I'm going to probably refer to historical events in this review, so, spoilers, in that sense.

Napoleon was okay. I'm not going through the whole plot and everything, because people more or less know it. And it's Ridley Scott and he knows how to make things look cool. On the other hand, when you are a history buff, interested in the political events and military campaigns and battles of Napoleon's career, you are going to be a bit disappointed. There is a lot of content to fit into even a movie as long as this one (though still not as long as "Killers of the Flower Moon"; it is also not as self-indulgent appearing, and tries to keep things moving and tell a story). The last three motion pictures I saw in which Napoleon appeared were a miniseries (featuring Gerard Depardieu as Fouche, John Malkovich as Talleyrand and Isabella Rossellini as Josephine), a film focused exclusively on Waterloo (Rod Steiger as Napoleon and Christopher Plummer as Wellington) and the "Sharpe" series, adapted from Bernard Cornwell's novels, which includes 18 episodes concentrated primarily on a single theater of the Napoleonic Wars, with a whole 100 minute episode about Waterloo. This movie at over two and a half hours, has only 50% more run time than that episode, to focus on Napoleon's entire military and political career from Toulon to his death.

We get to see Toulon, the Battle of the Pyramids, Austerlitz, Borodino and Waterloo, but they are very truncated. Toulon, the least significant and memorable of the four, gets the most attention. Borodino is basically a slow motion charge on horseback and an overhead shot of the charge hitting the enemy line. Austerlitz is just inaccurate, with nothing about the fighting over the heights, and giving greater attention to the bogs, like they decided they liked Alexander Nevsky better than the subject matter of the film they were actually making. Waterloo has some great shots, especially of the British forming squares to meet Ney's charge, but would have you believe that Napoleon personally led an all out charge at the climax of the battle, which Wellington countered with a cavalry charge of his own and then the Prussians showed up on the flanks, so Napoleon turned and ran. The battle of the Pyramids was basically a single artillery barrage. Napoleon spends more screen-time and more scenes in Egypt exchanging gossip about his wife's affair than actually fighting. And that's kind of the issue with the film.

They seem to be reframing the whole thing as some sort of love story between Napoleon and Josephine. They rewrite several major events in his life as driven by their relationship, or in the context it. And that relationship with Josephine is basically the only one in Napoleon's life the film services. His brother makes an appearance during the coup, which you only know because he and Napoleon call each other brother, otherwise, he's hard to tell apart from Sieyes and Barras.

None of the other military or political figures of the era or Napoleon's regime appear as much more than props. You know who Talleyrand (his famous line about Napoleon "What a shame such a great man has such bad manners" is given to a British ambassador instead, in response to Napoleon shouting they think they are so great because they have boats, rather than calling Talleyrand a silk stocking full of shit) is, and Coulaincourt (played by Ben Miles, of "Coupling," "V for Vendetta," and the love interest of Vanessa Kirby [Josephine] in the first season of "The Crown" ), because they get subtitles identifying them. I think Fouche was in it, because there is an unidentified man yelling at Robespierre during the Thermidor reaction, and you often see a guy with distinctive facial hair hanging around behind Napoleon on campaign, whom I assume is Ney from certain lines during Waterloo. Napoleon's mother is basically there to make a crude suggestion to resolve the issue of whether it is he or Josephine who is unable to have children. You have to assume some of the people sitting at his dinner tables are his siblings, but you wouldn't know any of their names from this movie.

It's also a little on the grotesque side, especially in the early scenes during the Revolution and the Reign of Terror, and Josephine especially is dressed and styled in such a way. Their sex scenes, although without nudity, are on the crude or socially inappropriate side. The battle scenes seem to be trying to emphasize the violence and death, and the title card at the end of the film confirms this, but it just moves along too quickly to make that point.

Finally, there is the issue of Joaquin Phoenix's acting. That's not usually something I have much of an opinion unless it really stands out, but he is basically doing a Joaquin Phoenix leading man character here, and you never really get a sense of who Napoleon is, or who the movie thinks he is. There isn't much of a character arc here, just a series of elaborately produced vignettes in which Phoenix postures or sulks or argues with/fawns over/has sex with Josephine.

My overall verdict is that it's not bad to watch, and well done, for whatever they are trying to do, just adjust your expectations away from a war movie, political drama or any meaningful biography of the title character.