User reviews

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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 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 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!

As an overall experience, I enjoyed this movie. Or is it a mini series for TV? I don't know, I bought it as a DVD, and watched it as a movie.

Spectacular costumes and architecture from the 19th Century, colourful and luxurious, it completely drew me into the film. Christian Clavier plays the part well, and I find him believable as Napoleon.

I would've liked to see more battles, since the only ones shown in this film are the ones Napoleon lost. Surely he didn't loose all his battles, if he conquered so much of Europe? The French armies long march into Russia and Moscow is only quickly shown in this film - as they arrive in their spotless blue and white uniforms, and as they leave all tired and beaten. For a campaign that cost the lives of some 200,000 - 300,000 French soldiers, I was a bit disappointed. Surely in a 6 hour movie, there would've been time to show these historic events in closer detail.

Battles are few, but they are well done, almost making you stomp your head on the wall, screaming: "Stop acting like robots and dive for cover!" - as the French march in their well formed lines into enemy fire, and fall on the ground dead. War is so pointless, and there is no glory in it.

But why oh why did Napoleon speak English in his broken accent, instead of French? I would've liked to see a French Emperor speak his own language, even if I would've had to read the meaning of his words from the subtitles.

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.

This lavish production of "Napoleon", which cost French State TV and others $40 million, is everything a biopic should not be. Each historical character is given long historical tracts to mouth as best s/he can, of the "and now I've vanquished Prussia, I shall conquer Poland" variety (Christian Clavier as Napoleon), to which the Emperor's semi-faithful Foreign Minister Talleyrand (John Malkovich) answers "I understand Polish women are very beautiful, Sire." Then, just to ensure we get the hint, Police Minister Fouché (Gérard Depardieu) reprises about the same line to about-to-be-cuckolded Empress Josephine (Isabella Rossellini). "Your Majesty, I advise you not to go to Poland." Etc., etc.; Greta Garbo movies had better dialogue and far better historical savvy.

This mammoth (4 90-minutes eps, for a total runtime of 6 hours) mini-series is, however, utterly lovely to look at. Guy Dufaux's cinematography is sensitive and beautifully-lit, as effective in intimate scenes between Napoleon and Josephine as in great battle scenes. Shot in the castles and palaces of Eastern Europe, or in Morocco (standing in unconvincingly for Egypt, with the odd CGI-ed Pyramid thrown in), the entire production achieves the kind of Biennale des Antiquaires look no set decorator could afford. Clothes, uniforms, carriages all contribute to a splendid museum experience.

But it's not enough. A talented comic in farces like "Les Visiteurs", Christian Clavier is hopelessly miscast as Napoleon, lacking the drive and intensity that mesmerized all contemporaries. He walks dutifully through the part, eliciting no sentiment whatsoever. You can't believe Clavier could write a love-letter to Josephine, let alone the entire French Legal Code. His family of Corsican upstarts has been gentrified to the point of utter boredom, with Anouk Aimée trying to sound hard as Madame Mère Letizia Buonaparte, and looking merely exhausted. Equally, Isabella Rossellini has great charm, but none of the brittle elegance expected of Josephine. She performs in slightly accented French, which is more than can be said for Malkovich, who's obviously dubbed (English-language viewers will hear his voice and get Clavier et al. dubbed: this is a Eurosausage of a production, with money from half a dozen channels) but from what we can see has got the personality of the dapper, aristocratic and manipulative Talleyrand, whom he plays as a run-down Valmont from Dangerous Liaisons, wrong.

It's mostly not Malkovich's fault. The authors, best-selling popular historian Max Gallo and novelist/screenwriter Didier Decoin, have a tin ear for early 19th-century French, and make absolutely no attempt to give any of their characters period sensitivities. Ladies-in-waiting hop into bed with Napoleon like Carrie and Miranda in "Sex and the City"; the Pope expresses himself with the world-weariness of Peter Jennings tut-tutting the "Axis of Evil" speech. There is no psychological exploration of any kind: next to this clichéed pantomime, "Friends" could have been scripted by Ingmar Bergman. Talleyrand, a scion of the oldest French aristocracy turned sometime revolutionary, suggests the kidnapping and execution of a Bourbon prince after a Royalist bomb nearly blows up Bonaparte's carriage. None of the complex political and psychological reasons motivating him are even hinted at -- he's not just a slimebag, he's an uninteresting slimebag.

