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.

"Waterloo" is a film epic, with epic performances from Rod Steiger as Napoleon, and Christopher Plummer as Lord Wellington. The battle scenes are historic, with tens of thousands of extra's and not a hint of any c.g.i.. The calvary charges in "Waterloo" surpass any battle spectacle I have ever seen. I love "Gettysburg" (1993), however the magnitude of the battle in "Waterloo" makes the charge in "Gettysburg" seem like a minor skirmish. If "Waterloo" has a weakness, it concerns the lack of character development in the supporting cast. Although Rod Steiger and Christopher Plummer are well developed, the rest of the soldiers come across simply as pawns on a chess board. Highly recommended. - MERK

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.

There's not much here other than a battle sequence, but what a sequence it is! It's SUPER impressive, it's just that there's no "movie" around it. No explanation of characters or motivations so unless you know something about the battle itself you may be a little lost. But the battle is REALLY impressive!

The problem most war movies have, especially if they depict one battle, is the addition of extraneous sub-plots. I suppose the film makers think a broader audience will appreciate a movie more if there's an ordinary fellow shoved in that we can follow, and a love interest . . . Perhaps this view is valid. "Waterloo" comes dangerously on the brink of that pitfall in an early scene, but quickly backs up and focuses on who we really need to know to understand the battle: Napoleon and Wellington. Christopher Plummer was born to play Wellington, and he underplays the part beautifully, so that you know what he's thinking by the flick of an eyebrow or the corner of his mouth. Steiger looks like the older Napoleon, and he tends to chew the scenery, but Napoleon flew into unrestrained rages.

The movie does an admirable job of doing what so many lesser war movies don't: it gives you a good idea of what's going on in the field. If you pay attention, you won't be at a loss for the strategy or tactics.

Furthermore, the way it was shot has kept it from aging. It doesn't look like a "spectacle" from the '50s or '60s -- and though it employs a few of the poor film-making choices of its time that late-sixties film makers thought were so cool but which turned out so confusing and easily dated -- it doesn't seem dated at all.

The script has a peculiarity that might well have destroyed it: the writers seem to have excavated every famous quote from Napoleon, Wellington, et al, and shoved them all into the dialogue; and, amazingly, it isn't a distraction.

The worst problem the film has as a whole is its tendency to try to duplicate famous paintings by Meissonier, Lady Butler, and others; sometimes this works, giving the color tones we have come to expect of the period from those very artworks. Occasionally, it's distracting.

There are a few very rough cuts that look pretty bad. But the movie originally was more than four hours long, and the American release suffers from somewhat poor editing and splicing. Surely it's time to bring a full (and wide-screen) release to home video?

However, if you like your historical war movies diluted with love stories and fictional characters, rather than having the real brains behind the battles at center stage, you'll probably be bored to tears by it. If you want as good a recreation of a famous battle as you can probably get, this movie's for you.

Coming off War and Peace (1965-67), it seemed Sergei Bondarchuk was looking if lightning could strike twice with Waterloo (1970), almost looking like a sequel, minus the philosophy. This time promoting Napoleon from supporting character to protagonist, Waterloo chronicles the Hundred Days and the French Empire's final defeat.

I see Waterloo being called "the real thing"; the Soviet Army kindly took a break from destroying Czechoslovakia to pitch in with the battle scenes, just as they did with War and Peace (only they weren't devastating Czechoslovakia at that time). The result does make for some large battle scenes, but they're just an imitation of War and Peace. The rest of the film tends to drag, unfortunately, and tries to include too much: I didn't see the need to start with Napoleon's initial abdication, then see the whiplash from "France won't follow you" to promoting him to emperor again.

There's no doubt there's a lot of technical competence here, and outside the battle scenes too: the costumes and sets create that period flavour. It's a film set up well and deserved a better script.

Depicting history on film has never been easy. In all cases the history is simplified and events compressed, while historical personalities are often combined or eliminated entirely. This is perfectly understandable given the needs of cramming information into a two, perhaps three hour film, while maintaining some sort of dramatic continuity and structure. Generally speaking, while the political and social currents are painted in broad strokes, costume, make-up and especially art direction can vividly recreate in glorious detail an era, if only on a visual level. The attitudes and speech of the performers play an important part here as well for nothing will destroy the audience's willing suspension of belief in a period recreation faster than a performance or vocal intonation that seem anachronistic.

