User reviews

The success of any film depends mostly on the script. Why Scott would initiate such an expensive project without ensuring a refined and sophisticated script is a mystery. I'm not convinced there is a single interesting scene that provides insight into the characters or captures through language the prevailing political ideas. Scott's frequent missteps as a director reflect a greater interest in the cinematic rather than in the dramatic. However, this seems inevitable when your priority is delivering a blockbuster that will have broad appeal instead of digging deeper into culture, society, or history. A colossal waste of an extraordinary opportunity to create an important film about a fascinating historical figure.

Ridley Scott directed one of the best movies ever made set during the Napoleonic Wars: unfortunately, that movie is not Napoleon but his cinematic debut, The Duellists, forty years ago.

Unsurprisingly, The Duellists had a strong source material (it was based on a novel by Joseph Conrad which it often followed almost verbatim), while Napoleon has an uneven screenplay by David Scarpa.

Even past the age of eighty Sir Ridley can still shoot pretty and energetic pictures but his hits and misses depend on the scripts he picks, and he hasn't always shown the best discernment.

The elephant in the room is the large amount of historical inaccuracies. Even as a history buff I can forgive many of those: cutting or simplifying events for the sake of narrative, or even some overdramatization like the meeting between Napoleon and Wellington (it never happened) or Napoleon being present at Marie Antoinette's execution (he wasn't); however, stuff like Napoleon charging with his troops at Waterloo is absolute cringe, a kid's (or a lout's) idea of history.

Still, the big problems here are characterization and pacing.

The movie is a demythologization (some would say emasculation) of Napoleon. If you want to take this route then fair enough, but the character here fails to be consistent. I can buy a Napoleon who is an egomaniac and an overrated tactician (like in Tolstoy's War and Peace). I do not buy one who is an anxious, insecure, uncharismatic cold fish but also a stern tactical genius and an effective leader of men, one who flees from Egypt because Josephine is unfaithful but is also an unflappable military mastermind.

Phoenix is a great actor and does what he can but the two sides of the character just don't gel with each other. You can't have parodic moments like Napoleon rolling down the stairs during his coup against the Directory, despondently pouting as he waits for the rain to stop at Waterloo or awkwardly climbing on a box to stand face to face with a pharaoh's mummy (with his diminutive stature becoming a not-too-subtle metaphor of his overall mediocrity)... AND THEN have him magnetically charm the French soldiers into obedience after the Elba. This gawky Napoleon would have been shot to pieces there.

The other problem is pacing. A single movie about the whole life of Napoleon is in itself absurd, like making "a movie about World War 2". There is material in Napoleon's life for a VERY dense miniseries (which Steven Spielberg is reportedly planning).

Napoleon's first wife Josephine (Vanessa Kirby) plays a huge role here but I would argue the movie has either too little or way too much of her. This needed to be either focused mostly on Napoleon's personal life or to drastically reduce the (fairly repetitive after a while) moments where Napoleon is obsessed with his wife.

As it is now, it tries to tell - but rushes through - twenty very eventful years of European history and yet devotes more time to Napoleon visiting Josephine after their divorce than to his Russian campaign.

It's like making a D-Day movie which keeps cutting back and forth from the Normandy landings to Hitler spending time with Eva Braun. You can have either The Longest Day or Der Untergang, not both.

Still, it's not worthless. There are some interesting moments and set-pieces and, while Phoenix is saddled with a contradictory character, Kirby at least is excellent.

6/10.

This should have been called "Napoleon and Josephine" because, frankly, there's too much of Josephine in it, and not nearly enough of the brilliance and personality of Bonaparte. The historical inaccuracies are manifold. I read that director Scott says that "If you weren't there then you can **** off". Well I was not there, but the erroneous simplification of one of history's greatest characters shows Scott wasn't there either. The battle scenes are gaining accolades, but even they shouldn't. Wrong and over simplified. If you are going to make a movie about Napoleon, his generalship should have taken centre-stage, not his domestic tussles with the Missus. A grand disappointment. An artilleryman, as Napoleon was, taking part in a cavalry charge? I don't think so! Oh, how I wish Kubrick had carried through to make his version. I give this six stars, mostly for having the courage to take on such a mighty story. Too bad it fell far short of its subject matter.

