User reviews

I watched this movie for the first time in about 10 years today and one of the things that strikes me the most is how much more real it looks that the more recent war movies.

CGI is great for many things, but often detail get overlooked. In this film, because they are actually moving extras around there are clouds of dust everywhere. When the cannon fire, the black powder persists. The film has a real sense all through it of the fog of war.

On a personal note, I served in a Highland regiment, and it is a thrill to see a film where all of the kilts are not the same. The 92nd wear Gordon, Camerons wear Cameron of Erracht, and wonder of wonders both served at Waterloo.

While the terrain shown in the film is nothing like the field, the strength of the film lies the in characterizations of Wellington and Napoleon. Both actors are at the top of their game, although some specifics are off (Wellington wasn't a aristocrat - more younger son of Anglo-Irish gentry).

One of the things that I like about the film is the way the director has cut several times to show Napoleon and Wellington react to the same information. It does a great job of contrasting the differences and similarities of the two leaders.

Visually the film was breathtaking when I first say it in 1970, and it remains so.

I've started to wonder if Dino de Laurentiis was maybe a bit of a bad bet as a movie producer. True, he has some lower budget movie successes to his name, but he also hovered over his daughter's shoulder on the much panned Dune (1984, dir. Lynch; savagely cut in the editing room against the director's wishes), and bullied Thomas Harris into writing the atrocious Hannibal Rising (2007). Waterloo (1970) was not well received, although in light of Ridley Scott's recent Napoleon debacle, and with CGI producing ever greater levels of unreality to spectacle cinema, maybe this movie's stock deserves to rise?

I remember it from childhood, and watching it again, I am reminded of something that bothered me at the time: why was there so little engagement between the great blocks of infantry? We get lots of cannon fire, an occasional sprinkle of muskets, and three cavalry charges, but the huge numbers of infantrymen never seem to do much except stand around waiting to get hit by shellfire. Wiki will provide you a list of historical inaccuracies, such as a shortage of mud. I can't say they bother me much, but then again, maybe the film would have been better if more care had been taken to be accurate?

One thing that cannot be denied is the immensity, the sense of occasion, achieved by getting so many thousands of costumed people together to recreate the battle, and surrounding events. There is great moment to Waterloo. I also don't agree with the sniping at Rod Steiger's performance as Napoleon, which I think is rightly magnetic. Christopher Plummer, who I always used to think was British, is admirable as Wellington. The actor playing Blucher should have won Best Moustache, if nothing else.

Certain episodes really stick in the memory, such as when Napoleon's troops are met by Marshal Ney's and they unite with a cry of "Vive l'empereur". The British army's defensive squares repelling Ney's cavalry, and the unforgettable episode where the British infantry rise-up in front of the advancing Old Guard and surprise them - although, that could have been done better. Some of Wellington's reflections are truly haunting, especially for being expressed in such a low-key manner. "It appears, Uxbridge, that we're losing the battle." And when the rider cries out to Napoleon, "Sire! The Prussians are in the woods. Blucher is in the woods!", the dramatic potency of that moment and what follows is rich indeed.

But yes, it is very hard to make any kind of sense of what is happening in the battle, tactically. Lots of people, standing, moving, waiting, rushing forward, falling back, but where are they all in relation to one another, and what exactly has to happen for victory? Why is the farmhouse so vital?

Oh well, misgivings aside, at least it's better than that atrocious battle in Game of Thrones Season 8; better than those corny CGI cheesefests in the Peter Jackson LOTR movies. (I know, you love them, but you're soft and sentimental. Get real.) Bondarchuk, the director, has actors of real substance for Waterloo, and the movie succeeds in recording both the exhilaration and the horror of battle.

A bit like Dune (1984), Waterloo (1970) is better than they say, and maybe in light of recent cinematic misfires (Ridley's Napoleonic misstep, and those soulless Dune movies from Villeneuve) we should look more kindly on older movies, if only because they are more human, less artificial.