Do these films succeed as cinema? "JFK" and "Lawrence of Arabia" are both great films because they succeed as works of cinema first, however inaccurate or debatable the history they depict. History's depiction in cinema must take a back seat to film ascetics given the limitation of the medium in allowing for examination of an individual or event with anything approaching depth or scope. Sergei Bondarchuk's "Waterloo" (1970) was his follow-up to his previous, equally spectacular "War and Peace" (1968). Both films recreate the Napoleonic Age on a visual level to a degree of detail that has never been equaled. While the earlier film was based on the celebrated novel of Tolstoy, "Waterloo" concerns itself with the events leading up to the confrontation between Emperor Napoleon I and Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington. Any film dealing with the out-sized figure of Napoleon Bonaparte must confront the problem of a super abundance of source material, the adapting of which would be daunting to a modern mini-series, let alone a film running a little over two hours in length. Obviously simplification is a necessity. Indeed the film opens with a brief written prologue summing up the events of the past twenty years leading up to the battle. Yet "Waterloo" is unique in that virtually all the dialogue is taken from historical sources. Very little is made up, and Bondarchuk with co-scriptwriters H.A.L. Craig and Vittorio Bonicelli fashioned a story that is lucid and taut while remaining remarkably accurate to the actual event.

Bondarchuk was an absolute master of logistics, perhaps the greatest. and "Waterloo" places on display his considerable talents. With an eye for detail he and his technicians reconstructed the entire battlefield, complete with chateaus and farmhouses. In addition they installed beneath the earth a watering system allowing them to soak the various fields of wheat and barley as needed. Given the use of a Russian army division of 20,000 men to represent the French, English and Prussian armies, he deployed them-in costume-complete with all the necessary Napoleonic ordinance to recreate the most famous battle in history. And all of this was achieved without the use of CGI and digital effects. It was all done live and the result is incredible; an actual Napoleonic battle recreated on a full scale. With columns of smoke and fire, charging horses, thousands of troops in brilliant uniforms marching in formation, the film as caught by cinematographer Armando Nannuzz has a horrific grandeur. The stirring score by Nino Rota uses music from the period as well as actual martial tunes played by Napoleon's Old Guard as they marched into battle. All the set pieces of the battle are lovingly recreated; the assault on the Hougoumount, the charge of the Scots Greys, the forming of the British army into squares, the final stand of the Old Guard.

Bondarchuk also wisely focuses on the personalities of the two protagonists. He is well served by both Rod Steiger as Napoleon and Christopher Plummer as Wellington. Steiger is earthy and passionate, a brilliant charismatic leader racing against the rapid decaying of his faculties. Plummer is arrogant, aloof, a disdainful English aristocrat, "Scum. Nothing but gutter trash and scum!" And he is referring to his own troops. They are surrounded by a great supporting cast. Happily the film is well served here as well. Dan O'Herlihy as Marshal Ney does a superb job of suggesting a man struggling desperately with some inner conflict. As his British counterpart, Jack Hawkins plays the hard-bitten General Sir Thomas Picton. He is an aristocrat more at home on the battlefield than on the ballroom dance floor. Orson Welles does an effective cameo as the fat, gouty, ineffectual Louis XVIII. Welles does a remarkable job in his few minutes of screen time by actually making the fleeing Bourbon King sympathetic rather than buffoonish. Virginia McKenna does a delicious turn as the worldly Duchess of Richmond in a stunning ballroom sequence that sets Byron's poem, "The Eve of Waterloo" to it cinematic equivalent.

The film was long rumored to run over four hours in the Russian version, and at times it does have the feel of a film that has been cut, but recently the film's Associate Producer and Editor Richard C. Meyer has confirmed that the longest known version ran 132 minutes and that the "four hour" version was merely a rough cut never meant for distribution. A quick look at the complete cast list, however suggests otherwise as many never made it to the released film.

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.

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.

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.

It does take liberties with history, but it is a mightily credible film for several reasons. The story is very compelling and while long the film is never boring. The battle sequences are beautifully staged, the production values are rich and the score is wonderfully bombastic. The direction is also strong and the script is intelligent and thought-provoking. Then there is the acting. Rod Steiger is magnificent as Napolean, it is a perfect balance of hot rage and cool calculation and he even manages to upstage the thousands of Soviet soldiers recruited as extras for the battle scenes. Just as good is Christopher Plummer as Duke of Wellington, shown here as quite arrogant and having contempt for lower-class cannon-fodder. In conclusion, a great film, worth seeing for Steiger and Plummer, their performances are so good the whole film is worth watching just for them. 9/10 Bethany Cox

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...

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

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 !