Ridley Scott's Napoleon is a high-budget cinematic exercise in "Whatever, man, that'll do." The film, both in terms of what it presents and how it presents, reeks of hollowness. Characters are shadows(not defined enough to even be considered parodies or mockeries of their real-life counterparts as some people like to see them), story is a shadow of a proper story( at times feeling as if written by A. I), atmosphere, with the exception of some of the battle scenes and the Russian segment, sterile and practically non existent(disasterous for Scott who is known to be one of the greatest world builders in history of the artform). Stuff just happens in the film. No significance or weight to anything or anybody... Sure, it's not all bad. The classic Ridley Scott elements are here - battles are engaging, the costumes and set designs very well-done. Something he can't help but always be good at.

Overall, Ridley Scott's Napoleon feels like a simulacrum, a reduced copy of a real film, where, it seems, all life is sucked out . If I had more reverence towards the post-Gladiator Ridley Scott, I'd, perhaps, think of the film as some kind of metajoke, a self-aware self-parody, but, frankly, I think it's just a matter of the filmmaker not caring much. Just another day at work for Ridley, gotta keep working, do one thing, move on to the next one immediately, have fun, try things out, don't overthink it - this seems to be the way to go for the good ol' Ridley these days. Can't blame him, he's 85, for Christ's sake, but the movie's not good, kind of proto A. I-produced entertainment.

I will not get in to the historical inaccuracies, as in a lot of historical movies history is adapted for dramatic purposes. It is Hollywood after all and especially for big budget movies the goal is to make a lot of money. Beautiful Trailer.

My main criticism is the portrayal of Napoleon. Of course all who knew him are long gone and many accounts are subjective, so we have to make do with that information.

But I can not imagine that a man who ends up on top after all the chaos of the French Revolution, whose generals and soldiers stay loyal to him after all the battles and blood, wasn't an enormous charismatic man.

And that's where the film completely fails for me. You can hate him, admire him, love him, belittle him as Wellington, but the film makes him, and his relationship with Josephine, uninteresting and dull, and as the title is Napoleon, that was my feeling leaving the cinema. A bit more effort of Mr Scott and Mr. Phoenix to know the character and history would probably have added value.

Back in 2005 Ridley Scott's 144 minute version of 'Kingdom of Heaven' premiered in theatres to somewhat mixed reviews. A couple of years later the vastly superior 190 minute director's cut version finally arrived, with the general consensus that the final product was a masterclass in storytelling, directing, acting and cinematography. - without doubt the best motion picture ever made about the crusades.

Almost 20 years later we are yet again treated with a compiled highlight reel of a Ridley Scott movie in the theatre, rather than a full-fledged historical epic, since it has already become official that 'Napoleon' will be released later on streaming with its entire runtime of almost four hours, which clearly is needed to flesh out many parts of the movie and fill in the emotional and historical blanks, because this - somewhat butchered cut - moves in a breakneck speed and feels too rushed.

Whereas the underappreciated 1970 movie 'Waterloo' starring Rod Steiger as Napoleon Bonaparte, featuring thousands of extras, portrayed events only during the 100 days campaign in 1815, Scott's 'Napoleon' takes us through decades of various major events and battles beginning with the siege of Toulon in 1793. In this version we never really learn why Napoleon was so powerful. Why did he win the admiration of so many? It's almost as if he stumbles through greatness. He was a great politician in real life, but here he is portrayed as a childish brute? It felt like the focus was more on setpieces and his troubled relationship with Josephine, than on him as a ruthless and cunning emperor, and in the theatre cut there really isn't a lot of places where Joaquin Phoenix truly shines as an Oscar contender. Maybe the director's cut will remedy that.

In spite of its shortcomings (no pun intended) 'Napoleon' is still one of the best movies I have seen this year, but I am baffled. Because if people can sit through 3+ hour box office hits like 'Avengers Endgame', 'Avatar 2' and 'Oppenheimer' - why the need to release just a very extended trailer of 'Napoleon' in the theatre, especially when everyone know that they can just wait a couple of months for it to arrive on streaming in its entirety? An attempt by Apple at a cash grab? "You need a subscription to our streaming service to watch the whole thing"?

With that being said, I do predict some Oscar nominations here. Ridley Scott yet again proves why he is one of the best filmmakers out there. But a word of caution: If you only plan to see this once, you might consider waiting for the director's cut.

