I haven't seen it yet, but I think its impossible to tell that story in a 2hr movie. There's simply too much to cover in too little time.
That's a subject more suited for a miniseries IMHO.
I saw it, and I enjoyed it. However it gave me a headache. I'm not a fan of the alternate reality schtick..
I'm not going to see it. For starters you're right, it's not possible to effectively cover such a life in so short a time. The French-made
Napoleon mini-series from about 20 years ago had a decent crack over the course of 6+ hours and did a reasonable job of it, despite a relatively small budget, but even that had to cut quite a few corners.
And from what I've read some of the characterizations and depictions of events in the film are miles wide of the mark. I don't expect full historical accuracy in these things, but changes from the reality that are plain lazy or seem to have no real justification should be avoided. Casting a 49-year-old man to portray someone who's career started at 24 and was done by the time he was 45 probably wasn't the smartest decision either. So I think I'll save my money.
I'm not sure any biopic that tries to cover a large portion of a person's life has ever been very good. I much prefer a film like Spielberg's excellent
Lincoln that hones in on one or two particular episodes and uses those to make a thoughtful character study of the subject.
Oppenheimer was more expansive but was still built largely around a couple of key periods in his story. That's the way to go IMO.