Skeptical. Ridley Scott knows he comprimises when he makes blockbusters, but when he gets it right he is among the best, living, to do it. He has craft to his work, in truth, that most blockbuster makers do not have (even his crap ones have some kind of redeeming feature to them).
Just being fairly well read up on Napoleon, and the French Revolutionary period, and the Wars, thereafter, I'm not sure any director living, barring Kubrick (past), is going to get this right. That Russian epic, eight hours, is the only thing that approximates it. War and Peace (if you have a week to spare, it's worth watching). That's the scale of it, imo, if you're making a serious character study. Lord of the Rings without the over-the-top mythology. 15 years of war and 15 years of revolutionary ferment and action which precedes it (in various phases). Just cannot tell that story in 3 hours or 4 hours. Even documentarians will seriously struggle.
Ken Burns, over ten hours, would get it right as per the American Civil war documentary he made. It requires that kind of treatment. Just not really blockbuster stuff. Kubrick's Barry Lyndon is an example of how to do a character study of this kind with the scale implied. Doctor Zhivago. Others. But it's rare that it all comes together. Paths of Glory, Apocalypse Now, Deer Hunter. FFC/SC knew how to do it. (Spartacus for added depth). (Lean too, masterful at it: Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on the River Kwai, D.Z. mentioned). That's the gold standard in war film character studies.
