Napoleon — Ridley Scott vs. Ridicule (And He Gets Crushed)

Napoleon: full review

The stench of mothballs and stale testosterone filled the theater as the lights dimmed. Napoleon, Ridley Scott’s latest toy, promised a capital-E Epic, but what we got was a cardboard spectacle where the only strategist in sight was Apple’s marketing department. Two hundred million dollars. Two. Hundred. Million. You’d think Scott mistook the budget for the year the movie’s set in, because the result reeks more of 1995 than 1805. And I’m not talking about the scent of glory—more like the recycled sets of Gladiator repainted for the occasion. Because yes, this is Gladiator with a powdered wig and no Russell Crowe to save the day. Joaquin Phoenix stumbles onscreen like he’s just woken up from a three-day nap, his gaze suggesting he mistook the script for IKEA furniture instructions. His Napoleon isn’t an emperor, not even a general—he’s a kid with a god complex running around Europe like he owns a lemonade stand. Worse yet, David Scarpa’s script reads like it was written by someone who skimmed Napoleon’s Wikipedia page in five minutes and decided the big takeaway was “power corrupts.” Groundbreaking. If this is a “personal vision,” as the synopsis claims, then Scott’s mirror is foggier than a car window in winter. The film lurches forward, toggling between battle scenes ripped from a ‘90s video game and intimate moments where Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby stare at each other like contestants in a blinking contest. Kirby, for her part, does what she can with Josephine, but her character is as flat as the map of Europe Napoleon stomps all over. Tahar Rahim and Rupert Everett pop in and out like ghosts in a haunted house, leaving you to wonder if their scenes were accidentally cut or if the editing just gave up on the main disaster.

The problem with Napoleon isn’t that it’s bad—it’s that it’s boringly mediocre. There’s no passion, no risk, nothing to make you feel like you’re watching anything more than a product churned out to pad Apple TV+’s catalog. Ridley Scott, a director who once gifted us gems like Alien and Blade Runner, now resembles a high-end craftsman recycling the same formula ad nauseam: big budgets, famous actors, and a script that reeks of a made-for-TV melodrama. The battles, which should be the main course, are a festival of janky CGI and choreography straight out of a beginner’s strategy guide. The Battle of Austerlitz, one of military history’s crowning moments, is reduced to a horde of extras running around like the camera’s drunk. And don’t get me started on the sound—cannons pop like damp firecrackers, and the soldiers’ screams sound like they were recorded in a 1970s dubbing studio. Dariusz Wolski, the cinematographer, does his best with material seemingly designed to hide its flaws, but not even the golden glow of Napoleonic sunsets can mask how artificial this whole affair feels—right down to Phoenix’s hair.

Direction: Ridley Scott on Autopilot

Ridley Scott directed this movie like he was mentally drafting his grocery list. There’s not a single shot that surprises, not a sequence that moves, not a moment that makes you forget you’re watching a film. The battle scenes, which should be the heart of the movie, are a mess of editing and CGI. The camera drifts aimlessly, shots pile up without rhythm, and the soldiers look more concerned about tripping over cables than winning the war. Then there’s the scale problem: Scott wants us to feel Napoleon’s grandeur, but all he achieves is making everything look small and ridiculous. The intimate scenes aren’t much better. Phoenix and Kirby have the explosive chemistry of a deflated balloon, and their dialogue sounds like they’re reading a self-help book for toxic couples. “Power is like love, Josephine,” Napoleon intones at one point, and you can’t help but imagine the screenwriter running out of ideas and falling back on historical cinema’s most tired clichés. Scott, once a master of suspense and atmosphere, seems to have lost the plot entirely. Napoleon isn’t a movie—it’s a product, and it shows in every frame.

Performances: Joaquin Phoenix and the Art of Sleepwalking

Joaquin Phoenix is a phenomenal actor, but in Napoleon, he looks like he was handed the script five minutes before shooting. His performance is so flat you wonder if he’s having an existential crisis in real time. Phoenix doesn’t play Napoleon—he mimics him, with all the grace of a kid dressed as an emperor for Halloween. His voice is a constant whisper, like he’s about to nod off, and his gestures are so exaggerated they belong in a high school play. Vanessa Kirby, meanwhile, does her best with a character that has zero depth. Josephine is little more than a vase with lines, and Kirby seems painfully aware of it, her performance oscillating between indifference and desperate attempts to breathe life into a role that has none. The supporting cast—Tahar Rahim, Rupert Everett—appear and vanish without a trace, like extras in their own movie. Then there’s the accent problem: Phoenix sounds like he’s badly dubbing himself, and Kirby seems to be in a completely different film. The result is a cast lost in a maze with no exit, where the only goal is making it to the end without tripping.

