Waterloo [VHS]

 
List Price: $14.95

Our Price: $14.95

You Save:

 


Customer Reviews:

  • I would order from this seller again
    I have been looking for this rarely-seen film for a long time. Here, the price was very reasonable; it arrived in a good condition; it came very quickly....more info
  • One of Steiger's most underappreciated roles in an epic film...
    In the tradition of the cinematic epics like Kubrick's "Spartacus" and Mann's "Fall of the Roman Empire," Bondarchuk's "Waterloo" succeeds in depicting Napoleon's desperate and final bid for power and glory. Steiger, no stranger to roles that have consistently challenged his acting ability, is quite good as the deposed French emperor who narrowly lost his final battle. Orson Welles' appearance as Louis XVIII, is far too brief but most welcome, and Plummer as Lord Wellington is a casting director's dream. Dino de Laurentiis has produced some questionable if not laughable films in the past "King Kong" (1976) and "Flash Gordon" (1980); however, "Waterloo" must be seen as one of his better efforts.

    Many critics here at Amazon will applaud the many and well-orchestrated battle scenes--a case-in-point are the great aerial shots of the British "squares" organized against Marshall Ney (Dan O' Herlihy) and the French cavalry--and one can easily understand the film's strong visual appeal, but this opus succeeds in other ways too.

    The non-battle scenes, for instance, like the ball before the battle which introduces us to Napoleon's nemesis, Wellington, and the scenes of Napoleon dictating letters to his secretaries, are thoughtful touches that broaden the scope of this highly entertaining film and successfully depict an aristocratically genteel milieu shattered by the cataclysm that is nineteenth-century warfare. On the surface, an era characterized by the gentility of the landed gentry and sportsmanlike conduct on the battlefield, later destroyed by the real brutalities and devastation of war.

    Unlike too many directors who take liberties with depicting historical events (Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" quickly come to mind), Bondarchuck successfully and accurately depicts Napoleon in his decline--plagued with self-doubt, his irascible outbursts towards subordinates compounded by his ill-health (now confirmed by modern bio-historians as a combination of dysuria, piles, dermatitis, and stomach cancer) and his symptoms of grandiose delusion .

    This is a Region 2 PAL encoded disc, so you will require a multi-region DVD player to view it. This film originally ran at 3 hours on its initial theatrical release in 1970, now cut down to 2 hours and eight minutes. It is a pity that we do not have the film in its entirety with Region 1 encoding as the director originally intended. Although this item is listed here as currently "unavailable," try purchasing it thru the AmazonUK site. ...more info
  • Where is the 3 hour DVD version?
    Boy, I've been waiting for this movie in DVD for years. I mean, the producers aren't going to lose any money; I've got credit on my Mastercard at this very second! Like the Russian version of "War and Peace", the movie leaves me breathless, and a bit rattled. I won't repeat the story over again, you're likely snoring by now from all the previous reviews, but I'll say that I love this movie, and it would complete my collection of war epics once I've got my eager hands on the DVD version.

    Much like many Eastern European movies, "Waterloo" seems disjointed in some parts, even surreal, and clearly, some of the battle scenes were borrowed from "War and Peace." I forgive you Sergei, just don't do it again. The part when Napoleon's Old Guard march shoulder to shoulder to anhiliation, is simply incredible. I could actually smell the cordite from the cannons, the fear and confusion in every French heart. I got chills from this scene. Rod Steiger looks like he's on drugs. Despite is super acting as Napoleon, he looks spaced out sometimes, or perhaps worried that the movie will flop. Yet, he pulled it off, he WAS Napoleon Bonaparte in all his menace, his mood swings, his pride, his appearance (though it's rumored that Steiger is nearly 6 feet tall, when NB was just shy of 5 feet). Must have NP's ego that made him seem larger than life. In conclusion: I urge all history buffs to demand the 3 hour DVD version, anything shorter would be a rip off, or go sulk in the dark like me.

    One final note: I have a 47 inch Panasonic projection HDTV. The wide screen brings epic movies to real life. I hope the DVD version is not tarnished like some parts of "War and Peace." ...more info
  • Booooooooooooooring

    A Dino de Laurentis film superproduction with great aspirations and little or no quality other than documentary. A pity that, as it usually happens with massive and costly productions, the final product falls so short of expectations. Orson Wells, since the very first scene looks like a wig on a monkey, he should have done much better being behind the camera directing. The cast is not the problem, though. It's the script, the slow pace, the artificial atmosphere of grandeur a la francaise, the absence of feeling.

