Napoleon’s legacy is debatably one of the most influential of any military or political leader in history, so of course there’s going to be a movie about him. As with any historical movie, there are going to be some complaints of artistic liberty damaging historical accuracy, or a lack of historical information, and to these complainers I say, this isn’t an ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’ type of movie. What I mean by that is that it’s not about gritty warfare and the tactics and death on the battlefield, but about Napoleon’s life with a touch of battle.

The director, Ridley Scott, definitely did take some aforementioned artistic liberties. Napoleon never shot at the Pyramids of Giza in the Battle of the Pyramids; it actually took place miles away from them. Neither did he have a hole shot through his hat at the battle of Waterloo, or leave Egypt to confront his wife about her affair, but these are minor details that really don’t affect the story or help develop the plot.

The major problems of the movie surround historical representation and come from the lack of time spent on Napoleon’s political/military influence and all the things he actually did during his reign over the entire continent of Europe. The movie hardly mentions any of his campaigns, and doesn’t give context to viewers who don’t know the preamble and reasons whatever battle they’re watching. This is what will hold this movie from a 5/5 stars for me. I know that the movie isn’t a documentary, but it is about Napoleon.

It’s a problem if it doesn’t portray his actions with the information necessary to understand them.

That’s pretty much where my criticism ends though, there is a lot to admire about this movie too. The events that gave my simple man brain a lot of neuron activation were the battle scenes which were downright beautiful. Every level of them was great, the detail, the gruesome combat, the innumerable amount of soldiers charging into battle, I had a blast.

Napoleon’s presence on the battlefield was consistent enough to where I knew he was the main character while also being able to enjoy the battle scenes between armies. This speaks to Joaquin Phoenix’s performance as Napoleon, which was simply phenomenal. Every second of his screen time I felt like I was watching the real Napoleon lead his men into battle. I did think his age might have been a concern, as he’s a l m o s t 50 and Napoleon died at 51, but Phoenix more than made it work. I feel like he even aged with the movie’s progression over
Napoleon’s lifespan, but that might just be me overthinking it.

Napoleon’s wife, Josephine, who was played by Vanessa Kirby was also great. Every time she was on screen, her chemistry with Phoenix was remarkable and it really made the relationship between Josephine and Napoleon feel natural and legitimate. Some people are complaining that Josephine got far too much screen time for a movie that is about Napoleon’s conquests and leadership, and I agree, but that is not what this movie is. This movie is an entertaining historicalish drama about Napoleon’s major battles, on the battlefield and in his personal life.

Josephine’s screen time made the movie more entertaining for what it decided to be, more drama, less history, and that’s fine. Critics can cry about it all they want, but overall it doesn’t hurt the film that Scott made. It justprevents the existence of the one he could have created, an ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’ adjacent story.

No matter what, the performance by all the actors involved and the beauty of the battles still makes this movie a solid stars, despite its lack of information on Napoleon’s conquests and historical context surrounding the events of the movie