A Review

Not as good as I hoped it would be but better than I expected after its lukewarm reception, "Napoleon" is worth seeing on the big screen, but by no means spectacular. Maybe the 4+ hour version the director has teased will be more worthwhile. In the past, Ridley Scott has put out alternative cuts of his movies that drastically improved the originals ("Blade Runner," "Kingdom of Heaven"), but in the state this historical epic is in at the moment, it's just alright.

This is a perfectly watchable film, but the narrow scope and little sense of urgency leave a lot to be desired. It only cracks open the door on this figure, not fully realizing the pivotal role he played in 18th century history. It's too limited to only Bonaparte's vision of himself in the eyes of the two entities to whom he feels he has something to prove: his wife Josephine and the superpowers of the rest of the world. The sexual politics and the traditional cautionary tale of the rise and fall of greatness are interesting, but not something I haven't seen before.

But if nothing else, "Napoleon" is worth seeing for its beautiful shots and sensational battle sequences. From Bonaparte's victories at the Siege of Toulon and Battle of the Pyramids to his career ending defeat at Waterloo, they're all very exciting, but it would be easier to care more about them if it had found time to delve into the politics that motivated these historical conflicts. I get people are fighting, but I'd like to know why. Shallow as it might be, there's enough proof here that Ridley Scott still has an impressively keen eye for making archaic historical epics for modern moviegoers, even if this one is only a middle-shelf example.