Historians and critics may be divided on ‘Napoleon’ but in this writer’s opinion, the film balances the multifaceted nature of the man’s character extremely well – the ‘Corsican thug’, supreme military commander and the obsessed, vulnerable lover.

Ridley Scott’s epic is one of those rare beasts – a two hour and 48 minute film that doesn’t drag on or feel like it will end in a chorus of snores from those sitting in the cinema seats.

The movie progresses at a measured pace. It would have to, considering it spans around 30 years of Napoleon Bonaparte’s life and career from canny artillery captain to Emperor of France.

The battle scenes and set-pieces are incredible and well shot. Never mind parts of them were historically inaccurate – I wrote before about how not to expect films such as this to be historical documentaries, but rather enjoy them for the entertainment they are meant to be.

And entertaining it certainly is. There were a surprising number of comedic moments throughout and the costumes, props and sets were rich in quality. Vast battlefields and hundreds of extras help add that aura of authenticity, rather than relying on CGI. I did, though, immediately spot when the Old Royal Naval College in Greenwich was standing in for 18th Century Paris.

A standout section was the Battle of Austerlitz (1805). The atmosphere and music combining terrifically with the dramatic depiction of Napoleon’s masterful trickery on the battlefield, devastatingly defeating the Allied forces of Austria and Russia.

But the central draw was the brilliant performance of Joaquin Phoenix in the title role and his love affair with first wife Josephine de Beauharnais, played by Vanessa Kirby.

To frame the narrative around their relationship, amid the backdrop of holding a volatile post-Terror France together and being squeezed by surrounding Empires, gave a unique approach to the film, rather than having it played as a straight historical biopic.

Scott did well to show their see-sawing relationship and in the letters that still survive to this day, it is easy to see Napoleon’s utter devotion to the woman he adored. For all modern interpretations of the French leader, he is remarkably vulnerable and submissive in some of his writing.

That is contrasted by his supreme bravado in other areas. Before his rise as Emperor, Napoleon wrote some romantic fiction. Even with his doomed time as Emperor, he was a much more successful leader than he ever would have been as a best-selling author.

Indeed, aspects of his sometimes-crude letters to Josephine still confound historians to this day (“zig-zags” anyone?). But the excerpts they use in the film do well to illustrate the unique relationship between a fascinatingly complex political figure and the woman with whom he was obsessed before his world came crashing down around him.

Personally, I would have liked a bit more biographical element to the film, especially on Napoleon’s upbringing and why the rest of Europe regarded him simply as a ‘Corsican thug’.

Also his exile on Elba (1814) and then later St Helena (1815) after the Battle of Waterloo are dealt with very swiftly. But there are plenty of texts and documentaries and other films that focus on specific periods in his life (such as Sergei Bondarchuk’s grand 1970 film ‘Waterloo’).

One thing we are not short of is content about the man.

The film is right to focus on the three loves of Napoleon: France, Army, Josephine.