In the middle of this painted-porcelain debacle, Gérard Depardieu proves once again that he is one of our times' major actors. Given the underwritten part of Police Minister Joseph Fouché, Depardieu imbues the least move, the simplest word, with a haunted complexity he creates entirely on his own (and which constitutes a fascinating reading of Fouché's historical character: Depardieu's creation contains more valid historical speculation than the entire screenplay.) His Fouché sees the quasi-totalitarian secret police he invents and runs (it was Fouché who thought of making every concierge in France a police informer) as the last defense against the brutality of the dictatorial state. "If we know the thoughts of the citizens," he implies, "we can prevent them from committing crimes, and therefore spare them the excessive brutalities of widespread repression." It's a flawed rationalization, and his Fouché is a dark and tortured bear of a man, hoping vainly but ceaselessly for a goodness that eludes him. Depardieu alone would make this production bearable, but there simply isn't enough of him onscreen.

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.

This mini wasn't bad but it could have been much better. The decision of using actors of many nationalities and language, even for French characters of a French mini, is a very odd decision. There are many scenes where it's painfully obvious that the actor was dubbed. I don't have anything against dubbing but going from French actors to dubbed actors was quite annoying.

But the main problem was the character of Napoléon himself. The man was a conqueror and a dictator. Not the meanest dictator ever, but still someone who gave himself complete control of his country. Here, I feel they were trying to present Napoléon as a nice, misunderstood man. Sure, some scenes did show the massive ego of the man, and his lust for conquest, but it's as if those scenes were there by necessity, because they were historical event that had to be dealt with and there was no other explanation they could find. Usually, the following scenes showed us Bonaparte on a better, more likable angle, like those events were inconsequential. Being partisan is okay but you have to be more critical. It becomes even weirder when you think that Simoneau isn't French but Canadian, therefor should've had more distance with the subject.

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.

I'm not even from france and i'm irritated by the way napoleon was portrayed in this movie. Like a loser and a coward with no manners.

I was looking forward to seeing a Napoleon who managed to conquer almost all of Europe. From the decadent nobles to the poor masses. Where a poor peasant could become a captain, etc. With such a person charisma and poise. His brilliant preparations before the battles and his cunning ideas.

Not about how his love life turned him into a tit.

To fail so miserably with such great actors is impressiv.

And thats is wy this movie makes me wonder if those who paid for it personally dislike napoleon.

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.

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.

Being interested in the subject and seeing the amazing cast it had, I thought i would enjoy this mini-series and put both DVDs (eps 1-2 and eps 3-4) on my Netflix. What a disappointment! I had to force myself to get through episode 1. I thought it might get better with the second episode, but no such luck. The story keeps dragging, the acting is uninspiring, the dialog plain boring and almost laughable. Yes, this is one of the most expensive European productions ever made, but no matter how much money they spent on this, it still looks cheaply done. The colors are so over the top vibrant and colorful that it lacks any authenticity. And honestly, with its $46 million budget, would it have been so hard to find a real, beautiful sunset near the French sea cost instead of putting Clavier in front of a super fake looking green screen??? What was the most disappointing about this production is the acting. And honestly, you can't blame the actors for it. The script and dialog they had to work with is just terrible, over dramatic and way too wordy. Not everything needs to be explained. Not every character's name need to be mentioned in every single line of dialog. Less is more. But here, more is the norm. Well, I now realize I need to log onto Netflix, and delete my next film in my queue: Napoleon Disc II.

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.

Although quite lengthy, this documentary never became boring.

Much to the credit of the script writers, there is an excellent balance between action scenes, political intrigue and romance. This all leads to a much better understanding of the character of Napoleon Bonaparte, although more credit could have been given to his constitutional and governance reforms which are still tangible for many European nations today.

The original score and photography is of a very high standard, but what is even more important, I have rarely come across a movie in which the casting was this well tailored to the characters. Rather than putting famous names in all the lead roles, a true effort has been made to match the skills of the actor to the character in a fine, pan-European cast.

Christian Clavier's accent is quite charming: I guess this is how we think Napoleon would have sounded, if he would have spoken English....

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.