Fire up a couple of after dinner Monte Cristo's and Mike Hodges will probably tell you about the time 'Waterloo' producer Dino de Laurentiis took him to a quality noshery and tapped him with: "Mike, Mike… I want you to make Flash Gordon 2..." Fortunately for Dino's piggy bank and Mike's stellar reputation, project spending never got beyond the restaurant tab: de Laurentiis already had a reputation for stuffing vast amounts of investor lolly into plump cinematic turkeys.

Sure, Dino has a gluttonous mind's eye - Spielberg's entire 'Private Ryan' budget probably wouldn't have covered Dino's hat bill for 'Waterloo' – but I've always been a great fan of the unfettered big idea. Even if it's flawed it's worth doing if it's done with passion. People get so overbearingly gaffe-happy, picking apart particulars of military dress, manoeuvre and minutiae. So what if 'Proppy' the props man armed Wellington's redcoats with bolt-action rifles - perhaps old Hooky was banking on a Prussian air strike to fish him out of the stew? What draws me back to this film time and time again are those rootedly European, shamelessly post-war cultural stereotypes that mark it for the time it was made and not the time it represents: the English dry, distracted and surreally calm; the French rash, ambivalent and spectacularly self-destructive; the Prussians preceded in every fleeting appearance by the same sinister crash of bass-heavy minor chords used to mark the approach of anyone faintly Germanic in films and Pathé news reels from the early 'Forties on. Wellington breezes, Napoleon flounces and Blucher and his faithful automatons horse around looking for opportunities to get concertedly medieval on anything remotely French-shaped.

While 'Waterloo' in this respect is predominantly caricature, its cinematography does occasionally touch the divine. Aerial shots of infantry squares and massed cavalry remind you that these set pieces were cast, crafted and choreographed: no computerised frothing mounts or Apple Mac grenadiers here. The infamous charge of the Scots Greys is given the full Peckinpah treatment: the beautiful, brutal grace of men and horses at quarter-speed rushing back into the murderous, undisciplined bawl of several hundred plume-hatted adrenaline junkies. The revealing illumination of the defenders of Hougoumont as the day's light fades is a similarly memorable vignette.

Be patient with poorly synchronised voice dubbing, turn a sympathetic blind eye to the anachronisms and factual potholes and appreciate that many of the leads look like squad players for Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band because it is 1970 after all and hair was having a difficult decade… 'Waterloo' is worth it.

Thank you Dino.

Sergei Bondarchuk's Waterloo was his follow-up production to his earlier highly regarded War and Peace, which I haven't seen, but have long heard its merits being acclaimed. On the basis of my experience watching Waterloo, I think I just may make it an ambition to hunt War and Peace (Parts 1 & 2 I believe) down.

To be sure Waterloo isn't a great film. Certainly the truncated 135 minute version I saw. (Back in the day of its general release some 5 decades ago, I think it was possible to see a 4 hour version, but I gather that edit has been permanently lost.) But it is a fine film to see if you are interested in the details of the famous battle that finally put paid to any further expansionistic ideas of Napoleon Bonaparte, the self-styled Emperor of the French, during the early nineteenth century in Europe.

For a 2 hour+ historical drama it has quite a simple storyline: preambles leading up to the confrontation, first from the perspective of Napoleon, then from that of his opponent, Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington and then the battle itself and a brief aftermath, which takes up roughly half the film. Wellington actually presents as the most interesting and entertaining figure, with Christopher Plummer being given, the lion's share of the most amusing lines. This in itself is quite interesting, as I've read from a number of sources, that much of the dialogue is taken from historical accounts. I'm not sure how verifiable this is, as there are clear fictional dramatisations occurring to aid in simplifying complex historical structures and ensure fluid continuity. Rod Steiger is quite watchable too, in a reasonably orthodox "maniacal dictator" role. Due to the abbreviated format, it's not particularly clear, how after he escapes exile in the Mediterranean, and returns to France, Napoleon was so easily able to overthrow the King and raise a sufficiently large French army to challenge Wellington's allied forces at Waterloo. But we do get a feeling of his incredible popularity amongst the French, though we don't really know why.