    This does not qualify as a film. As a documentary, yes, and a badly done one too. I was going to watch the director's try on "War and Peace" but I have definitely given it up now.

    If Stanley Kubrick couldn't get it done (it meaning Waterloo) and no classic director ever attempted it, how can we expect anything great from this Bondarchuk... King Vidor tried something epic with War and Peace and it never made it to one of his best (though a decent film). Hitchcock said once to Truffaut that he wouldn't try recreating a true literary classic because masterpieces can't be copied into other formats. Just like Don Quixote was created into a book it cannot (it has not so far) be copied into cinematographic language with the same results (Welles tried and couldn't finish). That is why Hitchcock preferred to pick little and more humble books to recreate.

    Waterloo is not fiction but History. But a masterpiece no less. Inimitable.

    ...more info
  • "A Great Epic Battle Film"
    This is one of the best classic war movies ever made!!! I was very happy to find this movie here on Amazon now on DVD format!!! A Must see!!!...more info
  • Waterloo, the Best Period War Movie Ever!
    When this movie was released in the late 1960s it contained a lot more footage. I have heard rumors that a 3 hr version exists somewhere. This would make more sense as the scenes with the Prussians appear disjointed, and even the Quarte Bras scene seems out of context. The movie had to be reduced in length for cinema release, but the result has provided only an inperfect picture of the Waterloo drama and all its complexities. A DVD release would hopefully correct some of this problem by allowing more footage, perhaps cleaning up the film itself, and add some much needed background information and production notes. It would be interesting to see where the film was shot, what army was used for extras, and also what Rod Steiger and Chrisopher Plummer thought of their roles in the film. All of this would add greatly to what is already an epic work.

    Not-withstanding these short-comings, what we have is still an impressive work. Few period movies have gone to such lengths to provide accuracy. The uniforms are all correct, although the British are shown as the main elements in Wellington's army. It would have been nice to see a bit more blue and green coats in the shots of Wellington's troops on the ridge as this would have shown the significant Dutch-Belgian contingents that made up his army as well.

    The casting of Plummer and Stieger also was good. Stieger supposedly said that this was one of his favorite roles. Some have critisized his performance of Napolean in the movie, but Stieger seems content to have portrayed a Napolean unsure of himself and in earnest. This is not an unreasonable portrayal to make, and if the viewer can divorce the actor from the historical personage some sense can be made here. This was Napolean's last campaign, and no doubt he felt some uncertainty when he embarked upon it, as the odds were heavily against him.

    Christopher's Plummer's Wellington is supurb. Here critics can find little that is wrong. He has the iron Duke's personality down perfectly. The acid wit and cool detached demeanor concealing a real concern for the state of his army and the position it is in to face the great Napolean. Plummer uses Wellington quotes from all over the place, many from while the Duke was in Spain, and not from Waterloo, but it still works anyway.

    Viwers who are not familer with the history may find it difficult to follow the movie, especially since the editing makes it even more confusing at times. Without some historical background the movie may just come across as a series of massive, confused battle scenes, which does injustice to the epic events which it is attempting to portray. I would recommend reading anybooks on the waterloo campaign first before seeing this movie in order to get the most out of it. For sheer scope and size, few movies can compare, and the viewer is in for a feast of the eye with this one. For a period war movie this is the best, for all its faults. Waterloo cries out for a DVD or VHS directors cut edition. Let's hope it happens some day....more info

  • Great spectacle, but don't forget the acting!
    Waterloo will certainly go down as a benchmark for how to film jaw-droppingly good battle scenes, but don't forget the almost surprisingly good acting. After all, there's no fighting at all during the film's first half. Instead you get Rod Steiger almost chewing scenery as Napoleon, but still passionately communicating the personal doubts and nervous good cheer as the egomanical French dictator desperately faces his Waterloo. Christopher Plummer's Wellington is Napoleon's comic foil in the film, combining a comical arrogance with a supreme "stiff upper lip" confidence. His portrayal shows you how Wellington was never defeated in seven years of fighting the French because he refused to buy into the myth of Napoleon's overwhelming power. Even Orson Welles does a good job in what is essentially a cameo, giving us a Louis XVIII so ground down by years of watching the French mob kill those he loved that he has no fight left in him. We see that fat, reactionary Louis is wiser than Napoleon, the darling of the Enlightenment.