Much like Scott's other historical epic Kingdom of Heaven, Napoleon is a movie that is saved by the long cut. After seeing all the negative reviews at release, I decided to put off watching until the Directors Cut was released, and with close to an hour of extra footage added, the film feels expansive and fleshed out. The romance of Napoleon and Josephine plays a central role in the movie, much like it did in the man's life. Vanessa Kirby does a great job playing the empress, capturing a delicate nobility in her character. Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon might be the weakest part of the film unfortunately. He seemed miscast from the beginning, and there were many scenes that I felt could have been performed better. Still, he did do well in any scene where the role demanded he be powerful and angry. There are also beautifully shot battle scenes from many of the major campaigns of the wars (Tolstoy fans take note!). The costumes and set pieces are meticulously designed and make for a rich frame, with the movie at its best when every shot seems like a grand oil painting one would see hanging in a national gallery. Ultimately I think the Directors Cut delivers a better film, one that is as grand and ambitious as the subject matter deserves.

There's so much available content to tell this story. Why the hell was it a 2.5 hour film rather than the multi part limited series it deserves to be? The film has over 20 years of history to cover but includes so many huge time skips that you can't help feeling that you're missing out on a huge amount. This should have been a series and given the writers and the actors the time they deserved to tell the story properly but instead we get something that seems rushed and has huge gaps in time where things are shunted forward just se we can reach the end of the story before time runs out. The acting is above par (Despite Phoenix mumbling through some scenes) and the action sequences are excellent but there is just a feeling that it could have been so much more.

Ridley Scott's Napoleon is more hysterical than historical. History is like an uninvited guest in this movie. Stunning battle visuals don't make up for gross historical approximations.

If you want to watch a masterpiece then see Waterloo, with Rod Steiger and Christopher Plummer. And if you want a historical enumeration then watch the Napoleon series with Christian Clavier, Isabella Rossalini, John Malkovich and Gerard Depardieu.

This movie was made for Apple streaming. Then they made a butchered version for cinema to be able to compete for the Oscars. The original Apple streaming version will be at least 2 hours longer. This cut version for cinema is somewhat rushed, disjointed and, as a result, confusing.

We never really learn why Napoleon was so powerful and won the admiration of so many. Here it's almost as if he stumbles through greatness. He was a great politician in reality, over here he's shown as a childish brute. The focus was more on set pieces and his relationship with Josephine.

Joaquin Phoenix can play odd or troubled characters well. Here he barely succeeds in persuading the viewers that he is Napoleon. He's too old for this role (Napoleon was 24 when Marie Antoinette was guillotined) and made the character seem bizarre than a charismatic leader. Vanessa Kirby as Josephine gets more traction.

The cinematography by Dariusz Wolski is of a very high order. The battle scenes are filmed well. Ridley Scott knows how to make action scenes slick and impressive. But overall it's a below average movie. Napoleon deserves better than this shambolic movie.

Napoleon was the most significant man of his age and no film can explain his significance in 2.5 hours. Scott decides to focus on three specific aspects of Napoleon's life and personality to show who he thinks Napoleon was at the expense of omitting much of what makes him such a fascinating figure in history.

The first aspect Scott focuses on is Napoleon the lover. Much of this film shows his infatuation and on-again off-again relationship with Josephine. Both actors handle their parts well and while there is some humor and tension, it is the least interesting part of the movie. Still, some focus is necessary as his marriage to Josephine was certainly a key aspect of his life.

The second aspect is Napoleon the megalomaniac. We all know of Napoleon as the short guy who had insecurity issues. Even if there is truth to this, it is probably an overstatement, but there is no denying the massive ego of the man. In many respects his ego is understandable for all he accomplished, and Scott paints Napoleon's inflated belief in himself as the reason for his fall, particularly in his invasion of Russia. Scott does not want us the think Napoleon fights for the glory of France but rather for the glory of Napoleon.

The final side of the Napoleon casts him as a butcher. Towards the end of his career we see Napoleon recklessly spending the lives of his men as he seeks to conquer for himself. The movie leaves us with a comprehensive death toll that Napoleon left in his wake, a massive number that comes as a result of his callous disregard for his own men and endless ambition.

So then we are left with a Napoleon as a man who loved Josephine, who had a massive ego, and constantly warred, causing the deaths of millions. All this is true, but what of Napoleon the tactician? What of Napoleon the reformer? What of Napoleon the leader? Scott focused on the worst aspects of Napoleon to highlight while disregarding the best. I was shocked that more was not discussed and shown over the massive victories and the unprecedented tactics he employed that make him a general still studied in military academies today. He was a multifaceted man, who accomplished much good and much bad, but he comes off in this film as a little ambitious fool.