The great Roger Ebert whose opinions I greatly respect, pretty much wrote this film off for 2 main reasons, fairly early in his eminent career. He thought Bondarchuk was guilty of repeating himself from the earlier film and that he, Ebert, was greatly opposed to the aerial photography and perspectives that Bondarchuk employs (to what I feel is tremendous effect). I wonder whether Ebert may have modified his views later in life, after seeing the indisputable influence of Bondarchuk's work on later directors such as Peter Jackson and Ridley Scott. No one watching the battle play out in this film, can fail to be reminded of similarities staged in films such as Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy and Scott's The Kingdom. The aerial photography allows a much more enhanced viewer comprehension of military strategies being utilised; resulting in both successes and failures. So Roger, this time I beg to disagree.

And make no mistake, Waterloo is a terrific film to look at. If nothing else, Bondarchuk was an absolute master at staging scenes of vast logistical complexity, all without the benefit of CGI, though, for the time, he did have access to a very large budget, which this movie reflects to great effect. Besides the battle itself, with its huge armies, being largely represented by loaned out Soviet troops, costumes, make-up and especially art direction are vividly recreated in glorious detail. The above-mentioned introduction to Wellington's character, comes via a sumptuous ball room scene where most of the film's female characters have their sole opportunities to appear in the movie, but do so, in the most extravagantly elaborate finery befitting members of the upper classes, who the movie does suggest, saw war as a somewhat sporting, theatric affair, played out by European elites. Nothing substantiates this better than the extended preliminaries we see to "the main event", which included amazingly (apparently), Napoleon parading himself on a white horse, between the opposing armies, whilst Wellington, ever so politely, ordered that no shots be fired at him, as that would be seen as being ungentlemanly.

Dipping back into history, Waterloo is a film that is constructed on a broad canvas and on a massive scale. Finesse is certainly not its fine point. But it succeeds in what it set out to do -- to re-create a major historical event and place it in some kind of perspective, using some incredibly skilled and influential visual techniques, readily adopted by more contemporary film-makers.

This impressive Russian/Italian co-production is based on the notorious battle and most of the characters and Generals in the film were based on actual people . The film opens on Château de Fontainebleau in 1814 . After defeating France in Lieipzig or Battle of Nations 1813 , Paris is besieged by the Austrians and her allies . A defiant Napoleon Bonaparte (Rod Steiger) is urged by his marshals to abdicate but he refuses . Upon hearing the surrender of his last army under Auguste Marmont he realises that ultimatelly all is lost and accepts the abdication pleas of his marshallate . Ney (Daniel O'Herlihy) calls it an honourable exile . Napoleon is banished to Elba, an island in the Mediterranean with a small army of 1,000 . But Napoleon returns to France from Elba island . Facing the decline of everything he has worked to obtain , conqueror Napoleon Bonaparte and his army confront the British troops commanded by General Arthur Wellesley - Duke of Wellington (Christopher Plummer) who previously beat Napolean's best generals in Spain and along with other nations at the Battle of Waterloo. One incredible afternoon Napoleon met Wellington . . At Waterloo !. Waterloo. The battle that changed the face of the world !. The Men, the Battle, The Glory, The World Will Remember Forever !.

