When I was young, my father and I watched Zulu and Waterloo on the same day on TV.
I instantly became a huge fan of the thin red line, and have been a fan of Caine and Plummer ever since.
My father has an immense library, and the studying began, mind you, with Napoleon as the great adversary. I became partial to Napoleon because of what I consider to be the overwhelming literature that is tilted against the man in the Anglo-sphere, much of which does not survive scrutiny. I was 9 years old when I asked my father why Napoleon was considered the invading conqueror when it was a fact that it was he who was being attacked. This argument is used often on this forum, and never directly refuted... it is simply justified, or later years of the empire are cited. Further, one need look no further than primary writings of Napoleon's enemies to see that destroying the revolution was the goal, and the self preservation of monarchies was the motivation. Hence, if one has to net everything out from all sides and come up with a simple answer of who gets the white had, and who gets the black hat, Napoleon remains the good guy. Of course, I would suggest that this simple debate is worthless, and that there are far more interesting things that such a well educated group on this forum could discuss.
As observed on this forum frequently, acts Napoleon took as the head of state and a general of a 19th century country are often used for condemnation totally ignoring the context of the time, and without holding Napoleon's peers to equal scrutiny.
Finally, Napoleon was too trusting, and too soft. Had he been half the tyrant that is claimed, his repeated enemies (See Austria) would not have existed to continually raise arms. And you know I believe he was fully justified in wiping out royal families based on the reality that they would have done the same. War is hell, civil wars are worse.