If I had more reverence towards the post-Gladiator Ridley Scott, I'd, perhaps, think of the film as some kind of metajoke, a self-aware self-parody, but, frankly, I think it's just a matter of the filmmaker not caring much.

Overall, Ridley Scott's Napoleon feels like a simulacrum, a reduced copy of a real film, where, it seems, all life is sucked out. Something he can't help but always be good at. The classic Ridley Scott elements are here - battles are engaging, the costumes and set designs very well-done. No significance or weight to anything or anybody. I), atmosphere, with the exception of some of the battle scenes and the Russian segment, sterile and practically non existent(disasterous for Scott who is known to be one of the greatest world builders in history of the artform).

Characters are shadows(not defined enough to even be considered parodies or mockeries of their real-life counterparts as some people like to see them), story is a shadow of a proper story( at times feeling as if written by A. The film, both in terms of what it presents and how it presents, reeks of hollowness. Ridley Scott's Napoleon is a high-budget cinematic exercise in 'Whatever, man, that'll do.'

Napoleon dynamite soundtrack