Massive chronicle of Napolean's European conquests including breathtaking and overwhelming battles spectacularly filmed with a cast of thousands and eventual defeat at the hands of Wellington . Shot on location in Italy and the Ukraine , it bombed due largely to Rod Steiger's strange rendition of Napoleon . Decent acting from main and support cast including prestigious English/Italian actors , such as : Christopher Plummer as Wellington , Dan O'Herlihy as Marshal Michel Ney , Jack Hawkins as Gordon , Virginia McKenna as Duchess of Richmond , Rupert Davies as Gordon , Gianni Garko as Drouot , Ivo Garrani as Soult , Ian Ogilvy as De Lancey , Michael Wilding as Ponsonby , Orson Welles as Louis XVIII , among others . Attractive outdoors are well photographed by cameraman by Armando Nannuzzi . The film was shot entirely on location in Royal Palace, Caserta, Campania, Turin, Piedmont, Naples , Italy and Uzhhorod, Ukraine . Rousing and moving musical score was well composed by the classic Italian composer Nino Rota . The motion picture lavishly produced by Dino de Laurentiis was spectacularly directed by Sergey Bondarchuk.

The flick was well based on facts , these are the following ones : The Battle of Waterloo was fought on Sunday, 18 June 1815, near Waterloo in Belgium, part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands at the time. A French army under the command of Napoleon Bonaparte was defeated by two of the armies of the Seventh Coalition, a British-led coalition consisting of units from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Hanover, Brunswick, and Nassau, under the command of the Duke of Wellington, referred to by many authors as the Anglo-allied army or Wellington's army, and a Prussian army under the command of Field Marshal von Blücher, referred to also as Blücher's army. The battle marked the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Upon Napoleon's return to power in March 1815, many states that had opposed him formed the Seventh Coalition and began to mobilise armies. Wellington and Blücher's armies were cantoned close to the northeastern border of France. Napoleon planned to attack them separately in the hope of destroying them before they could join in a coordinated invasion of France with other members of the coalition. On 16 June , Napoleon successfully attacked the bulk of the Prussian army at the Battle of Ligny with his main force, causing the Prussians to withdraw northwards on 17 June, but parallel to Wellington and in good order. Napoleon sent a third of his forces to pursue the Prussians, which resulted in the separate Battle of Wavre with the Prussian rear-guard on 18-19 June, and prevented that French force from participating at Waterloo. Also on 16 June, a small portion of the French army contested the Battle of Quatre Bras with the Anglo-allied army. The Anglo-allied army held their ground on 16 June, but the withdrawal of the Prussians caused Wellington to withdraw north to Waterloo on 17 June. Upon learning that the Prussian army was able to support him, Wellington decided to offer battle on the Mont-Saint-Jean escarpment across the Brussels road, near the village of Waterloo. Here he withstood repeated attacks by the French throughout the afternoon of 18 June, aided by the progressively arriving Prussians who attacked the French flank and inflicted heavy casualties. In the evening, Napoleon assaulted the Anglo-allied line with his last reserves, the senior infantry battalions of the French Imperial Guard. With the Prussians breaking through on the French right flank, the Anglo-allied army repulsed the Imperial Guard, and the French army was routed. Waterloo was the decisive engagement of the Waterloo Campaign and Napoleon's last. According to Wellington, the battle was "the nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life". Napoleon abdicated four days later, and coalition forces entered Paris on 7 July. The defeat at Waterloo ended Napoleon's rule as Emperor of the French and marked the end of his Hundred Days return from exile. This ended the First French Empire and set a chronological milestone between serial European wars and decades of relative peace, often referred to as the Pax Britannica.

Handsomely shot on location in the Soviet manner, if somewhat dated by it's big close-ups, zooms and obvious post-syncing of the supporting roles (including, of course, poor Jack Hawkins).

The presence in the cast of Orson Welles is ironic since five year earlier on a fraction of the budget he shot probably the best battle scenes ever captured on film for his own 'Chimes at Midnight'. And did Wellington really decline the suggestion by a subordinate that Napoleon be picked off by a sniper before the battle had even commenced? It would have saved thousands of lives on both sides...

