‘Napoleon’ Review: Ridley Scott’s Caricature of a Conqueror

Joaquin Phoenix finds Napoleon morose, anguished, petulant and a bit childlike, which reminds me that although I enjoyed his morose, anguished, petulant and a bit childlike performance as the Joker, his decision to play Jesus Christ as morose, anguished, petulant and a bit childlike, in 2019’s little-seen “Mary Magdalene,” felt a bit off. Mr. Phoenix even appeared morose, etc. while accepting his Oscar. This might be the moment to ask whether his range is limited.

Alas, it’s too late for those of us who thirstily awaited Ridley Scott’s “Napoleon,” an attempted return to jolly old ’60s-style big-budget historical epics that, rejecting a recent cinematic fad for distilling great men into a single episode (as in Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln”), covers the range of the French soldier-emperor’s life from age 24 until his death at 51. (Being 49, Mr. Phoenix is too old for all but the final moments.) There are bloody battles. There is the coronation. There is palatial luxury, political intrigue, a humiliating exile, a triumphant return, and the final disastrous battle, which proved to be Napoleon’s Waterloo. But there is no heroism, no heart, and very little great soldiering. Most of the movie is a vaguely comical swipe at Napoleon in domestic life—an awkward lover, a jealous husband, an inveterate complainer, and in sum an annoying twerp. Mr. Phoenix’s Napoleon could never have commanded so much as a squadron of the Salvation Army, and though the movie is sprinkled with a few reasonably hearty battle scenes, overall it’s something like Mr. Scott’s Waterloo.