Waterloo

There can be no denying that this is a great film to watch.

Pure historians may dispair at some inaccuracies, although in a previous review I notice that a reviewer has made a few mistakes of his own! Air burst shells were quite the norm in fact the RHA were firing over the heads of the British troops at Hugomont the shells exploding over the French, these balls were hollow in nature and fused, in addition to this (although not seen in the film) were the RHA's rockets, which although forbidden by Wellington, were also fired of lierally. A feature I like which is included but wrong are the cannons shown in infantry squares firing at the advancing French cavalry and the troops then closing rank again to fend of the attackers. At the time of making it was still widely believed this happened.

A fair chunk of the story derives from Victor Hugo's descriptions of the battle which in turn were wrong. Bottom line is that I was a much younger man when the movie first came out and it fostered a great interest in finding out more. I feel it is a timeless 'film of its time'. Naturally a re-make would be a wonderful thing in todays modern world but the original does convey some of the depth, noise and smoke of the day.

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.

There is no need to extol the virtues of this movie. Probably the greatest war film ever made with superb period detail, the movie has always suffered from poor distribution. There was a VHS edition in the 1980s but it seems unlikely that it will make it onto DVD in the US. There is a British edition which has about 10 additional minutes over the earlier US VHS version. Somewhere there is an original Russian version that is rumored to contain well over 3 hours of footage. Perhaps these missing scenes fill in more the Prussian involvement in the battle, and may include their earlier defeat at Ligny which the movie only briefly shows as an aftermath scene. The same is true with the British at Quartre Bras. Some day maybe a directors cut will show these deleted scenes. Until then Waterloo shall remain an incomplete classic! Still, as it is the movie is a feast for all students of warfare in this period. Everything is accurate down to uniforms, military music, and weapons.

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 !

"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