User reviews

Abel Gance's unabashed adoration of Napoléon Bonaparte bore fruit in one of the undisputed masterpieces of silent cinema. Thirty-four years later he again depicts his hero in a film that is totally devoid of the flair and dazzling inventiveness of the earlier work. He is assisted by Roger Richebé who had directed Gance's original Napoléon, Albert Dieudonné, in that actor's second outing in the role in 'Madame sans-gene.' Here he is played by Pierre Mondy.

One is impressed by the art direction, costume design and the beautifully shot series of tableaux vivants by Messieurs Alekan and Juillard but alas the whole enterprise is verbose, bombastic, self-indulgent and uninspired and fails to justify its lumbering two and three-quarter hour length.

Most of the males are marionettes with the notable exceptions of Welles, Marais, Trintignant and Marchal whilst grizzled Michel Simon does an outrageous turn as one of Napoléon's Old Guard. Plenty of cleavage on display and an enchanting cameo by Leslie Caron as one of Bony's extra-marital activities. The most ludicrous piece of casting is that of Jack Palance as an Austrian General. As Pope Pius V11 an utterly expressionless Vittorio de Sica calls Bonaparte ' a comedian' which pretty well sums up Pierre Mondy's portrayal.

Regarding Monsieur Gance's output I think it fair to say that 'silence is golden.'

I believe the reason after so many votes that no one has decided to offer a review of this film is because it appears so hard to define it as a film. This is much more a tedious, detailed account of Napoleon's victory at the battle of Austerlitz. The film focuses so much on the strategic underpinnings of the battle that is almost seems more like watching a risk or stratego game than a film. From the political maneuvering of how the French and Russian forces came to the battle to the strategic genius that was Napoleon this film does not offer much in the way of character development, acting, or even special effects. What the film does offer is a historical recount of how battles were fought in the early 19th century. The only interesting cinematic points of interest is to look for a young Jack Palance as a Russian General and a scene stealing Orson Welles as an American inventor. Also this was one of the last films directed by the French "DW Griffith" - Abel Gance.

This is two different movies stuck together. In the first part Napoleon is introduced in a very informal way, showing him debating hats with his personal valet. For a moment I thought it was going to be a comedy... Then the plot takes a more serious turn, with Napoleon in Paris, undecided about seizing power and proclaiming himself emperor. I watched the original French version, which includes several scenes in English, showing the British plotting against Napoleon and the events leading to the execution of the duke d'Enghien.

Still in Paris we are shown Napoleon's greedy family and mistress, and his coronation (luckily only narrated) and then the story finally marches (literally) toward the battle of Austerlitz. Several scenes show the Russians and the Austrians preparing for war and debating in French, as the only common language and then the battle itself, which is a long and slightly boring series of scenes lasting over one hour, with a bit of battle, then Napoleon talking strategies with his generals, more battle, strategies discussed by Russians and Austrians and again battle and Napoleon.

Napoleon won this one, considered as his greatest success and Gance wraps up the movie on a patriotic and chauvinist note, with the Marseilles blasting on screen.

Despite the sumptuous costumes and the many stellar cameos, the film is uneven in tone and contains some weird scenes: the opening with Pierre Mondy as a peevish Napoleon is bizarre as is the scene with Napoleon in a bathtub discussing with his ministers; Napoleon encounters with his lover are superfluous as is the meeting with Robert Fulton (played nonetheless by Orson Welles in a useless cameo); the coronation narrated to the servants with the help of puppets is beyond bizarre and even the battle drags on forever, without an apex.

I will begin by saying that I enjoyed enormously "Austerlitz"'s second part,that is,the military show as such.The political preamble is interesting by many things:Pierre Mondy's acting (though a miscast),the many good cameos (we have Mrs. Caron,Mrs. Cardinale,Mrs. Popesco, Palance, Marais,Simon,Trintignant,Welles,Pavloff,Jean Mercure in the same show,and at their best),many well-thought scenes,the cinematographic thinking of Gance,the script's sobriety in the treatment of the Bonaparte family (arrogance,vanity,etc.). I cannot but admire the choice of the bit parts.Many vignettes are ANTHOLOGICAL (e.g.,the Pope calling Bonaparte a comedian).No cheap jokes.

