Ridley Scott’s Napoleon (2023) presents a highly stylized and visually spectacular recounting of the life of the legendary French emperor, Napoleon Bonaparte. While the film certainly impresses with its grand scope and attention to historical detail, it ultimately falls short of providing a coherent, emotionally resonant portrayal of its central figure. With Joaquin Phoenix in the titular role, the film charts Napoleon’s rise to power, his obsessive relationship with Josephine, his military conquests, and his eventual downfall. While the movie shines in terms of its visual grandeur and action sequences, it struggles to offer much insight into the complexities of Napoleon’s character or the full ramifications of his actions.
From the outset, Napoleon dazzles with its elaborate set pieces and sweeping cinematography. Ridley Scott, known for his epic-scale storytelling, brings the grandeur of Napoleon’s world to life through meticulously crafted battle scenes and historical tableaux. The military campaigns, from the bloody battles to the strategic maneuvering, are shown in staggering detail. The film’s battle sequences, particularly those depicting the battles of Austerlitz and Waterloo, are visually stunning, capturing the chaos and intensity of warfare in the Napoleonic era. The director’s experience with grand-scale storytelling, honed through films like Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven, is evident as Napoleon presents war on a monumental scale, emphasizing the visceral impact of these conflicts.
Yet, despite the film’s visual prowess, it often feels like it lacks a coherent narrative that ties the spectacle together. While there are certainly moments that highlight Napoleon’s strategic genius and his military brilliance, the film often glosses over the deeper motivations behind his actions. Instead of exploring his personal complexities and the psychology behind his rise to power, Napoleon at times leans more on showcasing the enormity of his empire, his rise, and the cost of his military ambitions. In doing so, the film sacrifices a deeper exploration of Napoleon as a character in favor of portraying him as a larger-than-life figure, removed from the human experiences that shaped his decisions.
Joaquin Phoenix’s portrayal of Napoleon, while commanding, is one of the film’s more divisive aspects. The actor, known for his intense and often unpredictable performances, brings a sense of internal conflict and intensity to the role. However, his interpretation of Napoleon sometimes feels more like a series of moments rather than a fully realized, consistent character. Phoenix plays Napoleon as a man of great ambition, insecurity, and occasionally, petulance. The emperor’s obsession with Josephine, his emotional vulnerability, and his occasional outbursts of frustration are present, but they are often undercut by the film’s broader focus on spectacle. In this sense, Phoenix’s performance, though compelling, sometimes feels like it is in service to the larger narrative rather than standing as a fully fleshed-out portrayal of Napoleon himself.
One of the central relationships explored in the film is that between Napoleon and Josephine, played by Vanessa Kirby. Josephine’s role in Napoleon’s life, both as his lover and his political ally, is crucial to understanding his character, yet the film offers only a superficial exploration of this relationship. While the movie emphasizes Napoleon’s jealousy and emotional turmoil over Josephine’s inability to bear him an heir, it fails to give the character the depth and agency she deserves. Vanessa Kirby, known for her performances in The Crown and Pieces of a Woman, imbues Josephine with a certain grace and poise, but she is ultimately sidelined in favor of Napoleon’s more dramatic personal and military conflicts. The film does little to explore Josephine’s own struggles, ambitions, or motivations, leaving her as a mere plot device to further Napoleon’s personal journey.
The historical inaccuracies and liberties taken in Napoleon have drawn significant attention from critics and historians alike. While some of these departures from historical fact are necessary for the sake of dramatic narrative, others feel more like attempts to fabricate moments of spectacle. For example, one notable historical inaccuracy occurs during the Battle of the Pyramids, where Napoleon is depicted engaging in a cannonball fight with the Egyptian forces—a moment that never took place. Similarly, the film’s decision to have nearly all of the characters, including French and Corsican figures, speak with English accents has been criticized for undermining the film’s historical authenticity. The lack of French accents, in particular, is jarring for a film that claims to be grounded in the historical reality of Napoleonic France. This choice, likely made for accessibility, ultimately detracts from the immersion and the historical integrity of the film.
Moreover, the film’s pacing and structure are uneven, leaving much to be desired in terms of emotional payoff. Despite its 157-minute runtime, Napoleon often feels rushed in its treatment of key historical events, glossing over major moments of political and military significance in favor of grand, sweeping visual shots. At times, the film is bogged down by a lack of narrative focus, with some sequences feeling like disconnected episodes rather than integral parts of a cohesive whole. The early parts of the film, which depict Napoleon’s rise through the military ranks and his eventual ascension to power, are relatively swift, while the latter half of the film, which covers his reign and downfall, often drags on without providing a satisfying conclusion to the story.
Perhaps the most striking flaw of Napoleon is its failure to grapple meaningfully with the consequences of its protagonist’s actions. While the film shows the devastation of war and the loss of life that came with Napoleon’s military campaigns, it rarely pauses to reflect on the human toll of his conquests. The estimated four million people who perished in Napoleon’s wars are mentioned in passing, but the film never truly addresses the ethical and moral implications of his ambition. Instead, Napoleon remains primarily focused on his personal journey, often sidelining the broader political and social contexts in which he operated. This lack of introspection and critical engagement with the consequences of Napoleon’s actions is one of the film’s major shortcomings.
Despite these issues, Napoleon does manage to provide some memorable performances and moments of historical intrigue. The supporting cast, including Paul Rhys as the scheming diplomat Talleyrand and Rupert Everett as the reserved British general Wellington, offer nuanced portrayals of historical figures. Rhys, in particular, brings a sly intelligence to his role, perfectly capturing Talleyrand’s political cunning and pragmatic approach to diplomacy. His scenes with Phoenix, in which the two engage in sharp exchanges over matters of state and military strategy, provide some of the most compelling moments in the film. However, these moments are often overshadowed by the film’s broader focus on spectacle and action.
The cinematography and production design in Napoleon are undeniably impressive, but these visual elements, though effective in creating a sense of historical grandeur, cannot fully compensate for the film’s narrative shortcomings. The film’s lush visuals, coupled with its sweeping musical score, provide an epic backdrop to the historical events it depicts. Yet, as Napoleon progresses, it becomes clear that these aesthetic elements are not enough to sustain the film’s momentum or provide the emotional depth necessary for a truly impactful portrayal of one of history’s most fascinating figures.
In the end, Napoleon is a film that leaves viewers with mixed emotions. It is undeniably a visual spectacle, with grandiose battle sequences and elaborate sets that bring the Napoleonic era to life in vivid detail. Yet, despite its impressive technical achievements, the film fails to fully capture the complexity of Napoleon Bonaparte as a person or as a leader. The narrative, often disjointed and episodic, leaves too much unexplored and underdeveloped. While the film does provide some insight into Napoleon’s personal struggles and military genius, it ultimately feels more like a historical pageant than a meaningful exploration of its subject. For all its visual grandeur, Napoleon ultimately remains a hollow spectacle, driven more by entertainment than by a deep, thoughtful examination of one of history’s most legendary figures.