Maybe fix some of the pacing issues, but there is no getting around all the inaccuracies and the majority of it being focused on his boring relationship with his wife. I could see it at best being a slightly improved cut, but not enough to make it a good movie.
shareThis is what sucks about Napoleon and Hollywood. It should be all about war and politics, but they have to shove in the relatively unimportant Josephine love story "for the ladies".
Only Waterloo 1970 avoided this trap.
And I heard the 4 hour cut was mostly with more relationship stuff, which I think was cut in theatrical release by studio executives.
shareRidley is usually responsible himself of cutting his movies too short. Starting with Legend (1985).
shareI wouldn't call 2 and half hours "too short".
shareDepends on genre, story, style. Ridley's Exodus: Gods and Kings was clearly way too short and it was about two and half hours. Roles of big name actors were reduced to cameos. Probably should have been 4 hrs with an intermission, like biblical epics in the 50's.
shareHistory proves it works: Titanic, Pearl Harbor.
When Titanic and Pearl Harbor release, no one expect the movie almost focus on love story.
yeah, but it only works when you use teeny bopper heart-throbs
sharePearl Harbor was terrible. Titanic needed a love story, there's nothing exciting about a boat slowly sinking for hours and hours.
shareWhile I do enjoy Titanic, I have to point out that A Night to Remember had no such love story and is a pretty good film.
shareTerrible or not, Pearl Harbor make its money back.
shareI went to see it on Thanksgiving day and enjoyed it. While it may be historically inaccurate and feel rushed in some ways, in its 2 1/2 hours I was never bored. You can contrast this with Killers of the Flower Moon, where I was in agony by the 2 1/2 hour mark and desperate to escape the theater.
share