    I don't know that Waterloo was pro-war, but what's surprising, considering it came out in 1971, was that it wasn't anti-war. This can probably be explained by the fact that it seemed to be an East European production. Ironically, while left-wing Western Europeans in 1971 were militantly pacifistic, their Warsaw Pact counterparts (who lived in communist societies that Western intellectuals supposedly envied) saw no problem with portraying war in neutral terms when fought for a good purpose. Besides, no one who watches as Wellington gloomily surveys the rows of corpses after the battle can say Waterloo hides that war is a sad, deadly business.

    Finally, the music strikes the right combination of pride and melancholy. And the slow-motion battle scenes communicate a jarring surrealism that reminded me of what Speilberg did with Tom Hanks' character on the beach in Saving Private Ryan....more info

  • Panoramic and massive in scale - UNMISSABLE.
    Waterloo, directed by Sergei Bondarchuk is a spectacular depiction of the Battle of Waterloo and the immediate events leading up to it. Rod Steiger plays Napoleon and gives an intense performance and a vivid insight into the personality of this dictator. Wellington is played by Christopher Plumber who likewise, gives of his best in portraying this brilliant commander. The movie weaves an intriguing story, playing off Wellington's arrogance towards his rank and file against his skill in strategy and tactics. The other main actors, Orson Wells, Jack Hawkins and Dan O'Herlihy all give fantastic performances. The movie has been criticised for its glorification of war. With very little blood seen in the movie despite a plethora of death and destruction, it's a correct observation, but I don't think you will be watching this movie if you are at all concerned with the rights and wrongs of war. This movie deals with a period of warfare, which was colorful and fought with massive armies. This has captured the imagination of military and historical buffs despite it's relatively short period. The movie Waterloo has suceeded admirably in conveying this granduer. Let me say at this point, that this movie is huge in scale and panorama. The battle scenes of which there are many, are pure eye candy. No CGI here folks. This is massive, classic movie making in its prime, and we won't see films made like this again. Battlefields are littered with casts of thousands. The costumes (uniforms) are excellent and one wonders at how long it took to sew these all together. I understand many of the cast were supplied by the Polish army. Watching the movie, you are left in no doubt that the majority of rank and file cast are real soldiers. To co-ordinate that many extras without military training would have been near impossible. The cavalry charges are simply stunning and you can't help wondering how many horses were injured in the making of this movie, let alone actors. The aerial view of the massed French cavalry charge against the British squares, towards the conclusion of the battle, truly lets you understand the scale of this production. This is an utterly unmissable scene in the history of war movies. There are many other scenes from the movie which truly capture the imagination. For example, Napoleons reunion with his devoted troops after his exile, is tense and dramatic, while set in an insignificant part of the French countryside. Adding to the quality of the movie, most of the lines spoken are actual quotes from the historical figures themselves. I am fortunate to own the DVD version of the movie, and while it doesn't have many special features I would recommend the DVD version version over VHS if you can find a copy, as this movie is one you will want in your collection for a very long time. I loved this movie from beginning to end. It won't be to everyones taste, but is an essential purchase for military and history buffs, and especially those who like movies made in the "good old way". Outstanding....more info
  • Waterloo
    Widescreen DVD please! This is definitely one of the best epic war movies ever filmed with sweping battle scenes and cast of thousands. It goes into great realistic details about the strategy for such an important battle. The cinematography, the acting, the costume and the score is absolutely fantastic. Why it is still not available in widescreen DVD is beyond me. I am sure this DVD will be snapped up like hotcakes. Many people missed it during its theatrical release. Waterloo would go down in the annals of film making as one of the best epic battle movies of all times....more info
  • DVD Please
    This is a truly remarkable film. I can add little to the earlier reviews except to note that the VHS version is different from the original.

    Steiger and Plummer are to my mind spot on. Wellington was both dour and very charming - otherwise he would not have been so effective as a ladies' man!

