I'm really torn about "Napoleon". On the one hand, I'm glad to be able to finally see another epic historical drama with high production values in the cinema, but on the other hand, I didn't particularly enjoy how it was realized. This is not due to the spectacular battle sequences. They are massive, impress with the use of numerous extras, and are the clear highlight of the film.

However, covering all stages of Napoleon's rise and fall was a huge mistake. Instead of focusing on a few key periods, the movie feels more like skimming through a Wikipedia entry. On top of that, from a historical perspective, there are some really hair-raising creative liberties that director Ridley Scott takes.

I was also rather disappointed with the acting. Joaquin Phoenix is definitely a master of his craft, but here he somehow never found the right approach. It seems as if Phoenix never really knew how he wanted to play the general and dictator. Vanessa Kirby, on the other hand, is quite convincing as Napoleon's wife, Joséphine, but the chemistry between the two is rather poor.

All in all, I think it's worth seeing "Napoleon" at the movies. The battle sequences alone are reason enough. But I had hoped for more from a historical epic by Ridley Scott. I will probably give the announced four-and-a-half-hour director's cut a chance at some point, but I'm not really confident that it will be able to dispel my criticisms.

Impressive battle sequences aside, 'Napoleon' fails to deliver.

Just my own opinion, of course, but this Ridley Scott movie just didn't click. I didn't feel attached to what I was watching, I wasn't hooked on the events that were occurring onscreen. Joaquin Phoenix gives a solid enough performance, I don't have any complaints with him - nor Vanessa Kirby.

It's just the film in general that disappointed. None of the non-battle scenes did anything for me, it's all so heavily forgettable. The added humour/quirkiness from the titular character felt out of place, or at least wasn't blended with the more serious stuff all that well.

The long run time, whilst certainly overdone, isn't actually all that much of a hindrance - it's moreso how poorly the run time is utilized. I, fwiw, have zero issue with historical inaccuracies. Judging it solely as a film, I highly doubt I'll want to rewatch this anytime soon unfortunately.

I had high hopes for Napoleon but the final product was, for me, disappointing.

Lets start by saying this feels more like a cinematic biography than sweeping saga.

The approach taken is to move from set piece to set piece through the passage of this famous figures life. Regrettably, the handling, like Napoleons tryst with Josephine, is quick and crude. Set piece gives way to yet more set pieces,with no real contextual cohesion.

There are a number of historical inaccuracies too. The most glaring being the absence of a younger actor in the earlier part of Napoleons career. This could have worked better with Joaquin Phoenix playing Napoleon in his latter years, married up to a actor of similar appearance, playing the younger Napoleon. Napoleon did change markedly over the years, why not take this approach?

I will say too, I think the American accent that's pretty hard to ignore, does not sit well, with a production set in this era.Brit accents are more believable because they were a well established presence on the world stage, at the time. I wasn't always sure if I was watching a film about Napoleon or Washington. A role I think Phoenix would be fabulous in, BTW.

This is not to say this film is "all negatives". A ton of money has been spent on this lavish production and it shows. Sets are amazing, as are costumes and locations. The gruesomeness of warfare be it domestic, Royalists dispatched by cannon in the streets of Paris or enemies on the battlefield, is laid bare. This really brings home the fact that warfare and imperialism, which we still see today, is ultimately an ugly, sinister, destructive thing.

In summary, issues with the handling of this historical production are its biggest shortcoming. From the choice of approach, with almost obsessive set pieces, the use of an older actor in a younger role and other aspects of how the character is presented.

On the upside, lavish and at times, brutally frank, especially the bloody spectacle of conflict. There are no hero's in war, including Napoleon himself.

NOTE: For anyone interested Napoleon was not short. He was around 5.7" tall which was the male French average height for the century he was born in (height of people varied century to century based on factors like food availability). The reason people think he was short, was propaganda from his enemies. I guess propaganda does work, after all!

Based on a screenplay by David Scarpa (that is writing the screenplay for Gladiator 2 too... oh oh) rather than a history book this is as epic as Ridley Scott makes his movies technically.... and that's it. After Ridley's Scott last movie (the magnificent and accurate "The Duel" of 2021) went under the radar on its year my expectation bar was set too high for this one.

I can't dismiss all technical work because I just love all Ridley Scott movies because of his singular style, and the movie is truly breathtaking in the major battles parts.

But as a whole it simplifies the real personality of the character (that Joaquin Phoenix plays) as a commander and personality of the time (maybe the most famous of that era) and minimizes the intrincancy of his relations with Empress Joséphine (played by Vanessa Kirby). Joaquin plays Napoleon role very well, even with the limitations of being just a caricature here.

The gaps and errors in historically accuracy and battle scenes tactics are just fathomless deep, and history is compressed as it where from a history book name and resume of chapter to another, loosing the chance to achieve something grandiose here.

I can just dream on a well made screenplay and accurate movie here with the same quality of Ridley's work - nevertheless that it would take more than just one movie to get that chapter of Europe's history.

Maybe it will get one or two nominations at Academy for production, costume or cinematography here but that's it.

If it was a historical movie of a lesser known character or just focused on one part of his life it the score could be higher but here I just can get a 6.0 out of 10.0 / B - (but with a A for the technical side).

It seems thar a version with 92 plus minutes will be released on Apple, but without a final director's cut version date.

Hearing over and over on the internet about how Napoleon led his army to die in the cold Russian winter, I always assumed he just died there along with them. Turns out, he didn't, and what an unfortunate turn of events that was because it resulted in another hour of movie to watch! I liked the cannon stuff. I would have liked to see more cannons. Getting pretty tired of the whole mumbling Joaquin Phoenix act. If you put this ham on your face, be sure to turn on subtitles!