The film also seems jumbled at times and jumps forward in ways that show Napoleon must be conquering and doing something right, but he goes from general, to consul, to emporer in quick ways we are not shown. He beats Austria and Russa, befriends Russia, then is back at war with them one scene later. I understand the politics, battles, and alliances are hard to follow of the ealry 19th century, but I left feeling like I learned little more about Napoleon and the France he ruled than I already knew coming in.

Despite the films shortcomings, it is a genuinely effective movie and shot beautifully. The battle scenes are bloody and tense, and the costumes and sets look recreate Napoleonic France beautifully.

When i first heard about Ridley Scott making a Napoleon movie with Joaquin Phoenix as lead actor, i was very excited. Little that i knew that this movie would not match the expectations set. First of all i would like to state that i didn't expect an historically accurate movie given the fact that it is not Ridley Scott strongest suite (see Kingdom of Heaven). There is a small measure of truth in all of his movies but they are not built as a documentary and they are not intended to be one. Nevertheless, this movie doesn't even come close to the vibe given by Kingdom of Heaven or other historical movies, from an historical point of view. I always look for a particular type of energy in movies, especially in historical ones but Napoleon in my opinion fails to deliver. This movie tries to much to contain all peculiarities of Napoleon's life but fails miserably. We see all and nothing. The feeling that i got was that we saw a fast forward version of his life but without any soul or essence. Even the battle scenes seemed dull and without soul. I think Ridley set the bar too high through his previous movies for this part. Regarding Joaquin's performance, there is not much to say. I think his interpretation was similar to a performance you would see in a stage theater. I don't know why but at some points in the movie, it felt like a low budget movie with very poor writing and very poor dialogue. I will wait for the extended version to see if my opinion changes for the best.

Napoleon by Ridley Scott is a film about Napoleon Bonaparte, but it is a very fictional film, many sequences of the film do not correspond to historical reality. I didn't like the film because I would have preferred something much more historically faithful, not an almost fictional work.

The cinematography of the film is spectacular but the battles depicted also did so they are very fictional.

The film is very schizophrenic, it goes from one thing to another without ever delving into anything specific.

A film about Napoleon(that is not the real historical Napoleon) that I honestly do not recommend.

A film I don't recommend!!!!

As cinema goes, this is more poetry than prose. It has to be. The history is so lengthy and intricate that hard choices must be made to capture some of the essential curiosities and lessons from Napoleon's saga, and the film takes some artistic liberties to get at those truths.

It's not perfectly accurate, and it clearly isn't aiming to be. Ridley Scott is no dummy. There is obviously something absurd about making such a colossal epic about French historical figures with unapologetically English-speaking actors. The funny thing is that it kind of works given the film's thematic point. Napoleon was kind of an absurd figure. He had this massive sublime aura in the popular imagination, this emperor, conqueror, and legend, and repository for French revolutionary ideas. Yet the man himself was just a man, and an angst-ridden, flawed, and not terribly interesting one at that. His battle strategy was great, and he had a weird personal charisma that Phoenix captures impressively. We don't exactly like him, but he's fascinating, and we can't look away. Napoleon's success was absurd too-the product of ambition, shrewd tactics in war, politics, propaganda, weird charisma, and an absolutely massive amount of luck. Events unfold in frank succession sort of like they do in a Wes Anderson movie. Things happen because they are part of the story, as if some hand of fate or grand narrator guides Napoleon through a sequence of inevitable events.

And the point here is to depict the really interesting highlights of the battles, which are incredibly fun to see depicted at the massive scale the film's budget affords, without deifying the man. A lot of people died for not such good reasons, many of which stemmed from Napoleon himself and the hold he had on the popular imagination. It's goofy seeing these French people talking in American accents. These people were also a little goofy.

This is a period of history that mainstream American audiences don't remember much about, and those who forget history are doomed to forget it. It's not perfect, and it takes a lot of liberties, but it captures the essence of Napoleon's mysterious and mixed legacy. In the end, he achieves the immortality of enduring fame, but he's not a role model. More than anything, he got lucky.

I want to see the director's cut too, but I also get why the film had to work in a sparse, poetic language and style for the theatrical release.

