would find it a chore to sit through today. The film follows Napoleon as a child all the way up to mid-life where the film ends because the director had planned on making five more films in the series but could never get the backing. Storywise, there really isn't anything new here that we haven't seen in previous epics from Griffith or DeMille. What really separates this thing is its technical beauty, something that could be lost on those who don't know much about how films were back in the day. If anyone has a decent amount of knowledge about the silent era then this film will certainly knock their socks off. I would argue that the actual battle scenes were better in Intolerance and Ben-Hur but the scope here is certainly multiplied. The director was highly influenced by Griffith and even asked for his advice before going into this film and it's clear what Griffith told him, he took it to the next level. For starters, the first big battle takes place when Napoleon is a child and he and his friends are having a snowball fight. This might sound simple but the director makes a great battle of it. The next big moment happens when Napoleon is stuck on a small boat out at sea when a storm hits. The way this is edited together creates some great tension and even better are the various (at the time) strange camera movements that get you right into the storm. Another battle, taking place at night, during a rain storm, also looks wonderful. Not to mention the final battle scene where the director uses an early example of widescreen. This effect (three cameras side by side shooting) might not stand up to today's standards because it's easy to see where the "next screen" is but it still looks great.
guidon7 Firstly, let me say that I believe Abel Gance's Napoleon to be without question the greatest film of all time. Unfortunately I have not seen the longer version but it is my earnest wish that it become available in the future on DVD. However, to echo the general acclaim previously noted in these user comments on the merits of this unique film is not my purpose today.Instead, I would like to comment specifically regarding remarks above by *HARRY-76* regarding Napoleon Bonaparte: "barbarian....sick and warped mind in need of therapy while being institutionalized" and also the comment of *JAYBABB*: "Napoleon was a madman". I really wonder how deeply both of these film reviewers have actually delved into the persona of Napoleon the man and his life -- if at all -- or perhaps they have made their referenced opinions based on the film alone? Or maybe they are erroneously relying on the long standing joke about insane people believing they were Napoleon Bonaparte? That is a popular one, but an unfortunate one. The very real accomplishments of this man are far too extensive for me to go into here. I will note one or two of the more far-reaching events however. The Code Napoleon of 1804, which covered all of Napoleonic France, much of which is not only still in effect in modern day France, but also from which a number of our own U.S. civil laws are based. The Code Napoleon, conceived for the guidance and protection of French citizens, covered areas such as: Civil Rights of Citizens, Rights and Duties of Married Persons, Divorce, Paternal Power, Acquiring Property, Donations and Wills. All this, remarkably, was not created by a statesman known as a man of peace but produced under the aegis of an unquestionably talented warrior, while at the same time he was quite busy consolidating his dominion over most of the European continent. I might add here that while we all acknowledge the militarism of Bonaparte, he certainly had plenty of company in an era beset by European military conflict, even discounting his presence on the world stage. A common error here is that his actions needs to be seen in the context of his times, not of our time. Although his career was cut short before achieving his goal, his prophetic vision of a United Europe without borders while all within would be equal, would seem to be identical with the powerful movement we see today toward European unity 200 years later.While there was no testing as such in the 18th Century, Napoleon is universally considered today to be among those notables in history who were geniuses; this man with a brilliant mind who could dictate to three secretaries all at the same time, on three totally different subjects.I do not wish to take up too much space here with a subject which -- while I nevertheless find interesting personally -- I yet have the knowledge that it is not directly related to filmdom and IMDb, so I will therefore close. However I have a final question which I direct to both *HARRY-76* and*JAYBABB*, which is this: Assuming your criticism of Napoleon is based on that which is more publicized, his military career, I would be greatly interested to know if you also consider such figures as Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great and even a couple of home-grown Americans, Douglas MacArthur and George Patton, to be "madmen.....who should have been institutionalized"?
Ninja Doll My recollection of "Napoleon" is of a wonderful evening of first-rate movie and first-rate score, with Gance's work on three screens and Carmine Coppola conducting a full orchestra. While it may not do justice to the continually evolving cinematic extravaganza described in the other review, it is nonetheless the version I've grown up with and viewing it remains one of my favorite life experiences.I applaud anyone who has had a hand in this project and has continued to update, revise, and otherwise revisit this very noble film. It seems to have taken on a life of its own in terms of restored versions. The newly performed work may be superior to Coppola's initial resurrection but without Coppola's vision, would it have become the phenomenon it is today? I'm pretty sure he's entitled to protect his initial investment (of time, energy, money, and media) even as the movie itself changes with each new find. In the end, the consumer (from any country) will seek out the version he wishes to own -- passing judgement by consumption.I would not hesitate to acquire both versions, frankly. It's not about who did the better job, it's about the evolution of the film since it was first dusted off.