    I remember going to the original widescreen version at the Odeon in Leicester Square - a truly widescreen. My recollection of the movie is that it was significantly longer, with additional vignettes featuring at least two of the "scum of the earth". Moreover, I have a distinct feeling that the cavalry charge against the squares is far longer in the orginal version. My hope is that the DVD version when it comes will fully restore this movie......more info

  • Absolutely fantastic!!!
    "Waterloo" and "Star Wars" (the original movie) vy for top place in my heart as favorite movie of all time. Needless to say, I LOVE this film!
    The battle scene is tremendous. It is a display of colour and cinematography the like of which you will never see again! With all this computer generated stuff, massed battle scenes become easy to manufacture but believe me, NONE of them can match what you see here because it was all done with real people. The expense for the extras and uniforms that must have been spent will leave you in awe!
    OK, enough of the battle scene - that and the authenticity of the battle has been covered expertly by another reviewer. Something has to be said about the acting, however - excellent by all who were in it. Steiger plays a believeble Napoleon who is starting to doubt his own military prowess, and Wellington plays a marvellous English aristocrat.
    Before the battle scene, all is not just military talk, but there is a hint of love stories between a few of the characters that almost seem out of place. Although they are woven into the story well, a friend explained to me that "Waterloo" is merely an edited version of a much longer mini-series type of thing that was originally produced in Russia! That explains the extras en masse, and the fact that some of the charaters seem to be dubbed. That's 'cause they are! It also explains why, as another reviewer pointed out, that some of the characters seem underdeveloped. When I first heard this, it left me feeling kind of cheated, especially as that might have meant that some of the battle scene was missed out too.
    Something has to be said about the odd avoidable errors that exist within the film. Some of them you may only spot if you are a true aficionado, and if you have seen the film more than 50 times, as I am sure I have. The ballroom scene - someone thought it would be really nice to have the soldiers in dress uniform doing a waltz with the ladies in beautiful white, flowing dresses. The colourful spectacle was wonderful, as was the music (called the "Waterloo Waltz" just in case you don't have the soundtrack, and used in "War and Peace", too), but OOPS! Didn't anyone mention that the waltz was not invented until the END of the 19th century? Another obvious anachronism is one scene in the battle with a telegraph pole that I am told is there, but have yet to find myself.
    There is one really annoying part of the battle scene that I have to mention. When the French heavy cavalry charge at the British squares, the action is also filmes from the air, so that you are looking directly down on the battle. The cavalry charge in from the top of the scene, but why are there puffs of rifle smoke coming from all the squares on ALL the sides of each square. There is nothing there to shoot at, so it looks as though the squares are firing at each other. ... See "Waterloo" and be truly amazed! Enjoy!...more info
  • One of the very very best...
    This film is available on dvd albeit PAL U.K. version not NTSC as yet. The DVD version I have is in flawless widescreen. It is a truly awesome film. The sound, cinematography and sheer scope of the battle scenes are incredible. I have lots of epic war films and this one is right up there with my favourite top 5 along side Patton, Gettysburg, Stalingrad... I really sympathise with those that have only seen the VHS version....more info
  • war classic
    This movie is war classic. Rod Steigers best performance. Christopher Plummer is great. I love soundtrack. I have the used VHS but it going bad. Hopefully released on DVD in widescreen soon....more info
  • This Must Come to DVD
    This is one of the all time epic War movies, As another review stated they do not make them like this any more. There is no romance scenes in this movie,just non stop action, You can see by the price you pay to buy it used, compared to other war films there must be a reason for this premium price. For all of us that like a film with thousands of troops moving to the sound of the guns and martial music. I really hope that some savy studio exec gets his hands on this film and re-releases it to the Wide screen or at the least puts it on a DVD...more info
  • A Military Classic
    Waterloo is probably the best "battle" film ever made, depicting the famous clash of Napoleon versus Wellington in June 1815. Although there are quirks and omissions in this film, overall it does a magnificent job of encapsulating the pathos of Napoleon's Hundred Days. Rod Steiger as Napoleon and Christopher Plummer as Wellington are both very convincing in their roles, and the director's use of "inner thought" to hear what these two are thinking at key moments is very interesting.