With every biopic, the question is always: how do you condense a person's life in a 2 or 3 hour motion picture? However, simultaneously, you have to have enough material to make a film out off. With a figure like Napoleon, the balance clearly shifts to having so much material to work with that one cinematic release may not be enough to satisfactorily portray the man's life. While this concern was already there before release, we have seen great movies about bigger-than-life men and women succeed like Gandhi (1982). And with a director like Ridley Scott, you want to give the project the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, The movie falls into the trap that has haunted other biopics which is a lack of focus. In other words, instead of elucidating a character's life, we get a collection of highlights about that character's history which doesn't build up to an overall great experience.

In the case of Napoleon, while we do get some fantastic scenes, the overall experience feels shallow. Each scene may stand on its own, but there is little to no connection between them which often leads to weird shifts in time and bizarre consequences for actions that seem to have little impact. In the movie, just when you think Napoleon has taken a small step up the ladder of power, he is suddenly promoted the very next scene to be the leader of an empire so to speak. Anyone who knows a lot about the history of that time-period will know why a certain moment leads to another, but it leads to confusion for the more casual audience. It also doesn't help that Napoleon's character isn't really developed here. Sure, he has character, thanks to a solid performance by Joaquin Phoenix, but we as an audience don't really get to know why he gained the positions he did nor why he was loved so much by his fellow countrymen. The only moments when we get a glimpse of his (strategic) brilliance is during the many large-scale battle scenes in the movie.

But perhaps the intention wasn't to show his clever political strategies nor his role as an institutional reformer (which was completely looked over here). As was made clear in the early descriptions of the movie, it is rather about the relationship between Napoleon and his first wife, Joséphine. However, that also doesn't get the necessary development to leave a lasting impression on the audience. Although Vanessa Kirby and Joaquin Phoenix have chemistry in their respective roles and are the standout performances here, it is still a mystery as to why Napoleon was so fond of her if we should believe this film. Why did he choose her as his partner in this quest for power? Why did he not break up with her even though she abused his trust? These were questions that the audience desperately wanted to get answered, only to leave the theatre empty-handed.

Luckily, the movie shines in its portrayal of 18th century - 19th century France and its many tumultuous developments. Costume design and casting is great, and the scenery is breathtaking. Although it is all dramatized, the movie often has this dream-like imagery worthy of an epic of this scope. Sure, it is what we have come to expect from large-scale projects like this, but Ridley Scott surely proves he can film large-scale battle scenes and mass gatherings of people. To what extent this is all historically-accurate is up for debate. It's a discussion I won't waste time to, but I believe it probably would have been far less of an issue if that creative freedom would have given us a better movie worthy of the legacy of Napoleon. Instead, we have a movie that can barely keep up with history and doesn't know where its focus lies. Just like Napoleon himself, Ridley Scott simply was too ambitious. The film's pacing is off at times as a consequence. At times it felt like the movie spent way too little time on the actual important events and far too much time on the relationship between Napoleon and Joséphine. As a consequence, it all feels unfocused and confusing.

In the end, Napoleon simultaneously felt like a very long and a very short movie. Just like Kingdom of Heaven (2005) from 18 years ago, it feels like Ridley Scott has a ton of material lying around in his basement that could explain the underdevelopment of various plot-points and the sudden transitions from one scene to the next in this film. Because for example, how else could you explain the numbers of casualties shown after the screen faded to black? It's as if they belong to a different movie, since it made little sense to show something so relatively trivial to the film we saw. There actually is an extended edition coming of this film, but I fear it's too late to change audiences' minds about this film. And even if it would be better with that added material, it would be disgraceful as everyone until now would be robbed of a great cinematic experience while also having to pay extra for something that should have been there from the get-go. As it stands, Napoleon is unfortunately one of the biggest disappointments of the year. Unless you're looking for epic battles and some unnecessary sex scenes thrown in here and there, you're probably better of waiting for it to be available on Apple TV or on any other cheaper format than the big screen. What will be remembered here is not the portrayal of a character, but the beautiful, albeit shallow portrayal of a spectacular part of history.

Ridley Scott's NAPOLEON feels like the highlight reel of a lengthy miniseries. Considering there's a 4-hour cut of this film, that explains it all.

NAPOLEON is certainly good spectacle. The battle scenes are breathtaking. Unfortunately, it's also shallow. I know Scott has sneered at viewers criticizing the historical inaccuracies in the film, but I'm more bothered by a total lack of interesting character psychology or even coherent storytelling. Characters pop in and out, leaving little impression in their brief scenes. Relationships between characters are barely fleshed out, including that of Napoleon and Josephine, which dominates the running time. Also, potentially unpopular opinion, I thought Joaquin Phoenix's performance was a one-note bore.

