Napoleon (2023) Review

Napoleon Bonaparte is considered one of the most influential men in history. His legacy and impact have lasted long past his death, as well as his divisive reputation. The story of his life is chronicled in Ridley Scott’s 2023 epic for Sony and Apple.

In 1789 France was in chaos. The royal family had been executed, there were clashes between Jacobins and counterrevolutionaries, and the nations of Europe were attacking France. Amidst this chaos, a young artillery officer, Napoleon Bonaparte (Joaquin Phoenix) is assigned to lead a counterattack on the British in Toulon. As the domestic and international tensions increased Napoleon rose the ranks in the military and within French politics, and he became the most powerful and feared man in Europe.

Napoleon is a fascinating figure and there can be many directions the story about him could go. They could look at his military career, his rise to power, and his downfall, be a character study about a man who brought stability to France, or a look at a power-hungry tyrant who installed his family members as rulers across Europe or could take a more personal look at the man. Ridley Scott tried to tell everything he could in a 157-minute film for the theatrical cut. The result was a film that covered a lot of material but said very little. It was the cinematic equivalent of encyclopedia entries.

Napoleon (2023) was a film that covered 26 years of history which meant it could only give a brief overview of events. Napoleon sees the execution of Marie Antoinette, gets offered a command to lead troops against the British Navy in Toulon, commands an expedition into Egypt, becomes Emperor of France, goes to war with Austria-Hungry and Russia, gets exiled to Elba, and tries a comeback in 1815. Other stories about Napoleon have longer run times. The 1927 silent French film was five and a half hours long and that only focused on Napoleon’s early life and the 2002 Miniseries was six hours long. Scott has even promised a four-hour long cut for when the film gets released on Apple TV+. While other films like Waterloo had a narrow focus on a specific event.

This attempt to cover most of the important aspects of the Napoleonic era led to Napoleon (2023) having no depth or narrative flow. It was just one important event after another with little-to-no explanation as to why they happened. It was frustrating. The only attempt at a narrative throughline was the relationship between Napoleon and his wife Joséphine (Vanessa Kirby). It was the only constant throughout the film and Napoleon’s life, but it was not enough to hang the film together.

Ridley Scott’s debut film, The Duellists¸ was also about the Napoleonic Wars and covered a long period of time. That film has more narrative focus since it was about the rivalry between two French officers during this period of warfare. There was a personal conflict for that film to hook itself on. Other Scott historical epics have a strong narrative hook: Gladiator was about a wronged man getting revenge against the usurper of the Roman Empire, Kingdom of Heaven was about a blacksmith getting thrust into the complex world of Crusader politics, and Exodus: Gods and Kings was a story about a man being forced to be a resistance leader and clash with his brother. Scott’s previous epic, The Last Duel was experimental since it told its story from three perspectives.

Scott and Phoenix did have great success when they worked together on Gladiator. They both received Academy Awards nominations for their work on that film, and the pair have proven time and again their great talents. However, Napoleon (2023) was a poor showcase for this. Phoenix gave one of his worst performances since his version of Napoleon seemed like an arrogant buffoon who happened to be a good military commander. I was reminded of Terry Camilleri’s version of Napoleon in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, but Camilleri had the excuse he was in a comedy. One particularly embarrassing scene was when Napoleon was chased by the French Assembly and tripped and stumbled as he made his escape. It didn’t look like a scene from a serious film.

Napoleon (2023) has been criticised for its historical inaccuracy. There was the structural/thematic issue. The thesis of the film was Napoleon was a man who couldn’t be slighted. Any preserved insult would result in a violent reaction, namely warfare. It reduced the complexity of the Napoleonic Wars into a story about one man’s ego. There were also factual errors with one of the most infamous being Napoleon ordering cannons to shoot at the Pyramids. A lot of changes were made to make the film more ‘dramatic.’

From a technical level, Napoleon (2023) was excellent. This would be expected from a film that cost $130 million and was directed by Ridley Scott who has a great reputation for creating worlds. Scott was influenced by Stanley Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon because of the naturalistic, low lighting. It looked authentic and lived in.

One of the selling points of the film was battle sequences. The opening battle sequence in Gladiator was one of the best put to screen and Kingdom of Heaven, Robin Hood (2010), and Exodus: Gods and Kings had some strong sequences. Yet Napoleon (2023) was disappointing on this front. Most of the battles were only briefly looked at like the Battle of the Pyramids and the Battle of Borodino (the bloodiest battle of the Napoleonic Wars). The only two battles that received any attention were the Austerlitz and Waterloo. Austerlitz was the best since there was a sense of strategy to it. The Battle of Waterloo suffered from being compared to Waterloo since the Soviet/Italian production since it spent the majority of the film was about the battle and had a grand scale to it.

Ridley Scott’s Napoleon was sadly a great disappointment. There were great production values, but that’s the only virtue it has.