Napoleon.
Not really underrated. More like “panned”.
I think the fundamental themes of the film were at odds with a compelling and historically relevant telling of the story of Napoleon. Mostly mindless repetition of two centuries-old British propaganda. I don’t see how an alternate cut could address the flawed approach this film had.
This community doesn’t require the post title to be the same as the article title, not even for bots. Why would you leave it as clickbait?
I’m used to posting in a community that does. The inline headline is better:
Is Napoleon: Director’s Cut Worth Watching? Ridley Scott Fans Already Know the Answer
I’ll see if I can put it in this post, and either avoid Inverse (their titles are always like this) or alter the titles moving forward.
I didn’t know Scott teased about the directors cut, but watching it I could quickly tell there would be one and Scott also knew there’d be one while he was editing the main release. The feel of the film had a “fine, well cut it short“ vibe all over it.