Sergei Bondarchuk ought to be commended for his really rather sterling effort at re-creating some of the one hundred days of Napoleon's campaign following his escape from exile on Elba in 1815. Rod Steiger is superbly cast and imperious as the maniacal but genius French Emperor who very nearly conquered the mainland continent of Europe, despite the comprehensive alliance lined up against him - and led, at the denouement, but his nemesis the Duke of Wellington (Christopher Plummer). Some considerable effort has gone into designing and delivering this whole spectacle of a film - from the grand palatial settings, the costumes, intricate uniforms - and the battle scenes are as authentic as I've seen since that other Napoleonic epic "Austerlitz" (1960). Steiger portrays the Emperor in a characterful and personal fashion; he is full of the megalomaniac but also the portrayal indicates a little more of what made the great man tick (or not). Having read somewhat more about Wellington (I'm a Brit), I was somewhat disappointed by the slightly smug - almost foppish - portrayal of the "Grand Old" Duke by Plummer. He looked the part, but somehow his efforts were always outshone onscreen - by the fleeting appearances of Jack Hawkins, the glamorous Virginia McKenna - even by a squealing piglet. That said, though - this is a film about a battle and the action scenes are superb. They look and sound genuine engendering no end of sympathy for the soldiers who served as little more than cannon/bullet/bayonet fodder as they marched around (and fell) in the mud. The narrative is quite tight; we don't get distracted by too many romantic interludes or other daft diversions, and once it gets up steam it is an effective depiction of a pretty gruesome conflagration that history (for the winners, at any rate) has successfully sanitised. Bit long, we could do with less of the preamble, but once it gets going it presents a convincing effort from Steiger and is well worth watching as an example of large scale epic cinema before the computer took over the role of the extras, the sets, the story....

I've watched Waterloo many times since it first came out and the exterior shots and battle scenes are fabulous with tens of thousands of extras (no CGI in those days!). However, as the years have gone by, I feel the overall direction and in particular the obsessive close-ups of the main actors has become very dated. Rod Steiger plays Napoleon with all his usual over the top theatrical style.

Obviously no expense spared on this film, whose pre-credit sequence features Napoleon's abdication to Elba, and once the credits are over, he is off that island and invading Europe with a thousand men, gathering more, and setting his sights on Paris, Louis and then the rest of Europe. Rod Steiger is brilliant as Napoleon. Brilliant, too, is Christoper Plummer as Boney's nemesis, Sir Arthur Wellesley the Duke of Wellington who was famously humbugged by Bonaparte, leading to the fateful confrontation near the Belgian town of Waterloo, where Wellington engages Napoleon with the knowledge that Marshal Blucher's Prussian army is coming. Plummer carries off all of Wellington's famous lines with aplomb. A noticeably aged Jack Hawkins is also memorable as the irascible Sir Thomas Picton.

The battle scenes are extraordinary, with extras on extras on extra, making for spectacular scenes of Napoleonic era fighting on the ridge at Mont St Jean, La Haye Sainte and Hougoumont. The British then French cavalry charge and the final assault by Napoleon's Imperial Guard are particular highlights, but the entire climactic battle is impressively recreated. By all accounts, recreated faithfully, too.

At just over two hours runtime, some of the (admittedly-impressive) dancing scenes in Brussels and some of the earlier scenes in France could be cut down a little to make it an even tighter film, but that is a minor quibble. Once Napoleon invades Belgium, there is scarcely a dull moment.

The battle scenes in this movie are incredible. In one scene they show so accurately how the British infantry formed squares to fend off a French cavalry attack. My only criticism of the movie is they did so much to create these great battle scenes but yet when they showed central characters on horseback it was so completely obvious they weren't on horses and in front of a green screen. I know the moview was made in 1970 but it's almost comical to watch. Overall a great movie though.

Fiction just doesn't cut it with history, history has forever told wilder stories than fiction, Napoleon's remarkable journey is exhibit A.

The title says it all, it's about the battle of Waterloo and little else. Extra's by the tens of thousands leave you with no mystery of just how massive this battle really was, it's an ode to pre-CGI cinema and what we are missing out on today. It is truly is spectacular. I'm amazed they even attempted to pull it off.

