How does it read? Does it takes a serious and insightful approach like Stephen Kotkin's biography of Stalin, or is it more BBC documentary level simplistic narrative?
I'm in the middle of it right now. It definitely doesn't suffer from pop-history. I also read Andrew Robert's Churchill biography and thought it was excellent. Not quite to the level of The Last Lion, but that's mainly because it's much shorter.
It's good - spends a lot of time debunking claims from previous bios and memoirs that dont hold up under an examination (e.g. some memoirs werent written until decades after the events, and others with fantastic claims were likely cash grabs as the authors were destitute). he sticks to the letters written by napoleon/written to him by others, and doesnt mince words during stuff like the slaughter at jaffa. there was a really interesting retelling of napoleon's near drowning during a sightseeing tour in egypt at the moses-parted-the-sea spot, and the grim telling of josephines back story helps the reader understand how her actions were part survival instincts instead of pure lust.