Honestly, I don't feel that anyone but Stanley Kubrick could make a Napoleon film that felt truly "Kubrick." Since he is deceased, it is now an impossibility. I learned about the project myself when I watched "A Life in Pictures," a documentary on his life and career. He shelved the idea because there was another film made about Napoleon at the time, called "Waterloo," which didn't do well at the box office and thus backing dried up for Kubrick's adaptation. Of course, I'll "settle" for Barry Lyndon any day of the week if I want to see a Kubrick period film.

I just don't believe anyone else could capture the director's sobering, monolithic portrayals of human nature and human weakness. If you think about what happened with "A.I.," you can get an idea about what happens when someone else takes on his initial concepts. I felt the film had the right premise for a Kubrick-equse tone, but Steven Spielberg executed the film in such a sloppy, long-winded fashion that all the power of the narrative was drained away.

Of course, if you had to cast Napoleon back in the day when Kubrick was thinking of making it, Anthony Hopkins or Lino Ventura would be my choices.

Though this is a tough question, I'll give it my best shot.

I think that Kubrick, especially now after reading that (thanks for sharing!) awesome article, was studying Napoleon because, like in all of his films, he was trying to understand the connection he shared with the subject matter. At that point in his life, when he was already on top of the world (people calling him genius, untouchable), Napoleon would have been the only sympathetic character left to him, and it makes sense that he would spend so much meticulous time trying to unearth the "rosebud" of the Emperor.

I think then, to answer the question, that it would take a director who was in the same position to do the work justice, and unfortunately, there is simply no one left of his caliber. I could list a plethora of good directors, in particular Paul Thomas Anderson (who might come the closest), but none that have the power and mystique that surrounded Kubrick.

While he was alive, he was alone at the top, so his investigation into Napoleon's life would've been fueled by a deeply personal connection - a trait that makes his films excel where others have failed. I personally think no director would accomplish what he could've, but I'm a bit biased.

Anyhow, what a great question! I'd love to hear what more people think...