“Destiny has brought me here! Destiny has brought me this lamb chop!”

Story: It’s 1789, and Marie Antoinette has been beheaded during the rabid tide of the French Revolution. As years pass, a Corsican military commander named Napoleon Bonaparte seeks a chance to show his quality. He succeeds, and fails, in glorious fashion.

Genre I’d put it in: Montage-esque Biopics With Glorious Art Direction
Release Date: 2023
Remake, Sequel, Based-On, or Original: Based on the life and times of Napoleon Bonaparte.

Gotta say: I am a dilettante when it comes to history. I know what I know, but am always keen on learning more stuff, especially if wonderful costuming is part of the package. And Napoleon gives me everything my eyes require; the cities, camps, homes, and barracks look lived-in, not simply historically accurate. Same for the costumes and set pieces. And director Ridley Scott gives the battle scenes a Game of Thrones feel through the gray-blue colors and accurately gross FX. Pity the story is such a mess.

This is not to say that the film doesn’t tell Napoleon’s story. It does. Generally. But this film is more a series of scenes, collected montages, and action pieces, cobbled together to gives viewers a vibe, rather than have anyone actually learn anything. This is a weaker tea than Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette, but it’s the same type of brew. Napoleon is a film that attempts to give you a taste of what it must have been like to be there, to be in the thick of things, rather than just dumping history on you. And that could have been interesting, but instead it is, to misquote Shakespeare, it is a tale told by one who saw this story as a “bucket list” film to make, all sound and fury, signifying nothing

There. Have I crapped on the film enough? Yeah, I think so. Don’t get it twisted though; Napoleon is beautiful and fascinating. Though paying close attention will deliver benefits like actually understanding the progress of Napoleon’s life, and how the French people picked themselves up after revolution, this is also a film where you can just sink into the incredible art direction and just let that wash over you. For the most part, the performances are wonderful – think Branagh bringing Shakespeare’s characters to modern life – but scenes are too brief, which don’t allow viewers to get a true handle on any motivations beyond what we’re specifically told.

That “for the most part” bit? Yeah. Poor Joaquin Phoenix. That man can act like nobody’s business, but for the majority of the film, it feels like he’s reading off of cue cards. I can only assume Scott’s direction was the culprit, but instead of brusqueness or social ineptitude, it comes off as a lack of motivation from the performer…which I know cannot be the case with this Method man. Every other character, even Napoleon’s beloved Joséphine, isn’t given much time to work with, but do give their all when they’re onscreen. Special shout-outs to Vanessa Kirby as complex and powerful-for-her-time Joséphine, and Rupert Everett as a quietly bombastic (yes those adjectives go together in this case) Duke of Wellington.

I hope this film gets recognition from award givers for its dedication to the look and feel of 18th century France. I’d bet a few actors will get tapped, and Scott will too, because everyone loves an epic at the end of the year. But this one’s a streamer y’all. And nobody’s as pained as I am to write that.

#Protip: Interested in the historical accuracy of the film? Scott says “Get a grip.” But for folks who are actually interested, like I was? Here you are.