    The film covers the Hundred Days, from Napoleon's return from Elba to his defeat at Waterloo, with some attention given to the events preceding the final battle. Unfortunately, the Battles of Quatre Bras and Ligny just prior to Waterloo are given scant attention, and the Prussian role is minimized. The presence of Dutch, Belgian, Brunswick and King's German Legion troops in Wellington's force, as well as the role of the Prince of Orange, are ignored. Although Ney and Picton are major characters, the primary focus is on Napoleon and Wellington. In the battle itself, the opening attack on Hougomont (led by Napoleon's brother Jerome, who is not shown in the film) and Napoleon's basic tactics are covered fairly well. However, D'Erlon's main attack and the impromptu British cavalry attack is muddled and confused. The desperate defense of the La Haye Saint farmhouse is only briefly shown, which further muddies the depiction of the battle. On the other hand, the director spares no effort in depicting the massed French cavalry attacks and the British infantry squares that defied them. The final assault by the Imperial Guard and the arrival of the French flows rather quickly, without depicting the desperate actions by the Young Guard to hold off Blucher.

    There are very few films that cover an entire battle because it is actually a very difficult task. Waterloo does not cover every key event or participant, but it does convey the flavor of this famous battle. Viewers should appreciate the effort and forgive the omissions....more info

  • They don't make them like this anymore
    This film is a good old-fashioned spectacle. The only way you'll see battle scenes this big in current films is if they use computer duplication/creation for masses of people. Dino De Laurentis chose Sergei Bondarchuk to direct, based on his work in the massive Russian production of War and Peace. The production values in Waterloo are great and Bondarchuk does a good job, although he does indulge in a litte artsy surrealism at times. Rod Steiger as Napoleon is fun. Steiger has been described as everything from an acting genius to a hack. He runs the gamut here. At times he IS Napoleon, at other moments he seems like George Costanza having a bad day. Christopher Plummer as Wellington is charming, witty, and warm. In other words, nothing like the real Duke of Wellington, who was stern, haughty, but brilliant. This is not Plummer's fault, he does a great job. The script and direction simply created a very sympathetic Wellington. The other characters are underdeveloped. This is probably the film's main flaw. Marshal Ney does not come across well. A cameo by Orson Welles is nice, but adds little. The film is mostly accurate historically, though it does take shortcuts. Napoleon buffs will find plenty of mistakes, but they will have to love the stuff that is done correctly (most of the uniforms, music, etc.) Rather than nit-picking, this film should be enjoyed for what it is: a BIG battle spectacle....more info
  • They don't make them like this anymore
    This film is a good old-fashioned spectacle. The only way you'll see comparable battle scenes in contemporary films is when they use computer duplication/creation of masses of people. Dino DeLaurentis chose Sergei Bondarchuk to direct, based upon his work in the even more massive Russian production of War and Peace. Bondarchuk does a good job, and the production values are great. Segei sometimes indulges in some artsy surrealism, but this is kept to a minimum. Rod Steiger as Napoleon is fun. Steiger has been described as everything from a genius to a ..., and he runs the gamut here. At times he IS Napoleon, at other times he seems like George Costanza having a bad day. Christopher Plummer plays Wellington. He is charming, witty, and warm. In other words, nothing like the real Duke of Wellington, who was a stern, haughty and brilliant man. This is not Plummer's fault, he does a fine job. The script and direction simply created a very sympathetic Wellington. Other characters in the film are underdeveloped. There are too many of them, and this is one of the film's flaws. A cameo by Orson Welles adds little. Generally speaking, the film is historically accurate, although it does take some shortcuts. The Prussians(Germans)are hardly in it and come off as the bad guys, even though they saved Wellington's army. There are other minor errors that Napoleon buffs will spot (eg., the Lancers fighting the Scots Greys should not be Guard lancers) but that's nit-picking. This film should be enjoyed for what it is -- a BIG spectacle....more info
  • Waterloo Good and Bad
    I found this movie to be a very good recreation of what the massive colorful armies of the 1800's looked like but not what they fought like. The movie is undoutibly one of the best movies I have ever seen in respect to the sheer number of extras, but the actual battle scenes are a little week. If you have never really seen what an army of thousands of soldiers looks like then you should definately see this movie, but if you are looking for historical accuracy to 18th century combat, there are better films. To give an example, this movie shows the massive number of artillery Napolean had but, then has the shells from them explode in towering colums of smoke and fire which is impossible since artillery amunition was still iron balls up intill the middle 1800's. This was no dout done to give more flair to the film but it just looks corny to someone who knows the weapons of the time. However, I have said enouph, it is a visually spectacular film and I highly recomend it if you want to be visually thrilled but for historical accuracy do not take this film as gospel....more info
  • pretty good movie
    Well to go ascew of the amazon.com guidlines a bit i will have to give this movie at least one good review to be seen on this page. i thought it was a decent movie and pretty much historically accurate even down to the ball held in belgium the night napoleon entered belgium or at that time what was mostly dutch territory. Although as one reviewer sadi the prussians as depicted at the end of ligny were dressed in black uniforms. Prussian Hussars did were the black but most infantry battalions wore prussian blue unifors which is a very dark blue. Some otheer uniform mistakes were on Napoleon. He was depicted in his grey overcoat which he wore during battles but under that they had him wearing the unifor of a colonel in his imperial guard most probably the first regiment of foot when that was mostly his dress uniform for battle he usually wore a colonel of the chasseurs de cheval under his over coat. This is the green uniform jacket he is seen in in many paintings. Although it did neglect to depict quatre bras at all it showed the endings of ligny but after all it is titled Waterloo although i feel it should have depicted some portrayal of the two battles preceding Waterloo and the fact that one of Bonaparte's corp was being shuffled back and forth bettween these two battles never to actually ingage the enemy. perhaps if they had been commited then the following day at waterloo would have been a decisive victory for the emperor to add to all his other victories which by this time had exceeded the victories of Caesar. alexander the great and Hannibal combined. This movie is of good entertainment value and instills a few historical tidbits to viewers....more info
  • An interesting costume drama, the film misses the mark.
    "The history of any battle," said the Duke of Wellington, "is like the history of a ball." Disregarding the warning implicit in these words of the Iron Duke, a Russo-Italian consortium attempted to make a film of the Waterloo campaign, culminating with the great battle. The result is something of a spectacular flop, bankrolled in large part by the former Soviet Union and shot in Russia.

