Ridley Scott’s most recent directorial effort is a mixed bag and lacks a consistent tone throughout. At its high points, it can be truly spectacular, but despite being well crafted, it leaves an unsatisfactory taste. Even at 2 hours and 37 minutes, I struggled to follow every historical event that occurred. There wasn’t enough substance to give context to the political culture and personal journey of the character. 

Director Ridley Scott’s press tour for Napoleon has been one of the highlights of this year. He has been blunt about any criticism of historical inaccuracies. This piqued my curiosity along with many others, but it is safe to say that the film’s dip in quality is not due to that but to the inconsistent tone. There will be a brutal, bloody battle in one scene, and the next is laugh-out-loud-funny. The writing and the directing are at odds with each other, and Joaquin seems to be in a completely different film from the rest of the cast, which is a criticism that also befell Scott’s previous work, House of Gucci. Although, I can’t deny I wasn’t intrigued the entire time. I was kept on my toes, never knowing what to expect from the next scene or what zinger was going to escape from Napoleon’s mouth. 

One positive note is that this is no cradle-to-grave biopic. Napoleon sprawls over several decades, but most of it occurs during his relationship with Josephine (Vanessa Kirby). The film begins with the battle that gets him promoted from Captain to Brigadier General. He led the Frenchmen to recapture one of their ports under British control. Scott is showing off his chops in the opening battle. It is both terrifying and electrifying and is just a taste of the other battles to happen later. Napoleon doesn’t sit on the sidelines and let his men die. He throws himself into the action, fighting and killing right alongside them. 

After the reign of terror ended, over 40,000 prisoners were released, including his soon-to-be wife, Josephine. A few years later, the two meet at a party and come together when he meets one of her children and is taken to her house. She becomes his wife and (eventually) Empress, and from that point, their relationship becomes more intense and tumultuous. There are rumors of infidelity and issues with infertility. When he is conquering Egypt, he is told by his friend about her affair, and he abandons his post to head home and forces her to stop. This is when their back-and-forth power struggle really kicks off. His relationship with her is an additional lens to give the viewer more perspective on who he is. 

The film shows off many major points in Napoleon’s life, such as the loyalist insurrection, his crowning, the burning of Moscow, and his exile. As visually striking as many of these moments might be, it all feels shallow. This feels more like a highlight reel of Napoleon’s life rather than a genuine exploration of himself as a character or his influence on French history. His family is barely acknowledged despite having both his brother and his mother in the film, and if the goal was to use Josephine as the framework for him, it does not focus on the two of them enough. 

It can’t be overstated just how lovely the crafts are and how painful it is that they are let down by writer David Scarpa’s script. I couldn’t figure out whether Napoleon was supposed to be intentionally comedic or if the wording was that awkward. If so, then mission accomplished, but it doesn’t seem like the best choice for the film. It seems that Scott and Scarpa want Napoleon to be both a socially incompetent brat and a tough, battle-hardened man, but they end up splitting the difference, leading to a middling performance and a less interesting character. Also, its expansive nature failed its character and my understanding of the world. I struggled to understand what was going on politically. Not to mention the heir storyline felt underbaked, which is a shame because there was a lot of interesting untapped potential there.  

Of all the performances, Vanessa Kirby shined the most. In fact, I wish there was more of her in the film. Joaquin’s strange performance was the odd one out. The rest of the supporting cast blends into the background, although that is caused by the script rather than the actors. The only person who breaks through is Rupert Everett in the last few minutes of the film and he is a delight to watch. 

It is easy to be frustrated with Napoleon because it is so close to being great. The cinematography, score, and costume design were all beautiful. Though I struggled to follow the historical aspect of the story, it didn’t drag. Perhaps it was because I was unsatisfied and was subconsciously hoping my attention would be rewarded with understanding. Unfortunately, Napoleon never stopped feeling more like a figure than a person. While it might be a bit of a misfire, it is still amazing Ridley Scott can make such a unique film on a big scale, especially at his age. If the rumor is that he wants to release a four-hour director’s cut on Apple TV, then I can’t wait to see it and check out how it compares to the theatrical release. 

Grade: C

Oscars Prospects:
Likely: Best Costume Design, Best Sound
Should be Considered: Best Original Score

Where to Watch: In Theaters