Greetings again from the darkness. Ridley Scott long ago etched his name on the list of filmmakers whose projects are nearly always interesting and deserving of a watch. After all, he has helmed such beloved classics as ALIEN (1979), BLADE RUNNER (1982), THELMA AND LOUISE (1991), and Best Picture winner GLADIATOR (2009). Returning to the historical epic genre and working from a script by his ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD writer, David Scarpa, Scott takes on the life and legend of Napoleon Bonaparte. Of course, that legend is a bit conflicted since Napoleon and his bicorne hat remains a hero to France, yet something less to England.
With thousands of books written on Napoleon, most of us still possess only rudimentary knowledge of the man, even though we do understand his namesake ‘complex’. One would think a movie that spans a quarter century and runs 2 hours and 38 minutes in length would sufficiently fill in the gaps, but unfortunately the result is a fascinating mess that wows mightily with its battle scenes, while mostly falling flat in every other area. This is especially disappointing since the film tries to juggle Napoleon’s brilliance as a military leader, the muddled and complex politics of the era, and the strange obsession he held for Josephine de Beauharnais.
Oscar winner Joaquin Phoenix (JOKER, 2019) stars as Napoleon, and the exceptional Vanessa Kirby (PIECES OF A WOMAN, and The White Widow in the two most recent Mission Impossible movies) co-stars as Josephine. One can’t help but fear the effect had this film been made without two such talented leads. Still, at least for me, there was a cold disconnect with Napoleon and Josephine, as we never quite grasp his military leadership, nor her hold on him.
Director Scott kicks off the film by showing a bound Marie Antoinette (Catherine Walker) trudge through the angry masses on her way to the guillotine in 1789. Sound effects add to sense of realism, as does the executioner’s final act of display. After this chilling sequence, a young Napoleon goes on his quest for battlefield victories, military promotions, more power, and a male heir.
The battle scenes are truly epic and as spectacular as any we’ve seen on screen. Two particular standouts are the 1793 Siege of Toulon and the 1805 battle at Austerlitz. The first shows the brutality of war and gives us a glimpse of Napoleon’s renowned strategic expertise, while the second has some remarkable footage on (and under) the frozen lake. In between these two are bits from Napoleon’s conquests in 1798 Egypt and The Coup of 1799. Napoleon gains power with each step, and ultimately, his battlefield wins make him a hero at home where he ultimately claims the title of Emperor. Director Scott and Director of Photography Dariusz Wolski shine in this sequence and re-create the familiar Jacques-Louis David painting of the coronation.
Unable to produce a male heir, Josephine must be cast aside and divorced, although their letters to and fro make up most of the film’s structure of their relationship, even after divorce. The 1812 invasion of Russia is shown, as is Napoleon’s exile to the Isle of Elba, where he escapes after a year to reclaim his power in France. Of course, we do know how this ends, as the brilliant military strategist meets his literal Waterloo at the hands of the Duke of Wellington (Rupert Everett). His second exile to St. Helena concludes with his death at age 51 in 1821.
Ridley Scott’s director cut is rumored to be an additional two hours in length and is supposedly headed to AppleTV+ in January. Although that is an incredibly long run time, Napoleon’s short up-and-down life was filled with so many events (61 battles and more than 3 million deaths) and deserves a more complete telling than what this theatrical version offers. For those historians who are quick to point out inaccuracies, the well-known grump, Ridley Scott, has made his response to you quite clearly and succinctly.
Opens in theaters on November 22, 2023
Movie Reviews from the Dark 
I felt that this movie was both good and bad, but more on the disappointed side of things. I loved the production quality and the action scenes were meticulously staged and choreographed in a cinematic way, but the movie just felt quite fragmented and disjointed. The story of Napoleon (his life, his rule, his military prowess) deserve an expansive and closer look into it all, but the movie merely glosses over it all in a rather patchwork narrative construction. Phoenix and Kirby (in my opinion) were great casting choices, but I felt that Phoenix’s direction for Napoleon was awkward at times. Yet, Phoenix is the only actor who could achieve such quirks and other mannerisms within such a character role. It’s disappointing to see this film just be “adequate”, especially from such a skilled and acclaimed director such as Ridley Scott
Agree with you. For me, much of the disappointment stems from high expectations for the reasons you mentioned.
Great review! Unfortunately, I missed this one due to the mixed reviews. I’ve always found Ridley Scott to be a hit or miss filmmaker. For every great movie that he makes (ex “Gladiator”), there’s always a disappointing dud like “The Counsellor”. Here’s my review of “The Last Duel” one of his better recent films: