ScoobyMint
Disappointment for a huge fan!
Sharkflei
Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.
Ezmae Chang
This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.
royu2
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.
DRIAINCLARK
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.
Blueghost
The film is a bit of a high concept mess. You have to imagine the production team trying to figure out how to restage a "heroic" football game that went down in sports' legacy, because that's kind of what the battle of Waterloo is in military annals. The truth is that team competitions, including old style military field tactics, don't have much of a story to them. The action is the drama, not the individual soldiers themselves. As a young man I saw a re-edited version on TV, and like now, even after seeing a two hour version, I'm still at a loss as to the story.The acting is okay, if a bit overstated here and there. I actually worked with Rod Steiger many years ago, and he always struck me as exceptionally professional and a very caring individual. Having said that, I think he may have been misidrected as what he did here was to give the audience the power hungry "has-been" out to make a bid for a second chance at European dominance. It works after a fashion, but I think the performance gets overused. Napoleon, from all renditions I've seen of him, had his passions (and moments of rage), but he was also a strategist and tactician. Here Steiger shows us a Napoleon who is not so much a master tactician, but a kind of prodigal brat who shows us fury when pieces of his plan fail to fall into place. Steiger shows us a pensive man prone to fits. In this his acting really is unsurpassed, and he would reprise this character in Qadaffi's "Lion of the Desert".As for other performances, they all mostly hit their cues, but are hampered by an edit that is less than sterling. Plummer does an outstanding job of showing us a reserved Wellington, even if his expression does betray a somewhat impish actor trying to refrain from letting us in on how he gets into character. Others, including the actor who plays the Prince of Orange, do well, but sometimes let their inner Brit hold back a more vetted and thorough performance. Ergo there is a reserve in the thesping that works well, but also underscores the fact that we are watching a cast not of the nations contending for power in that period.Nearly every shot in act two is a battle sequence. The amount of artistry that went into staging the battle is superb, but ultimately what we get is a huge battle that is over acted, and not much drama, in spite of the interpersonal moments scattered here and there throughout the second act. It's pretty stunning to see the cavalry charges and Wellington's infantry forming square, but we're not privy to the actual maneuvers of the regiments on the field, nor why they were done. But, maybe the film makers are paying homage to the old notion that no battle plan lasts beyond initial contact with the enemy. Then again, maybe the lost third of the film would explain all those details.All in all the Hong Kong DVD edit that I have is a bit of an edited mess. You attach that to the fact that it is a Dino "b-grade-producer" De Laurentis flick, and you get something that looks like a high budgeted b-grade epic. My biggest critiques are as follows; Orson Wells as the King of France was a severe misstep. The camera work ranges from brilliant to poor. We gets zooms and pans in a number of shots. The exact kind of thing you want to avoid in films like this, and the film, as hampered as it is to begin with, suffers more for it, leaving a mess of a film that should have been one of the great epics shot at the time. My final critique is actually a bit of praise, and that is at least the producers actually got the size of the armies right, and could only do so by employing the only inexpensive Caucasian army around; the Soviet Union. That was a stroke of production genius, and we have the Kremlin to thank for getting the grandeur of the battle correct.Not a film I would readily recommend, but see it once if you're into historical epics. Missing footage equals missing story, which equals a film that could have been more, but ultimately falls flat as a total cinematic experience.
jamescallumburton
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.