The script is unconventional,dense and considerate. Napoleon appears as a peevish, tetchy, burlesque, selfish,petulant, aggressive and endowed man (this portrait is very fair and balanced,and,if ironical and humorist, it is not at all disrespectful, heinous, outrageous--it is not a cartoon);his family:a bevy of greedy pushers,arrogant, vain parvenus, coarse intriguers, cads. The pettiness and the misery do not lack in Bonaparte's life.His sweetheart is a dowdy.

I liked a lot the costumes,the clothes,the uniforms.

Gance makes parade before our pleased eyes a series of expressive figurines,exquisitely molded (Carnot, Talleyrand,Kutuzov, Fulton,Mlle De Vaudey,Madame Récamier,Weirother,Lannes,Pius VII,etc.,etc.).

The women in this movie (Mrs. Caron,Mrs. Cardinale,Mrs. Elvire Popesco) are radiant and brilliant.

The more I think about "Austerlitz",the more I perceive its greatness and value."Austerlitz" must be tasted,but also thought about,analyzed. It satisfies both the heart and mind.

For me,"Austerlitz" is one of the most amazing,though imperfect, masterpieces.

This movie has its flaws;it also has obvious qualities and is worth watching .Practically,all the cameos are exceptional,a real feast:first of all,Marais and Simon,and also Wells,a very young Trintignant,Palance (it is quite debatable if Palance's histrionic performance is really that kitsch and tasteless;I think he was just playing Russian,though his role is that of an Austrian,and he succeeded in creating some funny moments in the movie;I enjoy what Palance did with his role:it's buffoonish,but also fun),etc..Marais is a standout,simply astonishing. The same is true about Jean Mercure (as "Talleyrand") and Polycarpe Pavloff (as "Kutuzov").

Pierre Mondy is an obviously skilled actor,but a miscast as Bonaparte.His ingrate physique does not help him this way.In the first part,that of the political rise of Napoleon,Pierre Mondy looks choleric,roguish,voluntary,brutal,mocking,irascible,clownish enough;but he can't look inspired,exceptional,larger-than-life.Maybe this is not Bonaparte,but is a well-made role.Undoubtedly,Pierre Mondy knows his job;but his performing is,sometimes,theatrical,and rather inadequate for cinema.A pleasant surprise is "Austerlitz"'s realism and irony,its lack of idolatry and of inhibitions:we see the Bonaparte family as it was,a bevy of parvenus and cads.

Gance does not incense Bonaparte's holy cards,does not extol him measureless.On the contrary,the script shows a powerful,able,sharp and temperate mind.

In "Austerlitz"'s first part,that might be entitled "Napoleon's rising" ,some actors play stiffly ,are theatrical and formal,obsolete and worn out,the movie recalls the scene.But the cameos (Marais,Simon, Trintignant,Pavloff) bring in a vast amount of exciting and largehearted acting.

I guess the first part of "Austerlitz" was intended as a prologue,a preparation,a political and historical preface.

The society depicted was a theatrical and quite cold one;still,the THEATRALISM of some of the performances displeases.Even the theatrical characters must be performed lively.

Simon's performance (as "Auboise") simply sweeps away anyone else on the set;his comic role is a great landmark in the history of cinema.

I am a huge fan of this second part of "Austerlitz";its photography is excellent:a gorgeous looking film .I also enjoyed a lot the cameos from Marais,Simon,De Sica (flawless!!!),Mrs. Elvire Popesco,Wells,Marchal (though not very remarkable here).

This fresco must be rehabilitated urgently.

Any national cinematography would take pride in a movie like "Austerlitz". But I guess many don't get this film's greatness, nor Gance's showmanship and taste.

Finally,I will add that Bloy held Bonaparte in high esteem;so did Hegel,Balzac, Stendhal,and even,in his youth,Schopenhauer.

I dunno much about history, but watching this movie made me think Napoleon was a funny little man, which I doubt it's true.

Wanted to like this epic production more, but too many things seem "out of pace" (in lack of a better term). Rating it 7 just because I'm aware of the effort put into making it, at that time.

I was under the impression for ages that Abel Gance only made one Napoleon film (all the way back in 1927), and that he wanted to make five or six, but never got the chance. It turns out this isn't entirely true. Not only is Napoleon (1927) long enough to be two or three films in one (it's like 5.5 hours long), but Gance got to make a sort-of sequel in 1960, with the also epic-length The Battle of Austerlitz.

This 1960 film is about half the length of Napoleon, but that still puts it at approximately 170 minutes. It also feels like two movies in one, with a lot of political drama being the focus of the first half, and then the second half centering on planning for the titular battle alongside showing some of it.