Napoleon Bonerparte shocks Europe by escaping his island prison on Elba. The combined forces of Britain and Prussia must face him and a new French army at Waterloo to decide the fate of Europe. It is very difficult to fault this film. It is presented almost as a theatrical documentary. Practically most of the events depicted are incredibly accurate. Impressive for a historical film ! The costumes are amazingly realistic, the acting is good by both Stiegar and Plummer who give vivid portrayals of Napoleon and Wellington ( both even look the part to the last detail ). What is most spectacular about this film are the battle sequences ( i cannot begin to describe in words how enormous they are , no other film has bigger battle scenes , true giants of cinema scenes )they are vast and action packed and astounding to watch due to their sheer immensity. The only problem with the film is that it is more of an event film , little emphasis is put on the characters but you still get accurate and provoking portrayals of them , just less character development than most films but certainly a look. A forgotten masterpiece.

The battle of Waterloo gets superb treatment in this spectacular. The cast is extremely well chosen. Rod Steiger embodies Napoleon, and Christopher Plummer is everyone's idea of Wellington. The battle itself, which takes up most of the movie, is also well done. I can't attest to its accuracy, not being a Napoleonic scholar, but at every point of the battle you know what's going on. And though every famous line from Napoleon, Wellington and Blucher worms its way into the movie, they never seem out of place.

All in all, it would stand with the greatest war movies ever made, and certainly a necessary part of anyone's historical education, except for some very peculiar choices in editing. Sometimes these are done just to give the epic story a different look from, say, a David Lean film. 1970 was right in the middle of often detestable and embarrassingly dated experimentation with the look of mainstream films (see "The Thomas Crown Affair" for an example of just how poor the thirty-year-old "cutting edge" can look these days). At other moments, the editing simply looks poor, with abrupt cuts. And what's with the slo-mo in the charge of the Scots Grays? Every effort was made to make the movie look like famous Napoleonic paintings, and that charge is one of the most famous paintings in military history. But it's just another poorly done moment of experimentation.

Overall, the movie is first-class. The cast is solid, the script is good, the production values are first-rate, and there's even some tension, even though we know what happened to Napoleon in the end. But what should be one of the great epic films of all times doesn't seem, in the end, to add up to the sum of its parts. Nevertheless, it's a must for history buffs.

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.

Russian director Sergei Bondarchuk had already shown his ideal credentials for this with his monumental 'War and Peace'. Indeed even in his first film, the excellent 'Fate of a Man', he had shown his sense of the visual, sweeping camerawork, skill with actors and I would have to say, a tendency to 'overcook' it.

He has here the services of maestro Nino Rota as composer and behind the camera one of Italy's finest, Armando Nannuzzi who has, in the battle sequences, given us the look of the paintings of Gros and Vernet.

Strong performance from Dan 0'Herlihy as Marshal Ney. Michael Wilding and Terence Alexander epitomise British sang-froid. Orson Welles appears briefly as Louis the Eighteenth and proves there are no small parts, only small actors. Christopher Plummer is stupendous and gives one of his best performances as Wellington. Rod Steiger is rather uneven as Napoleon but has moments of brilliance. He is one of a long line of actors to play the part but brings a psychological depth to the role that they have not. He too has a tendency to 'overcook' it but that is Steiger, take him or leave him.

As for Napoleon himself he was a product of the French revolution which in my opinion represents a peak of human insanity.

When Beethoven heard that the First Consul had declared himself Emperor he prophesied with remarkable prescience that he would become a tyrant. This is not as great a film as it should have been but is certainly a very good one which nonetheless was unable to recoup its cost. Typically producer Dino de Laurentiis attributed the film's commercial failure to its lack of stars!

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.

Without a doubt this is the greatest historic battle film ever made. The effort that went in to this film is unprecedented. I watched this when I was young and I was so in awe of the film that I developed a life long love of history. These days when it is possible to portray battle scenes with computer graphics we will never understand how much effort went in to drafting in an entire Russian division and kitting them out in Napoleonic uniforms.

But its not just the huge cavalry charges and carefully researched accuracy of the film that impresses. Christopher Plumber and Rod Steiger both put in excellent performances as Wellington and Napoleon. This film should clearly have scooped the Oscars, why it didn't we will never understand.

Leads up to the famous battle with focus throughout on Napoleon (Steiger) and Wellington (Plummer).

Very beautifully designed and delivered with both the grand ball and the battle scenes as good as any committed to film. It is a shame therefore that the film, whilst spectacular, is rather dull. The leads are fine, albeit Steiger has been fond of a good rant since 'In the Heat of the Night' and misses few opportunities to have a go - he's not ideally cast. Plummer is better but his character comes over as a complete idiot, which may be true, but it does grate. Not bad, but a bit of a missed opportunity - Burton and O'Toole (apparently the first choices) would have been better