I saw the movie with an old friend who is a West Point graduate. Between us, we complained of numerous omissions as to the military action, with the hope that they would be part of the longer version. Moreover, there was little sense as to why Napoleon was so effective as a commander and political figure.
The movie does attempt to explain Napoleons successes as a commander. Not terribly well, but there we go, its a movie. In the Toulon sequence it tries to explain his mastery of artillery, and his ability to analyze a military situation, finding a weak spot. In the Austerlitz sequence (btw, if you have an interest in Austerlitz, get “Napoleon and Austerlitz”, Scott Bowden, which is way into the category of TMI, but in the best way. It also does a fine job on the whole campaign of 1805), the movie goes some way into explaining that Napoleon had anticipated and prepared for the allies’ moves beforehand - which he had. He had a knack of reading minds. Some minds sometimes anyway.
In a more general way, get Duffy’s “Campaigns of Napoleon” for a comprehensive view of how Napoleon approached both campaigns and battles. It is NOT a proper history of the Napoleonic wars. I have a rather embarassingly large Napoleonic library.
It does go rather deep into the Directory politics. Paul Barras (another paramour of Josephine) is quite a prominent character, and he does quite a lot of explication. And the roles of the other Bonaparte brothers Joseph and Lucien, are prominent as well - though conflated into just Lucien in the movie. Both were power brokers. The advancement of Napoleon was part of the family business.