I thought the second half would be a good deal more engaging, but I think The Battle of Austerlitz starts quite well, staying pretty engaging for maybe the first half of its first half. Things don't necessarily pick up in a big way once the second half starts, though. It's a bit plodding in different ways to the first half, and it becomes apparent at a point that even the battle parts aren't really going to be about depicting exciting battles. If you come in hoping for something similar to the 1966/67 War and Peace or Waterloo, you'll probably come away disappointed.

The methodical approach to it all (across both halves), while dry, is somewhat admirable. Abel Gance isn't doing nearly as many adventurous things with the camera this time around, which can be disappointing after having watched his 1927 film, but I guess there's sound now, and it's a new approach. The transition from making a silent Napoleon film to making a more traditional one with dialogue was more seamless than I'd been anticipating, and Gance would've had to have been fairly old while making this. I think he did a decent job, all things considered.

Still, this is probably just a curiosity piece for those who were intrigued by and liked Napoleon, or just anyone who's interested in any film about Napoleon Bonaparte. There sure are many of them; I keep coming across new ones all the time, and honestly, I don't think I've seen any I could call flat-out bad yet.

Abel Gance's Napoleon made at silent movie era in 1927, on sixties he's back portraying him as Consul, when Napoleon brought to the entire European countries at its knees on the Treaty of Amiens for a long-lasting peace, however the British tries hard on backstage settles a plot to kill him on behalf of French royal family, they really fear Napoleon as unbeatable enemy that willing tries conquer the island soon as possible, hereinafter Napoleon proclaims as Imperator, later at Notre Dame invited the Pope by force, there he broken all protocol crowning himself in some way despising the holy figure.

Strangely Gance left pass unnoticed the defeat of Battle of Cape Finisterre lost by Villeneuve against the British Officer Horatio Nelson, just a little comment on movie without further explaining, also slight implies Napoleon has been cheated by Josephine too much, although he often forgot the infidelity and might his major mistake when he dismisses Robert Fulton's advance projects over steamboats and even embryonic submarine's project, the last and final chapter concerning about the famous battle of Austerlitz where the cunning war mastermind fought against a superior enemies as the Austrians and Russians, where is stated by own Napoleon as most personal victory ever as fully exposed on the picture.

Sadly the picture just spans a short period of time, without a word about the Egypt's campaign, or his early period as soldier, nonetheless the subject is enough to fill out almost three hours, Claudia Cardinale was beauty and sexy than never, Perre Mondy portraited an impressive Napoleon in all aspects, fine historical events with accuracy at its requires.

Thanks for reading.

Resume:

First watch: 1986 / How many: 3 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 7.5.

This movie exemplifies the debt that French cinema owes to theater. And, it shows how it can crumble under it.

One cannot say that this movie is badly made, lazy or uninspired. Yet, I did not feel the grandeur of this historic episode as I think it was intended. The movie is not boring or flat. However, for a film that covers the most brilliant victory of a legendary general, it feels a bit toothless.

The film spends the first half carefully laying out the situation and issues that led Napoleon to crown himself emperor. I would say that it is rather static, and feels like a play. It is dialog-heavy. I am not sure why Mondy was chosen as Napoleon. He looks convincing in most of it, yet he does a lot of yelling, which does not give off a statesman-like quality. It does not really capture the heft of it. The film is also heavy on intrigue and personal drama, it can feel tedious if you're not into French history. Some important events happen off-screen; it is harder to keep being engaged with what is happening.

My favorite scene happens as an act-break of sorts, roughly at the middle, it is Napoleons coronation. It is off-screen as well, but it is represented in form of house staff following the ceremony in parallel; at the palace not the church, with the help of rehearsal miniatures. That is where Gances talent shines. It is the best stuff in the movie and it is very clever and inventive. I suspect that it was done this way because filming the actual re-enactment of the ceremony would have been too expensive/difficult. Yet, it totally works. It treats an event that is big, extravagant, symbolic in something more intimate. The scene encapsulates something more classical. Because it focuses not on Napoleon, the pope or the dignitaries, but on the house staff reactions, you get something sweetly human. It is the reaction of the common folk, the little people. One of his aides provides a voice-over that turns the scene into something very poetic, almost Communion-like. It makes it very solemn and dignified. The immobile lifeless miniatures tie the scene in a very iconic, clean, divine bow.

