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.