Waterloo (1970): Dir: Sergei Bondarchuk / Cast: Rod Steiger, Christopher Plummer, Orson Welles, Dan O'Herlihy, Jack Hawkins: Sloppy war drama regarding the downfall of a country through its leaders. It presents a realistic picture of the European conquests of Napoleon. This chronicle leads to his defeat by the film's end. Students on the matter are the film's core audience although the final thirty minutes of ongoing battles that seem to never end. Its narrative structure is flawed but director Sergei Bondarchuk handles the battles with skill and backed with a tremendous production. He previously made War and Peace so he proves familiar to the theme at hand. Rod Steiger was originally criticized for his portrayal of Napoleon but he actually brings forth certain authority needed. Christopher Plummer is given the most interesting supporting role and given a memorable line when his response to a soldier whose leg has been blown off is, "That is bound to happen." Among other performances are Orson Welles as well as Dan O'Herlihy who is originally positioned in opposition to Napoleon. Jack Hawkins plays a Lieutenant-General who also sounds off like all the other badge wearing yahoos. While it could have cut down much of the unneeded battle footage, it still succeeds in its theme of faulted leadership, which prevents the film from becoming washed up. Score: 7 / 10

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.

I saw this movie on its release in 1970 and was hugely impressed by all aspects of how it recreated the battle of Waterloo and how close it stuck to the original facts , its use of the original statements of Napoleon and Wellington and of course the thrilling cavalry charges which illustrated the shock and awe that someone facing such a charge must have felt .A few years later I spent a week on the site of the battlefield staying in a hotel just behind Wellington's tree from where he conducted most of the battle . During this time I walked every area of the battle , visited Hugomont and saw the evocative graves of the handful of french soldiers who managed to get over the walls and who were buried where they fell . The battle field has been preserved intact and one is struck by the closeness and intimacy of the conflict where Napoleon and Wellington stood on opposite ridges and were visible to each other at all times during the battle .As I am from Ireland I found it interesting to discover that the horses of Napoleon ( called Marengo ) and Wellington ( Copenhagen ) at Waterloo were bred in Co. Wexford at a place called Wellington Bridge and that in fact the two horses were half brothers ! I watched the DVD for the first time in 40 years last night and was struck by two things , how close the movie was to the actual topography of the real Waterloo , La Haye Sainte etc. and how miscast Christopher Plummer was .I admire Plummer and have followed his career but now in hindsight I feel he was too young for the part of Wellington particularly against such a strong force that was Rod Steiger's Napoleon . Plummer came across as effete and campy and his main forte seemed to be confined to delivering the witty quips and put downs used by Wellington which in no way did justice to the real Wellington whereas in contrast Steiger nailed the role of Napoleon .In fact I feel that Plummer could now play Wellington and do him justice much better at his present age ! I also feel that the over dramatic use of the display of arrayed cannon when the Old Guard was invited to surrender was unnecessary and completely over the top as the moment itself was both pitiful and glorious enough without embellishment . The simple French monument on the field of Waterloo today to the Old Guard is by far the most simple and moving of all the battle field's many monuments .Those criticisms aside I enjoyed the movie and would watch it again , it has aged well and if you want to know about ancient battles then this is the best battle movie of all time .

"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