Generally, you get that this film serves as an update to Gances own Napoleon. In that sense, it would serve as an example that less is more. The previous film was regarded, and still is, as one of the most inventive and important of the silent era. Here, you can feel that with the use of sound, dialog, color and the ability to film battles and impressive set-pieces; you are losing the essence of Napoleon: the persona. The strength of the film Napoleon was the visuals and the sense of distant majestic dignity it conveyed. In Austerlitz, despite sound and color, you lose the striking visual poetry. You are left with more precise plot points, but less evocative characters.

Austerlitz (1960) was the battle that made Napoleon Bonaparte not only one of western civilization's greatest generals, but it solidify his position as Napoleon I "The Emperor of France". I saw this film many years ago on video. The colors were washed out and it was cropped big time. Besides these faults, the movie was great. If there's a movie that needs to be restored it's this one. A film of this magnitude and the grand scale it was presented on needs to be shown it is original glory.

NAPOLEON was restored recently. It's only fitting that the film that the same director spent his entire life on have one of it's sequels be remastered and preserved in the same way.

Highly recommended.

This movie is a huge disappointment. You'd expect the battle of Austerlitz to be the core subject as the title suggests, but it's not. Most of the movie is about the Napoleonic era before the battle, with a pseudo historic perspective. If you know just a little about history, you'll find yourself yawning most of the time, as Abel Gance tries to describe the situation for hours, through endless dialogs. Then when Napoleon is about to be crowned, you think: oh no, not another half hour just for that scene. Fortunately there's no coronation scene, but.. worse: it's told! You guess correctly: Gance didn't have the budget to do it. He might as well just skipped the whole episode.

By then you've waited more than 2 hours and still no battle in sight. At last the battle comes but what you see is a tragic waste. The tactics and whereabouts of the battle are not shown but told, and you can hardly understand what's going on. A cavalry charges from right to left (a couple hundred horses), and you assume it's the Austrian cavalry. Then you're told that they're defeated by the French, and you see the same guys charging from left to right (they don't even seem to have switched costumes). Parts of the battle were filmed in studio, with ridiculous painted backgrounds. The close combat scenes are unrealistic at best. Soldiers fall apparently for no reason, and if nobody told you about the outcome, you wouldn't know who won or lost. The last scene with the French Army singing the national anthem completes the cinematographic disaster.

All in all, you sit back with the feeling that this movie was conceived and shot in the early days of movie making, not in 1960: it's not a movie about Austerlitz, it's the pathetic attempt of an aging man trying to describe the glory of an emperor he admired. The result is a boring picture that doesn't even enhance our historic understanding of the Napoleon era (in spite of Gance's attempts to stick to some historic details).

Believe it or not but it's quite hard to know who the real Napoleon was.....He was worshipped by his followers (He once said "I exempt you to compare me to God" !) and of course hated by his very numerous foes who considered him as a monster and a butcher ....Some painted him as the tender uncle so kind to the poors other like a heartless dictator killer of over one million lives for nothing more than his personal glory.....Abel Gance is known to all as the one who made a silent 'Napoleon" the epitome of the films about french history....so it surprised me that he was still working in 1960....The movie is actually about Napoleon himself ....the famous battle comes at the very end (quite the contrary of Spartacus made the same year whose final battle is the main interest...but a battle costs a lot of dollars and Hollywood could inject 100 times more money than the poor french even if de Gaulle was then ruling the country !) The beginning of the movie tells us about the days of the so-called Consulat (1800-1804) which all historians agree (for once) to consider as one of the most important years of french history...the scholars who studied those times will be very pleased to meet Talleyrand Fouché Carnot Lannes Cambaceres de Stael and of course Bonny's wife mother and terrible sisters...at the end of part one these sisters urge him to become Emperor...I guess they didn't have to try hard....i liked it when he asks his valet "do you see me as emperor?" and the unintelligent and straight-talking guy answers "why not ? if you were one foot taller?"..Surprise and terrible look of Bonny who suddenly bursts out laughing Then comes the Coronation (no money no show) and the battle itself (called the battle of the 3 emperors)....compared to the one of the russian movie it is deceiving but the napoleonic strategy is well explained the acting is quite good....an aging Michel Simon is tiring but the cast includes Jean Marais Orson Welles Martine Carol (a bit miscast as Josephine)...Pierre Mondy is quite convincing as a 35 years old invincible general and wait for Jack Palance as splendid as always !