Historical accuracy when it comes to the order of battle is pretty damn close, however the terrain used for the film isn't as close as it could've been, add to that the fact that the ground was dusty and dry during filming, whereas in reality it was wet and soggy. A small error that the producers had no choice but to compromise.

Plummer is excellent as arrogant and aristocratic Wellington and steals every scene he's in. Steiger is convincing enough as Napoleon but Plummer gets the gold medal in this movie.

The battle sequences are really something to behold, but the rest of the movie is fairly by-the-book. Overall it's a very solid account of the Battle of Waterloo and it's short build-up.

Waterloo, June 18, 1815. In one day the fate of Europe is decided, Napoleon Bonaparte (Rod Steiger) has returned from his exile on the island of Elba to take revenge on the armies that defeated him and returned the throne of France to Louis XVIII (Orson Welles), with only one obstacle in his way, the Duke of Wellington (Christopher Plummer). Sergey Bondarchuk's direction is truly remarkable, reproducing as faithfully as possible the atmosphere of the battlefields at the beginning of the 19th century, with the massive use of extras, excellently directed. The screenplay also respects historical reality, thanks to the study of the many historical narrations of the battle. From the acting point of view I really appreciated Oson Welles, despite the few minutes of appearance, however the two protagonists are also perfectly suited to the part. Epic film, very detailed and decidedly unlucky, given the total failure at the box office.

Gave this movie a rewatch on a big screen as it just got a bluray release in Australia, and it sure beat the experience of watching it rented of iTunes on a laptop.

It really is all about the battle that takes up what felt like the last 45-60 minutes of the movie, almost interrupted. The first half or so of the movie suffers a bit in comparison, as the pacing is a bit sluggish and some of the dialogue and acting not great... but Plummer and Steiger both do good work with fairly straightforward characters, and a lot of that first half or so is still well-shot (the ballroom sequence - while a bit long - is quite beautiful with all those candles).

As impressive as the battle is, it could feel a bit too bloated for some by the end, and I think I did notice a couple of seconds of footage here and there get reused.

If the first half contained amazing characters and writing - or maybe if this was a true epic with an extra hour to flesh out its characters before the battle, and then maybe 10 minutes at the end as a proper epilogue - this could have been a great movie instead of "just" an alright movie with a great battle sequence.

But when a battle sequence is that great, it's still more than worth a watch for fans of historical and/or war films, and I did like how besides just spectacle, there were a few scenes at the end driving home how brutal and ugly war is.

If you are wanting a movie with a similar, huge battle, but a bit more going on in the story and character department, would highly recommend Bondarchuk's 4-part 7-hour adaptation of War & Peace, which he made a few years before Waterloo. That one just about is a full-on masterpiece even besides its battle scenes, though it contains a couple of amazing battle set pieces to boot.

Watrerloo, by Sergei Bondarchuck (of the mammoth War and Peace), tells the story of Napoleon's return from exile and his campaign that ended in the disastrous battle of Waterloo.

First, let's get some facts straight: this is a film with a sorry legacy, but not without merit. It is most famous for beating Stanley Kubrick's long-gestating Napoleon bio to the screen and, by its lackluster financial performance, throwing that project into cinematic limbo. Lament Hollywood's own stupidity all you want then, but not this film, a very different project from what Kubrick had in mind, for it is a focused duel, rather than a biography.

Waterloo has a refreshingly narrow focus by today's standards, at least in its surviving form. There is a certain economy of storytelling, unhampered by unnecessary asides or romantic subplots, aimed squarely at rushing to the final showdown. That is not to say that the screenplay's dialogue, a sometimes gracelessly-tacked together parade of historical quotes from the man or robot collective behind Mustafa Akkad's The Message, rises to the occasion: it is merely serviceable. What is new here and makes it worth discovering is an angry intensity seldom seen in films covering this period, particularly manifest in Rod Steiger's performance as a haunted monster, and the massive chaos of the battle scenes, on par with Bondarchuck's own War and Peace.