Perhaps the 4-hour version is a richer piece of work. As is, NAPOLEON is a let down, especially after Scott's brilliant 2021 period piece THE LAST DUEL, which had all the drama and psychological depth this movie lacked.

The rise and fa of French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, who's thirst for power led him to many victories and some significant losses.

I struggle to associate any commonality with reviews that have called it slow and bum aching, it's a historical saga, if you have expectations of something different, you went to the wrong film.

The epic I had hoped for from Ridley Scott, a great story, huge battle sequences, and a detailed exploration of Napoleon, and his complex relationship with Josephine. The perfect mix I thought, it never became overly sentimental or slushy, I thought he nailed it.

Several scenes stood out in particular, for me the best of all was the battle of Austerlitz, the sheer audacity of the plan as well as the epic visuals, just phenomenal. Secondly, the siege on Moscow, again tremendous visuals, but the hollowness of the victory was cleverly executed, and of course, the battle of Waterloo, incredibly realised.

The running time was spot on, I'm glad it didn't go on any longer, it felt like that right run time.

I thought the production values were superb, incredibly sets, great battles, as well as amazing costumes.

Joaquin Phoenix delivers an award winning performance, he is phenomenal, and brings the character to life, he's definitely someone who's conflicted, addicted to power and definitely love sick. Vanessa Kirby excellent as Josephine.

Plenty of British talent on display to enjoy, the likes of Julian Rhind Tutt, Sorcha Cusack, Rupert Everett and the excellent Paul Rhys.

Overall, well worth your time.

8/10.

A battle in Toulon sets up your rise, as the rebels are soon cannonballed to size, with some help and some removed, promotions are approved, sets your trajectory to take you to the skies; the pyramid of your life is Josephine, while on manoeuvres she's quite progressive and keen, although quite barren for an Empress, and you need an heir for success, but you compensate through a mass killing machine. A spell in exile lets you gather next to water, before you gather once again to kill and slaughter, but no matter what you do, this will be your Waterloo, as all you dreams go down the pan, prisoned by water.

A bit too long and not particularly engaging.

I read the reviews of Ridley Scott's 'Napoleon' and knew it was not the great film everyone anticipated. Even so, I went. And what I discovered is that it's bad in the worst kind of way; It is dull. Lifeless. A flat un-involving story about characters who are in every way unlikable. Another reviewer wrote that he / she had trouble staying awake through its 2 hours 40 minutes run-time. When I read that I laughed. Now that I have seen the film, I am laughing no longer.

Napoleon Bonaparte as Emperor of France did a lot of good things; much of the country's 'Civil Code' was instituted during his reign. But this film deals only with (a) Napoleon the warrior and (b) Napoleon the husband, and fails to deliver a well-rounded character in either sense. We know he loves France but aside from living there we don't know what drives his passion. His hatred for anything not France is clear, but the reasons for this hatred are never explained. There are battles a'plenty but the reason for them is elusive. Enemies become friends. Friends become enemies. We care about none of them. Thousands die. Somehow we care nothing about them either.

There is, in Napoleon, no one to root for. Making matters worse there is an uneven performance by Joaquin Phoenix. His 'later' Napoleon becomes a different character than we'd seen earlier in the film. And no, I don't think it is attributed to Napoleon's rise in power. I think it's Phoenix; his acting, his portrayal. His Napoleon is far less quirky as the film progresses (as though the actor wants out of his role), and in this way, he is far less interesting.

If there's anyone about whom we do care that character would be Josephine, Napoleon's wife and Empress of France. Vanessa Kirby is ravishing in the role. A rare beauty but one with a shadow-filled past as well as future. We can understand Napoleon's undying love her but the truth is, she's not the nicest girl on the block. There's little doubt that Mr. Bonaparte would never have 'won' her, were he not the country's future leader. So, again, no one to truly root for.

Ah, yes. The battle scenes. They're fine (though it seems as though a battle fought at the base of Egypt's pyramids was cut out). But I think fewer battles and more unraveling of the reasons behind those battles between France, England, Russia, Austria, and other countries might make the remaining battles more meaningful.

More involving.

Which, as I said, this film is definitely not.