I watched the film twice, first its old version, then the restored one and I have to say I can not describe it easily with few words. I found it rather boring and slow paced, which is hardly the best way to depict one of the most important periods in world history, dominated by the paramount figure of Napoleon. I do not want to go into many details, so I shall limit myself with several remarks: The Russian military uniforms are awful and incorrect in many ways, especially the uniforms of the cossacks, which really made me laugh... There are too few extras to depict realistically such an important battle of the Napoleonic period. Several hundred infantrymen and cavalrymen simply can not achieve the effect, achieved for example by Sergei Bondarchuk in "War and peace", where he had 15 000 extras. The difference between the battle scenes in the two films is huge! The emperors of Russia and Austria, Aleksandr I and Franz I, as well as the key figures among their respective staffs, including Mikhail Ilarionovich Kutuzov, are depicted in a rather grotesque and sneering way, which, I think, is not the right for a serious history movie. The cast is good. Pierre Mondy does a solid job portraying Napoleon, Jean Marais is a truly convincing Carnot, Claudia Cardinale is marvelous as always and Jack Palance is a credible Weyrother. As a conclusion: the film deserves to be watched once. After that everyone interested in the history of the Napoleonic wars should go on with "War and Peace' and "Waterloo".

My review of this film can be summed up in five words a brilliant work of art.As described in the previous description the film itself is long and sometimes tedious.What it fails to mention is that it was created by the same Director that brought us the Silent film about Napoleon Abel Gance.The film is in colour and is very faithful to the feel of Napoleon and the time he ruled Europe.It is primarily about the greatest victory Napoleon achieved in his career,however it also touches on many of the events in his life leading up to that moment including his coronation as Emperor of France.If you are a student of Napoleon or French history or this time period you will enjoy this picture.Shot all throughout Europe in the fifties in many languages it remains in my opinion as the greatest picture chronicling Napoleon and his life.The film not only tells a story from his perspective but many others as well.It is difficult to find and even more expensive to own but I definitely recommend you see it at least once for yourself.

Concerning depiction of the Russian army in 1805 (historical figures, uniform, people's manners in the military camp and at the battlefield) this film of Gance is somewhat of a cabaret performance. Alexandre I is a kind of a funny mask, Koutouzov - even worse. Russians' uniform and Cossack dances are acceptable for some carnival but certainly not for the historical reconstruction. Above all there is an obvious comic accent in this movie, even in the main episode of the battle. Though the script is not bad being based on the reliable historical source (memoirs of the count Segur) the figure of Napoleon is also ridiculous in some scenes (I wonder why do French actors like to show him as a character of "comedia del Arte"?). To make my claims more motivated I recommend you to compare this "Austerlitz" with the appropriate episode in "War and Peace" by Sergey Bondarchuk - much more dramatic, serious, large-scaled and true in details.

...and to "Napoleon" whose life Gance transferred to the screen in the silent era.Sandwiched between two very underrated Gance works ("la Tour de Nesles" and "Cyrano et D'Artagnan" )it is a return to "real " "true" history.I will go as far as to write that Gance impressed me much more when his movies dealt with fictionalized history (the two mentioned movies,but "j'accuse" too)."Austerlitz has something academic ,conventional.It has nothing of Gance's madness.The first part is a stream of stars from Martine Carol to Claudia Cardinale ,from Jean Marais to Orson Welles (in a part which reminds us how Gance was interested in the development of science through the centuries ,à la Jules Verne,we find this interest in "Cyrano" and "J'accuse" too).THe lead is a good actor but he might be ,on an international level, the least known of them all:Pierre Mondy's name is buried in the cast and credits and although he is on the screen from the beginning to the end,his name is not bigger than that of Welles who appears barely five minutes.Ah fame! The first part has only one sequence where we find back the inventive Gance:we do not attend the coronation in Notre Dame ;the marechal de Ségur (Jean-Louis Trintignant) tells the whole story with the model in front of a strange audience:servants ;then the "mamma " ("pourvu que ça dure!=lets hope it lasts!") ,Napoleon's mother (Elvire Popesco) enters and her tears begin to flow .Although David put her in his famous painting she did not attend the ceremony.

The second part is more historically interesting ,but if you are not fond of military strategy ,you may stop yourself yawning.Fortunately a soldier of the old guard of Napoléon (un "grognard" )played by Michel Simon brings a bit of life among these troop movements.

Last but not least:I have always asked myself why a convinced pacifist such as Gance (his two versions of "j'accuse" may be the strongest anti-war films ever)could be so fascinated by a warrior such as Napoleon.