Napoleon movie review: A grand spectacle marred by narrative inconsistencies

Napoleon, Ridley Scott's new historical epic, emerges as a grand spectacle marred by narrative inconsistencies and tonal dissonance. Joaquin Phoenix leads the charge as the eponymous French leader, delivering a performance that veers between buffoonery and theatrics, while Vanessa Kirby's grounded portrayal of Joséphine finds itself at odds with the film's disjointed structure. Despite the film's visual splendour and ambition to demystify Napoleon's legacy, it falls short of delivering a cohesive and emotionally resonant historical drama.

The film opens amid the tumultuous backdrop of the French Revolution, with Marie Antoinette meeting the guillotine's cold blade as a young Napoleon watches. Scott introduces us to Phoenix's Napoleon, a character marked by wild mood swings, flippant personality, and an insatiable appetite for power.

From the Siege of Toulon to the Battle of Austerlitz, the film navigates through Napoleon's military triumphs and political maneuverings with a visual prowess that Scott is renowned for. The Austerlitz sequence is particularly lauded for its breathtaking execution, showcasing Scott's ability to craft visually stunning and visceral battle scenes.

Yet, despite the visual spectacle, the film grapples with an overarching issue — a narrative structure that resembles a mosaic with pieces forced together rather than a seamless tapestry. The disjointed editing, as noted in other reviews, robs the film of a fluid narrative, leaving transitions awkward and scenes feeling like isolated vignettes. The whirlwind romance between Napoleon and Joséphine suffers most acutely from this disjointedness. The film fails to establish a believable and emotionally resonant connection between the characters, reducing their complex relationship to laborious fits and starts.

Phoenix's performance as Napoleon becomes a focal point, described as exuberantly self-indulgent and verging on caricature. The tone oscillates violently from scene to scene, leaving viewers uncertain whether to empathise with or mock the protagonist. Scott's satirical undertones, while by design, struggle to find cohesion within the larger narrative, leaving the audience to grapple with the abrupt shifts in tone. The film's humour, intended to serve as a subversive element, often feels misplaced and disconnected from the broader historical context.

Kirby's Joséphine, aiming for a more grounded approach, unfortunately  becomes a casualty of the film's structural challenges. The lack of chemistry between Phoenix and Kirby exacerbates the narrative dissonance, making their romantic journey appear stilted and incongruous. Kirby's performance, while commendable in isolation, feels like it belongs to a different film, underscoring the film's inability to harmonise its diverse elements.

The film's ambitious goal of demystifying Napoleon's legacy and exposing the emptiness of his pursuit of power is evident. However, the execution falters, with the withering condemnation of the character feeling more like a narrative shortcut than a profound exploration. Scott's decision to ridicule rather than deeply examine Napoleon's political legacy leaves the film with an unsatisfying conclusion, missing an opportunity to offer a nuanced perspective on one of history's most iconic figures.

In its quest for grandiosity, Napoleon sacrifices emotional engagement. The majestic visuals and meticulously crafted battle sequences, while undeniably impressive, become hollow when detached from a compelling narrative and well-developed characters. The film's saving grace may lie in the promise of a four-hour director's cut, which could potentially provide the coherence and expansiveness lacking in the theatrical version. 

Until then, Napoleon remains a visually arresting but narratively perplexing historical epic, leaving audiences with a buffet of impressive scenes but a lingering sense of unfulfilled potential.