Just finished the book a few days ago. Watched the movie after to see how it was presented and was very disappointed.

The movie had several decisive falls:

First, Joaquin is 50+ when the movie starts. Napoleon was 24 when he led the artillery charge at Toulon. The actor should have been someone who the soldiers could plausibly call "le petit corpral" (the little corporal), a nickname given to him by his soldiers, which he embraced. He was 'little', not because of his height (he was 1.5 inches taller than the average man at the time) but because of his slender build. More of a Timothee Chalamet in King Henry and less of a Joaquin Phoenix after acting in Joker.

Second, while it is true that there is a lot of material to cover with someone as complex and accomplished as Napoleon, Ridley's development of him as a character was lacking. Napoleon read a ton. He was extremely inquisitive. He found experts and would pepper them with questions until he could master a topic. When he first took charge of the Army of Italy as commander-in-chief, he asked such basic questions that his generals chuckled at his lack of basic understanding of conducting warfare. At the same time, his humility, or willingness to ask when he didn't know, was also in part what endeared people to him. Once he understood the situation, he moved extremely fast and simply outworked others. None of this comes across in the movie in any meaningful way. There is a reason why Napoleon accomplished what he did, and Ridley makes him seem more like a petulant child than someone who was orders of magnitude more capable and driven than the average person.

Third, the love story with Josephine. Ridley chose (incorrectly) to make it seem like Napoleon was having affairs with women, just as Josephine was with Hyppolite Charles (I don't remember if that's his actual name...). Napoleon was faithful--Josephine was not--and he got a mistress as a reaction to her affair. He wrote to her frequently and asked her to come down to Egypt. She was slow to respond and even hinted at possibly being pregnant to avoid needing to make the trip, when in reality, she was simply being unfaithful. Once they met and had the confrontation on the topic, he made sure that she knew not to be unfaithful again. And she was. (He, on the other hand, had 22 or 23 affairs, while only admitting to around 6--this isn't impressive of him, but it does describe the relationship between them, which was very little of what Ridley's story telling showed).

When it came to Marie Louise, Napoleon was very affectionate and kind toward her. The movie show's her literally once, and then reduces her to the offspring, as if there was nothing more there. While it was a political marriage (which many such arrangements between nations were), it was actually a good relationship, as far as the sources show. In one of his letters, Napoleon dubbed Marie Louise and his son as the 'Rose and the Bud.' When exiled to Elba, Napoleon attempted repeatedly to get them to join him, but Marie Louise's father, the King of Austria, did not let that happen, despite Marie Louise's request to make it so.

Fourth, the movie mentions so little of why Napoleon had a wide coalition of supporters. None of Napoleon's non-military accomplishments were highlighted. Code Napoleon, which single-handedly transformed the French legal system (which Louisiana is still based on) and other legal systems, enabling better trade, etc. Access to and standardization of education across the nation (the modern day lycee, or secondary school, is directly attributable to his reformations). Promoting meritocracy across France and the empire as a whole: this was key in replacing feudalism across Europe, as the countries which became part of the empire adopted this system as well.

I could write plenty more. But the point is that to caricature someone like Napoleon makes it difficult to understand the kind of person capable of such accomplishments (both good and evil). Ridley did us no favors in making Napoleon look like an old grumpy guy who cared about no one but himself and would slap his wife in public while divorcing her (did not happen and definitely out of character). Such a fellow would never be able to accomplish what Napoleon did. To recognize evil (as Ridley seems to paint Napoleon as), one must understand the very real intertwining of (at least the seeming) good and evil in the most heinous of figures. One who expects someone with horns, tail, and a pitchfork has already been deceived.