First, it isn't a book review, it's an anti-Napoleon diatribe.
Second, the reviewer blames Napoleon for all of the casualties of the period, which is false.
Third, the reviewer states that Napoleon was both a 'supreme egotist' and 'obsessed with war.' He not only does not substantiate this claim, but it is inaccurate. It sounds more akin to the allied, including British, propaganda of the period intended to demonize a feared enemy and not based on solid research.
Fourth, the following passage from the review is grossly inaccurate: 'You would not have liked to have been in the path of Napoleon’s army as it marched on your town or village. Scorched earth might not have been his avowed policy, but those standing in his way would have been killed, their livestock slaughtered, their crops eaten and everything left to rack and ruin. A guillotine might also have been employed as a way of showing you the “revolution” had visited town. And then the great emperor would move on to further conquests.'
Would you like more listed from the review?