Summary

• Napoleon, Ridley Scott’s latest film, has received a mixed response from critics, reflected in its 67% score on Rotten Tomatoes.
• Despite the disappointment, Napoleon’s score is still above Scott’s career average, which sits just below 65%.
• The mixed reviews highlight criticisms of the film’s runtime, set-pieces, historical inaccuracies, and artistic liberties taken with Napoleon’s life story.

Ridley Scott’s latest historical epic, Napoleon, doesn’t have a particularly impressive score on Rotten Tomatoes – but that low rating fits into a career trend for Scott. Napoleon stars Joaquin Phoenix as the titular Emperor of the French and chronicles his reign through the lens of his relationship with his first wife and close confidant, Empress Joséphine, played by Vanessa Kirby. The film was produced for a streaming release on Apple TV+, but before it hits the streaming service, it’s getting a full wide theatrical release, courtesy of Sony. If the dodgy Rotten Tomatoes score puts audiences off, it might not have been worth it.

Given Scott’s reputation for helming mind-blowing historical epics like Gladiator and the director’s cut of Kingdom of Heaven, expectations were pretty high for his Napoleon biopic. In order to guarantee box office success and award consideration, Napoleon would need to garner a Rotten Tomatoes score in the 90s, indicating universal acclaim, like fellow 2023 prestige movies Oppenheimer and Killers of the Flower Moon. But the reviews are in, and the Rotten Tomatoes score for Napoleon is surprisingly low, suggesting a mixed response from critics. This is disappointing, but it’s nothing new; that’s a trend in Scott’s career, going back decades.

RELATED: Napoleon Already Sounds Like It’s Continuing A 41-Year-Old Ridley Scott Movie Trend

Napoleon’s Rotten Tomatoes Score Is Disappointing, But Above Ridley Scott’s Career Average

The score is fluctuating quite a bit, but its current rating is 67%. That’s a “fresh” score, earning the movie a nice, ripe tomato as opposed to a rotten green splat, but it’s hardly a sign of universal praise from critics. Still, it’s above Scott’s career average. The average Rotten Tomatoes score for Scott’s career is just under 65% (64.69% to be exact), so Napoleon is doing slightly better than average when compared to the director’s other work. That average is based on a whopping 30 movies that Scott has made, listed here with their respective scores on Scott’s Rotten Tomatoes page.

That 30-movie total includes director’s cuts of Scott’s two most celebrated movies: Alien, which arguably didn’t need a director’s cut, and Blade Runner, which arguably did need a director’s cut to reverse all the meddling studio’s changes. If those director’s cuts are removed from the list and only the theatrical versions are included, the average drops down a couple of points. With the director’s cuts listed there, Scott’s two greatest achievements are essentially counted twice. Compared to the critical reception to the rest of Scott’s work, Napoleon is actually on the right side of the average Rotten Tomatoes score of his filmography.

Why Napoleon’s Reviews Are So Mixed

From Historical Inaccuracies To A Bloated Runtime

There are a few reasons why Napoleon’s reviews are so mixed. Critics have been polarized by the runtime: some feel that the film is bloated and needed to be cut down, while others feel that there’s so much story to tell that, even at two-and-a-half hours, it feels rushed. Phoenix and Kirby’s performances have been praised across the board, but some reviewers felt that their strong acting wasn’t enough to redeem the entire movie. Some critics enjoyed the movie’s bombastic set-pieces, while others didn’t. Some critics enjoyed its sly sense of humor, while others didn’t.

One of the biggest points of contention is the film’s historical inaccuracies, and the artistic liberties that Scott took with Napoleon’s life story. There are essentially two schools of thought when it comes to depicting history in movies. One believes that historical films should be as accurate as possible to the real-life events they’re portraying, otherwise there’s no point in even making it, while the other suggests that the filmmakers should make the best movie possible, even if that means tweaking the facts. Napoleon falls into the latter category, which has divided opinions on its worth as a historical record.

Why Ridley Scott’s Rotten Tomatoes Average Is So Surprisingly Low

It might seem bizarre that a filmmaker with such timeless classics as Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise, and Gladiator under his belt would have such a low average on Rotten Tomatoes. But there are a few reasons why Scott’s average is so much lower than his peers (Steven Spielberg, who has had his own fair share of misfires, still has an impressive Rotten Tomatoes average of 80%). Scott has never been afraid to take a big swing. Rather than sticking to his cinematic comfort zone, he’s taken a lot of risks and tried a lot of new things. He’s dabbled in just about every genre, with mixed results.

On top of all that, based on his demeanor in interviews, Scott doesn’t really seem to care what people think. He’s not making movies for the respect of critics, or even necessarily for the entertainment of audiences; he just tells the stories he wants to tell and explores the characters and dynamics that he wants to explore. Following his instincts has led to some not-so-great movies like Hannibal and Exodus: Gods and Kings, but it’s also led to groundbreaking cinematic landmarks like Alien and Blade Runner, both of which are timeless masterpieces that started their own subgenre of science fiction.

Ridley Scott Is Still A Great Director, No Matter What His Rotten Tomatoes Score Is

Scott Has Already Solidified His Place In Film History

The fact that Rotten Tomatoes’ metric would consider Ridley Scott to be a mediocre director is a strong argument that the website’s algorithm doesn’t really know what it’s talking about. Rotten Tomatoes’ judgments are regarded as sacrosanct within the film community, but Scott is one of the most legendary filmmakers to ever put his stamp on the art form. The Rotten Tomatoes scores of some of his movies should be a lot higher – Gladiator is only at 80% and Black Hawk Down has a score of just 77% – and it’s impossible to deny the masterful craftsmanship and widespread influence of Alien and Blade Runner.

There have been a couple of missteps along the way, like the disappointingly dull 1492: Conquest of Paradise or the interminably sappy A Good Year, but masterpieces like Thelma & Louise, The Martian, and the massively underrated dark comedy Matchstick Men far outweigh those missteps. Ultimately, when considering a filmmaker’s legacy, the great movies stand out and the bad movies tend to get forgotten about. Whether Napoleon is a truly great movie that ranks among Scott’s best work or not, Scott has plenty of great movies to be remembered for, no matter what Rotten Tomatoes says.

Source: Rotten Tomatoes