The poorly dubbed English version is appropriately available on a poor, slightly-out-of-focus and somewhat-drained-of-color Hollywood Classics DVD. Produced on a lavish budget with a galaxy of famous players as long as your arm, this is an egocentric production in which most of the famous stars – buried under loads of make-up – are totally unrecognizable. Robbing them of their voices doesn't help either. Daniel Gélin plays the young Napoleon, but the role is soon taken over by Raymond Pellegrin – who looks nothing like Gélin but bears a remarkable similarity to Charles Boyer's Nappy in Clarence Brown's 1937 Conquest. The movie is directed by Sacha Guitry as an almost endless series of boring tableaux which may have been reasonably effective in the original French production, but look old-fashioned and stagey in the carelessly dubbed DVD (which gives no indication of its length but is most obviously NOT 3 hours and 10 minutes, and I seriously doubt that it is even 105 minutes).

I was surprised to see that this historical film was made by Sacha Guitry—an auteur known for his comedies. This film is no comedy, but more like a slobbery film that portrays Napoleon as a wonderful guy! Now the fact that it the film liked this evil sociopath isn't completely surprising, as it was made by the French. But why was this film about such an important historical figure so dull?! Instead of telling the story in a conventional way, it's told through flashbacks—and comes off more like a documentary than a bio-pic. In other words, we see little snippets and they often are narrated. Why not just let the story tell itself? Why the device of having an old soldier reminiscing about his beloved Emperor? It's really a shame, as the film is at times quite grand. It was filmed at the various palaces occupied by Napoleon. And, its battle sequences are very good---though the insanely big and expensive Russian version of "War and Peace" sure has "Napoleon" beat by a wide margin in this regard. Overall, it's a very beautiful but dull film—one that certainly should have been more exciting and interesting. Some more energy and emotion sure would have helped! By the way, occasionally the film minimized or ignored Napoleon's failures. For example, there is no mention that his Egyptian campaign was a total failure. Also, they TOLD that Napoleon's retreat from Moscow went badly—but didn't show it or really talk about it! As I said, the film sure seemed very pro-Napoleon and never talked about all the people killed by him nor the countries he enslaved and sacked. Despite what the film asserts, Napoleon was one of history's biggest butt-heads, to say the least.

i'm sorry but for such a big fan of hist(e)orical accuracy i think, and it is just a honest opinion that you should have made a spell check on your post. Then you would have acknowledged the fact that the word "emporor" written with a capital E does not restore the Emperor's honor not even when compared to Sacha Guitry's terrible attempt...But your little spelling error tells us more about the "type of cat" you are more then it tells us about Guitry's failure to satisfy your taste in historical re- enactments. I'ts not like you had to direct a whole movie...you just made a small comment on it...and look how it turned out...well good chance in finding something better then Abel Gance's silly re-enactment...as if artistic films should do just that...re-enact things as close as possible to your own petty little view...and i see that you are not only an expert in historical movies and how they should be done, but that you are also an expert in type casting, movie business and what not...it's good to see that people like you are still around, so the whole thing doesn't crumble to pieces... keep up the good work of being you, and long live the Emporor...right right?

This poorly made inexcusable film tries to be too sympathetic to Napoleon and is loaded with innumerable historical inaccuracies. Talleyrand doing the narration is absurd to begin with since he continually back stabbed Napoleon at every turn. Whether one loves the Emperor or loathes him, this movie will only bore you to tears. The acting is wooden and monotonous with the characters all indistinguishable from each other. The famous Battle of Waterloo is given all of one minute without even mentioning Napoleon's opposition and the retreat from Moscow isn't even shown at all. Anything worthwhile that Napoleon did in his lifetime is also completely left out. Lastly, Orson Welles as Sir Hudson Lowe (Napoleon's jailer on St. Helena) is the most incredible case of miscasting I've ever seen in any movie. It just shows how far Welles' stock had fallen in Hollywood to be involved in this farce just for a paycheck. Abel Gance's "Napoleon" from 1927 is still the film to see if one is interested in the life of the Emporer. Napoleon was at least an entertaining and animated conqueror/dictator. In this 1955 version starring Daniel Gelin, he is merely a glaring monosyllabic moron.