I admit, it brings my heart joy that at 85 years old the great Ridley Scott is still making movies. And not just run-of-the-mill movies, but big, sweeping, and ambitious movies. He’s the filmmaker behind such memorable favorites as “Alien”, “Blade Runner”, “Gladiator”, “Black Hawk Down”, and “The Martian”. And that’s only a sample size from what is a stellar 46-year filmography.

“Napoleon” sees the prominent director working comfortably inside his wheelhouse. It’s a massive historical epic that tells the story of the eponymous French emperor through Scott’s uniquely cinematic lens. He hits on handpicked high and low points in Napoleon’s life as a brilliant military strategist, an overly zealous ruler, and an insecure husband to Empress Josephine. It’s a crazy mixture of psychological study and made-for-the-big-screen spectacle. Best of all it sees Scott tossing the conventional biopic formula to the wind. The results are a little messy. But so was Napoleon.

Scott’s approach to telling Napoleon’s story is a lot like reading CliffsNotes. It gives you a general idea but it’s far from the full picture. It’s an approach that works in several ways, but that also gives rise to what becomes the movie’s biggest problem. Scott and screenwriter David Scarpa rapidly hop from one historical point to the next, bypassing important information needed to make the scenes feel connected. So we end up with a movie of loosely tethered vignettes.

This becomes more of a problem as the film progresses. I found myself routinely questioning how we got from there to here, what brought this situation on, where did that person go, etc. Major events such as Napoleon’s rise to emperor, his exile to Elba, and Josephine’s final days are mere blips and get no buildup and very little explanation. Meanwhile the many supporting characters have a hard time registering because so little is shared about them. In most cases we have no idea who they are outside of having their name stamped on the screen when they first appear.

In what may be a hurdle for some, “Napoleon” is marked by some wild shifts in tone. But Scott knows what he’s doing. He strategically uses them as a means to both elevate and mock his notorious subject. It results of some scenes of unbridled intensity while others are laced with jolts of unexpected humor. It gives the movie a quirkiness that (in its own peculiar way) works very well.

And then you have the spectacular battle sequences – Ridley Scott’s bread and butter. To no surprise they are fierce, violent, and immaculately presented. Surprisingly we don’t get many of them. There’s the Siege of Toulon, the Battle of Austerlitz, and of course Waterloo. None of them get much of a buildup, but once Scott is on the battlefield he’s clearly in his comfort zone. What follows is extraordinary.

As for Napoleon himself, Joaquin Phoenix (mumbling aside) is a solid fit for showing off the strengths, weaknesses, and all-out eccentricities of the infamously complex ruler. Though several years older than Napoleon for the bulk of the movie, Phoenix proves to be the right guy for Scott’s portrayal which has no interest in empathy or glorification. Vanessa Kirby is equally good as the equally contradictory and ultimately tragic Josephine. So much so that we’re left wishing she had more screen time.

The lavish set designs, exquisite costuming, and the overall grand scale, added to the inherently fascinating story of Napoleon Bonaparte, makes Ridley Scott’s latest an automatically intriguing endeavor. But the movie demands (at the very least) a working knowledge of the brutish but passionate sovereign and his toxic yet intimate relationship with Josephine. Without it chances are high that “Napoleon” will leave you more confused rather enlightened. “Napoleon” is in theaters now.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS