Battle of Waterloo

source: Battle of Waterloo

The miracle of modern CGI is wonderful to watch, but in any scene here, with however many thousands of real extras filmed from helicopter or plane, the local chaos of battle lends credibility to this film. The shot of the French Cavalry invading the field of British Squares is formidable, and the slow disappearance of the view behind clouds does indeed represent the fog of war. Gunpowder is a particularly dirty propellant and on the day itself I doubt much could be seen at all, but then shooting scenes composed mostly of gun smoke would not be terribly helpful or interesting. I am slightly surprised by some IMDb commentators references to the true quotations appearing in the film attributed to the Duke of Wellington and others, and how they seem to "fit in". If the heroic character portrayed in the film actually said them, then they cannot be out of place! If you look up Wellington's quotations in any dictionary or internet site, his comment about nothing being worse than a battle lost than a battle won appears in several slight variations, in letters, quoted conversations etcetera. Rather like Zulu, thank goodness this film was made when the focus was the battle and the generals, without endless diversions into moralising and personal stories. Waterloo was a battle between an alliance and a dictator, never mind the small print. This film deserves far greater credit than it was given. See it.

I understand that Waterloo has been released in the UK on DVD without the extra footage, just the same as on the VHS version, but not in the USA, (Our DVD players will not play it. I have the soundtrack on 33 /3 LP, the march "La Vielle Garde" in English "The Old Guard" or "March of the Guard" is featured, very beautiful album. Also the famous drumbeat of the Napoleonic army "passe de charge" This film portrays the battle as accurately as any film ever has and there will never be another made like it, no computer troops were used, if you see 10 thousand soldiers they were actually there...Bondarchuk has the whole Russian army at his disposal as it was partly a Soviet Mosfilm production.

After Bondarchuk made his colossal reproduction of War And Peace. ( Comparing King Vidor 's version to it is like comparing a paint by numbers watercolor to The Night Watch.) he was naturally chosen by the notorious Dino DeLaurentis to make the battle film to end all battle films, Waterloo. Waterloo! Is any battle more famous, or more proverbial? With a superb score, a remarkable eye for detail, and stunning overhead shots. ( Not to mention an entire Soviet Army division ), Bondarchuk recreates the highlights of the Napoleonic battle to end all Napoleonic battles. ( Quite literally.)As far as I can tell, the only historical flaw is that The film makes it appear that Wellington's army was exclusively composed of British redcoats, ( Incidentally, one of the best British regiments wore GREEN coats.)when they were only about a third of the "Iron Dukes" polyglot and multi national army. The Kings German Legion, The Dutch, The Danes, the Hessians and the Belgians, are conspicuous by their absence.) However, what really makes this film stand out is the excellent acting, beginning with the protagonists. Steiger, with his " New York School " method acting, captures the many shades of Napoleon's character: the brilliance, the rages, the sudden bouts of lethargy, the volcanic Corsican eruptions of love and hate.Plummer, the Canadian product of Stratford in the fifties when Sir Tyrone Guthrie was its guiding spirit, brings a very different style to a very different figure. Plummer's Wellington is dry, ironic, skeptical, a man of extraordinary coolness under fire, whose outward stoicism is relieved by sudden flashes of humor and even compassion. He has a job to do. He does it admirably, and at the end, he has lost all stomach for war. Dan O'Herlihy is superb as Ney, a man of extraordinary courage- and absolutely no judgment. Jack Hawkins, sadly at the end, still captures the gruff doggedness of Picton. Finally, there is Welles. This is from the phase of his career when he would do five minutes as Cardinal Wolsey, then five minutes as General Dreedle, all to raise enough money to somehow, someway, finish Don Quixote. Its Tuesday, so Orson is " working for the Russian on the Waterloo thing", doing five minutes as Louis the Seventeenth- and doing it magnificently, playing the corpulent shadow of the Bourbon dynasty as more of a tragic figure than buffoon. A tremendous effort. Somehow, poor marketing, studio interference and the poor taste, historical ignorance and general stupidity of the American cinema going public lead to box-office failure, which had even more tragic consequences. Kubrick's proposed biopic on Napoleon was not green lighted, thus depriving the world of what should have an even greater film than Gance's Napoleon.

I only discovered Waterloo a couple of years ago and that was after buying the DVD for £4 in Asda! What a bargain buy it turned out to be, a true classic in every sense of the word. The two main protagonists Napoleon and Wellington are portrayed superbly by Rod Steiger and Christopher Plummer respectively, as we get a really detailed insight into both men's characters. These 2 generals had a special rivalry in 19th century military history and the way real quotes are dropped in at certain points during the movie is top class. Napoleon was the man to beat in 1815 and Wellington had his eyes very much set on that prize, this is well exemplified just before the battle commences when a soldier asks Wellington to fire a cannon shot when Napoleon rides into range, to which Wellington replies somewhat aghast "Certainly not, commanders of armies have something better to do than to fire at one another". Wellington knew this would be the battle that would make or break him, and he wanted Napoleon there operating at his best. Another quote from the movie which embodies the respect and honour associated with this period of military history; Wellington is observing the French preparations for the commencement of battle, watching over the pomp and ritual somewhat contemptuously but also in admiration, "Dramatic fellows, these French, music and banners, quite beautiful." As far as I am aware the historical attention to detail is second to none with all the main areas included such as the lead-up to the battle at Ligny and Quatre Bras. Furthermore the battle appears to go exactly how historians would have wanted with plenty of emphasis put on every area of the battlefield. Sometimes in Britain and among Anglo-Saxons the battle is simply described as the Brits beating the French, however the movie sticks to historical facts and shows it was very much an Allied army that won at Waterloo with only something like 20%-30% of it comprising of British soldiers. The rest of the Allied force was made up of Prussians, Hessians, Hanoverians, Dutch, Belgians, Danes. This was very much a broad European coalition. Another great thing about this film is that even though Bonaparte was essentially the 'tyrant' we get such an insight into his character and into Bonaparte 'the man' that you feel sorry that he loses the battle in the end up. The battle scenes are truly lavish, a real epic of a film. Top top drawer. For me its a 10 out of 10 !

This has got to be one of the worst directed epics I have ever seen . Moments into the movie we see an almost sublime jump cut close up of Napoleon`s eye as he talks to his right hand men . I`ve no idea what this was to signify . I guess that perhaps director Sergei Bondarchuk was a fan of spaghetti westerns And as the film goes on the more I found myself asking what the hell the director was doing . Did Mr Bondarchuk ever read a history book ? Did he ever read ANY book . Come to think of it have the people who are praising the movie at this site been watching the same movie as me ? There`s several films called WATERLOO and I`m commentating on the one starring Rod Stieger as Napoleon and Christopher Plummer as the Duke Of Wellington - I`ve no idea what what everyone else has been watching because this is only slightly accurate* script wise - totally inaccurate visually . For example Wellington picked his ground well after a rain storm to lessen the effect of French cannon fire ie the wet ground would cause cannon balls to stick in the ground but according to this movie not only did French cannon balls explode like a bomb but they also exploded into fire balls . Look at the battle scenes where there`s literally hundreds of fireballs from cannon fire , it looks more like a napalm strike from APOCALYPSE NOW rather than a great battle from 1815 . Let me just repeat that cannon balls in those days were made out of solid metal . They weren`t filled with explosive so they didn`t explode and jellyfied petrol ( Napalm ) hadn`t been invented yet so no fireballs either I also can`t help noticing how badly edited the fight scenes are . In fact they resemble those seen in the John Wayne debacle THE GREEN BERETS and it`s often difficult to make out what`s going on . If you`re going to have a spectacular battle might it not help that the audience can see what`s happening ? * I`ve got to be pedantic and criticise the numerous times the red coats are called " The English Army " , it`s actually The British Army . Considering there`s umpteen times Scottish bagpipes are heard I thought someone would have realised there`s a difference between the two . Oh and the British Army was led by the Duke Of Wellington on that day who wasn`t an Englishman as referred to here but was in fact Irish born

This film was supposed to be a landmark on telling the truth about the final years of Napoleon as "Emperor of the French" and it nearly succeeds. It is a good point that it was not scripted by a Frenchman. For the same reason, it should not have been written by an Englishman, but it was... First of all, there is not enough background on the origins, nations of the characters. Napoleon was not French. He was born in Corsica 4 months after it was acquired by France. Wesley, later Welesley, later the Duke of Wellington, was born is Dublin, Ireland. Marshall Ney was born in SarreLouis (Saarland, now Germany) of German parents. The greatest factual mistake is the one that shows Ney meeting Napeoleon on some unnamed part of Southern France. Napeleon asks or rather orders him "Follow me to Grenoble". THIS IS TOTALLY FALSE. Ney met Nopoleon at Auxerre which is about 160km (100 miles) from Paris. By then Napoleon had been applauded by millions of Frenchmen in the 500 km from Cannes to Auxerre. The dialog is therefore totally fictitious. Also, there is not a single mention of the battles between Napoleon and Von Blücher before Waterloo. Napoleon won some, lost others, but did not destroy Blücher's army. Blücher won Waterloo, Wellington was defeated... THIS is an HISTORICALLY FALSE movie, to suit the English producers.. It suited the Soviet Union producers also. Dino the Laurentiis probably never read an historical book...

The movie begins with Napoleon being exiled to Elba, then returning to France; it focuses on the battle of Waterloo, the crucial battle in which the Duke of Wellington defeated Napoleon, resulting in the second exile (and eventual death) of Napoleon. Christopher Plummer and Rod Steiger do excellent acting jobs; considering the fact that the movie has one of the worst directing jobs I've ever seen, these actors deserve extra kudos. The director was obviously rather occupied with historical accuracy, and not good cinematography. Poor camera-work, introduction of characters who are only used in one scene, use of emotional filming tactics in non-emotional scenes--all these things work together to create a truly dismal movie experience. The movie gives you the feel of someone who took several historical counts, found random inspirational quotes and stories, and mushed them all together in a movie that would have been better filmed as a documentary. The only thing that this movie does right with its characters is focusing on Wellington and Napoleon; these two characters are developed well enough so that you can actually care about them. As for the rest, you hardly remember their names, much less their parts in the story. What's truly tragic is watching an excellent movie about the Napoleonic era, such as "Master and Commander: the Far Side of the World", and comparing it with "Waterloo". It's quite disappointing when you think about how wonderful this film would have been had it been directed by someone as talented as Peter Weir or Peter Jackson. The director of this film only barely begins to grasp the magnitude of this battle. All in all, this film is very disappointing. If you want info on the battle of Waterloo, I suggest you read a book instead.

Having read some other comments, I felt compelled to throw in my tuppence worth. The story of Waterloo is a difficult one to tell clearly in a couple of hours and rumors abound of a 4 and a half hour cut in existence, giving many more details of the earlier battles of Ligny and Quatra Bras. If it is 'out there', I've yet to find it. I would agree that some of the acting is a little clunky but one of the things you should always bear in mind is the fact that all those extras are really there, not created by CGI, and as such some scenes are truly breathtaking, simple scenes prior to the battle such as Rod Steiger standing at his vantage point with the allied lines in the background, campfires twinkling away...beautifully framed. Or the slow, almost balletic charge of the heavies, countered by Napoleon's lancers, almost a cliché now....but wonderful then. Admittedly the film does suffer from some of the Eurofilm values of the time, with some dodgy dubbing etc and Rod does chew the scenery at times, though I think Chris Plummer does a good job, Dan O'Herlihy makes a good Ney ( ironically his son turned up in one of the Sharpe episodes back in the 90's,) and the attention to detail is commendable. To sum up, I know a lot about the battle, I've walked the field itself and so shouldn't like the film on so many levels, yet I still love watching it. It's not one of those films that it's cool to talk about at a dinner party, listing your fave five, but it still has a place in my heart. 7 out of 10.

A tedious story with bloated, overdramatized roles and insubstantial character actors, marred by terrible camera work (notice blurs and out of focus shots, dirty lenses, etc.) and a tepid script. Even the battles come off as a mismatched mess. Rod Steiger as Napoleon is also one of cinema's worst blunders, he meanders around his study, uttering melodramatic platitudinous proclamations; I can hardly comprehend how the whole of France followed this numskull (in this version). The British scenes are not much better, they come off as pompous, elementary imbeciles, who are dancing at an extravagant ball while the whole of Europe is about to engage in one of history's most bloodiest battles, not that they were any different in real life. Sergei Bonarchuk's so-called "epic" is hardly such, it's more of an overblown spectacle which is highly overrated.