Technical Department: When Money Isn’t Enough

With a $200 million budget, you’d expect Napoleon to at least look expensive. But no. The sets are so fake they belong in a theme park, and the CGI is so janky you’d think they hired a computer science student to handle it. The battles, which should be the main event, are a disaster of choreography and editing. Soldiers run around like they’re in basic training, and the wide shots look like they were lifted from an ‘80s BBC documentary. Dariusz Wolski’s cinematography is the only thing saving face, with a color palette that evokes classical paintings, but even that can’t hide the feeling that this movie was rushed out with no soul. Martin Phipps’ score is so generic you’ll catch yourself humming Gladiator’s theme in your head, as if the composer decided to recycle old ideas instead of creating something new. And the editing is so chaotic it’s like the film was cut by someone who’s never seen a war movie. In short: Napoleon’s technical department is a reminder that money isn’t everything, and without a clear vision, even the biggest budget can turn into a monumental disaster.

The best

• Dariusz Wolski’s cinematography: Though the movie’s a mess, Wolski gives it a classical sheen with a color palette that evokes period paintings. The battle shots, despite the terrible choreography, have a golden glow that almost makes them pretty.
• Vanessa Kirby: She does what she can with a flat character, but at least she keeps Josephine from being completely forgettable. Her presence is the only thing saving some of the intimate scenes.
• Some unintentional comedy moments: There are scenes so ridiculous you can’t help but laugh, like when Napoleon falls off his horse or when Phoenix tries to look intimidating and ends up resembling an angry child.

The worst

• Joaquin Phoenix: His Napoleon is so flat it’s like he’s about to doze off in every scene. No charisma, no depth—just an actor who seems lost in his own role.
• David Scarpa’s script: A disaster of clichés and tired dialogue, written by someone who’s seen too many war movies and understood none of them. No originality, no risk—just a product made for mass consumption.
• The battles: Janky choreography, even worse CGI, and chaotic editing that makes everything look like a ‘90s video game. Ridley Scott seems to have forgotten how to shoot an action scene.

The lack of soul: Napoleon* isn’t a movie—it’s a product. No passion, no risk, nothing to make you feel like you’re watching anything more than an empty spectacle.

• The pacing: The film lurches along, toggling between endless battle scenes and intimate moments straight out of a soap opera. No coherence, no tension—just boredom.

The Verdict of Claqueta Ácida

Napoleon is the kind of movie that makes you wonder how $200 million could produce something so bland. Ridley Scott, a director who was once a master of cinema, now seems like a high-end craftsman recycling the same formula without adding anything new. Joaquin Phoenix plays Napoleon like he’s in an impressions contest, and the script is so flat you’d think they used the back of a supermarket flyer. The battles are a disaster, the CGI is janky, and the chemistry between the leads is nonexistent. In short: Napoleon is a movie that doesn’t move, doesn’t surprise, and leaves no mark. A product made to fill Apple TV+’s catalog and little else. If this is the best historical cinema can offer in 2023, then the genre is deader than Napoleon on St. Helena. 💀

Napoleon: frequently asked questions

What is the rating of "Napoleon" on Claqueta Ácida?

"Napoleon" scored 4.2/10 on Claqueta Ácida in the review by Dante Sangre.

Is "Napoleon" worth watching?

No. We gave it 4.2/10 (Sulfuric Acid), our rating for films we don't recommend.

Who directed "Napoleon"?

"Napoleon" was directed by Ridley Scott.

🩺

Theater Collateral Damage Report

Psychophysical impact certificate issued by Dante Sangre

💀 Severe Auditory & Mental Trauma

🥱 Yawn-o-meter

4 bostezos sonoros distribuidos con inquietante regularidad.

⏱️ Panic Clock Checks

Consultas al móvil tan frecuentes que acabaron formando parte del visionado.

😬 Cringe Index 6.4/10

☕ Caffeine Prescription

2 espressos triples o aceptar la derrota con dignidad.

💥 Derailment Point

"Desde el primer acto, cuando quedó claro que nadie en la sala de montaje había visto la película completa."