'Napoleon' Doesn’t Care about History & Bets You Won’t Either

Imagine you are a historian. You dedicate your life to understanding, uncovering, and preserving events of the present and past. You are a stalwart of accuracy, yet flexible of mind. Evidence is paramount. Your work is meaningful and important. Now, imagine a bulldozer driven by Ridley Scott comes through and razes your carefully researched neighborhood with a trove of fallacies and fantasies. After that destruction, Scott declares his work untouchable and mocks you for any attempt at fact-checking.

Napoleon – a transparent attempt at Oscar bait – is a dull and bloated mess; neither a war film, character study, nor love story, and mired by a strangely monotone central performance. As is evident from his scorched-earth press tour, Scott has no tolerance for criticism and no filter left. There’s something impressive about his belligerent contempt, but unfortunately, it’s not supported by a film that is deserving of this defensiveness.

This movie fails on nearly every level. As a historical account of one of the greatest military strategists, it never shows Napoleon Bonaparte (Joaquin Phoenix) formulating his battles or delving into his thought processes. If we are supposed to learn about Napoleon as a person and feel pathos for him – or feel anything at all for him – the audience is not offered character-building or bonding to warrant such feelings. Topping that off with a weird and, at times, uncomfortable portrayal of Napoleon further distances the audience. Historical mistakes and the liberties taken get excessive. And despite a run time of over two and a half hours, not a single scene feels adequately developed, and many are without context. It is more like a series of half-baked vignettes than a movie.