Napoleon by Ridley Scott Barely Pierces the Surface

Dear Ridley Scott: your latest endeavor is visually brilliant but sorely lacks any depth in character or historical development or accuracy (yes, I know, literary license and all that rot.). Your film trolls through the life of a seminal historical figure as though it were playing hop-scotch – jumping from one event to another barely touching the surface and certainly not delving into any of the nuances. Add to this unevenness is the inconsistency of labeling all of the historical events with the on-screen captions – that device would have been successful had you leveraged it to its maximum.

Our ever-scowling and muttering Joaquin Phoenix, sadly, is a bit too long in the tooth to pull off portraying the 23-year old Napoleon at the outset of his illustrious yet ill-fated career or should I say his careening through the annals of history? His performance lacked any real depth of character development and regardless what some of the reviewers have written, is nowhere near award nomination worthiness.

Vanessa Kirby as Josephine, the Empress of ill-repute; OK let’s call a spade a spade and call it like her contemporaries did! She was a slut of the first degree. Vanessa seems to try to create some depth to her characterization but, like Joaquin, delivers a barely one-dimensional performance.

There was one bravuro highlight! The staging of the Battle of Waterloo was cinematically brilliant!

I ponder whether this film should actually get more than 1 star. 2 hours and 38 minutes that did not fly by! Unless you have an empty evening, I would not even stream it.