The director glories in this massive spectacle, giving us vistas and war scenes that will make even the most jaded modern viewer gasp, particularly a British cavalry charge that makes a mockery of the Pelenor Fields showstopper in Return of the King four decades later. A human dimension is preserved, and, whenever things threaten to be blown too high out of proportion, the rivalry is brought down to the individual scale, pitting a brash, loud Napoleon against Christopher Plummer's poised, witty Wellington.

So hate this for its gravest sin if you must. I would argue that it indirectly led to Kubrick giving us the phenomenal Barry Lyndon instead, and is hard to imagine even him gracing the screen with the unforgettable violence showcased here.

More than worth a look!

Bit of a disappointment for the real fan of napoleonic times. Most disturbing is the reduction of footage from 5 hours to 2 hours. Will anyone please tell the present owner, Sony corporation,that they simply have to release the film again in the original version of 5 hours?. I already did, a year ago, but no reaction. The currently available video of this legendary movie is so much cut up by an almost criminal, insensitive crew back in the seventies when the film was released, that many scenes hardly make any sense. Bondartchuk was right to protest. Anyway, let's hope that one day we will perhaps see the original version.

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...

This is a first-rate film. Dino DeLaurentis was never afraid to spend money on his films, and this one was no exception. The acting is superb, and both leads, Steiger and Plummer, are extremely convincing. The photography is gorgeous and first-rate, and the music by Rota is appropriate. However, I did have problems with the amateurish editing; practically the only flaw in the film. The script is first-rate as well. The line "I did not usurp the crown of France; I found it lying in the gutter!" is pretty much an immortal line from this film. I can recommend the accuracy of this film from a historical point as well, and the battle scenes are well-produced. Don't miss it.

Sergey Bondarchuk knew how to make epic war films - his War And Peace is a real masterpiece of grand scale battle scenes, deep emotional ups and downs, real psychologies, decent camera work and naked nerve tension. Here, he repeated his winning formula, but in some ways, he failed to make it a perfect war movie. Why did it happen? Since I am not a movie critic, but merely a movie fan, I can draw my conclusions on several bases - 1. The movie is too long at times and has a bad tendency to drag, which makes it a bit painful to endure. 2. There are obvious goofs and errors in editing, very clear and evident, which rob us of bigger enjoyment. 3. Some parts are performed very shallow and not so deeply convincing. Yeah, even the main characters do suffer some over-play syndrome. 4. The ideas are repeated shamelessly from War And Peace - it is very clear and obvious. All of that add to a lesser rating of a somewhat faulty but still good movie

I loved watching this film as a teenager, with its thrilling portrayal of a great historic battle, but as I got older I thought less and less of it.

Now that I am middle aged, I have to admit that the style of film-making that "Waterloo" displays is as dead as a doornail - if only because it would logistically impossible to do nowadays. The Soviet director, Sergei Bondarchuk, had already proved himself with his adaptation of Tolstoy's "War and Peace" - the staging of the battle or Borodino alone is worth the price of the DVD.

This film is unavailable on DVD and video and it's too bad. Rod Steiger is a little too neurotic for Napoleon, but he looked like Napoleon should've looked, braced for his last-ditch chance at glory. The scenarists invented his gastric ailment, no doubt to presage the emperor's later death of stomach cancer on St Helena (and explain the famous portrait of him with his hand in his vest).

But the reason this film exists is its staging of the battle itself. It's almost like building a model to scale - an exact replica of the event, with - obviously - thousands of extras. Even a German/Italian/Russian co-production today couldn't come up with enough money to costume and equip a cast of that size. Stanley Kubrick had long planned a movie on Napoleon but it never got off the ground. The few battle scenes in "Barry Lyndon" give one a tantalizing glimpse of what might've been.