    I understand that the original director's version of this film was four and a half hours long. It has been cut back to two hours, and I strongly suspect that much of the footage that would have made the film more comprehensible, if not more historically accurate, is in a vault somewhere. And that is a shame.

    Sergei Bondarchuk, the Russian producer/director who did _War and Peace_, attempts the same Tolstoy-like approach to battle depiction that he used with Borodino in the latter film. It does not work.

    The vital battles of Ligny and Quatre Bras are barely mentioned, let alone depicted. And the characterizations in _Waterloo_ are simply dreadful. Napoleon, who unquestionably was in deteriorating health during the Waterloo campaign, is played as a sniveling, weepy paranoid by Rod Steiger. The Duke of Wellington, as played by the usually excellent Christopher Plummer, comes off as an enigmatic, smug aristocrat who delivers any number of the great commander's quotes in off-hand, isolated snippets, usually with a sardonic, and often misplaced, smile. A host of other players drift in and out, their parts eclipsed by the scale of this undertaking. The one performance worthy of note is that of British character actor Jack Hawkins who, having lost his voice to cancer, rather heroically took on this project and had his lines dubbed over. Ironically, Hawkins comes the closest to realizing his historical character, Picton, who was, "as rough and foul-mouthed a devil as ever lived," and who went into action in civilian attire only to be killed at the head of his men.

    The depiction of the battle, itself, is a frightful pastiche of scenes that must be incomprehensible to those without an intimate knowledge of the historical Waterloo. The epic and dramatic defenses of Hougomont and La Haye Sainte are reduced to squibs, and priceless human interest material is squandered. The Charge of Scots Greys, which _is_ depicted, is delivered at a full gallop across a Russian steppe, as are the later, French cavalry charges. Impressive, if totally inaccurate spectacle.

    The most unforgivable sin of _Waterloo_, however, is the utter disregard of the key part played by the allied troops in the Waterloo campaign and at the battle itself. The vital role of the Dutch, Belgian, and German troops that made up almost half of Wellington's army is flat-out ignored. They are not even present on the field visually. The Prussian Army is just barely represented (inaccurately, in black uniforms) as is its commander, the redoubtable Marshal Blucher. When we consider that but for the eleventh hour arrival of the Prussians Wellington would have been soundly beaten (a fact candidly admitted by the Duke, himself), the insignificant role of the Prussians in this film is incomprehensible (could lingering Russian animosity towards Prussian militarism be a factor here?). The brutal and pivotal struggle for the village of Plancenoit between the Prussians and the French is nowhere to be seen, and the dramatic meeting of Wellington and Blucher is disregarded.

    To catalogue the ommissions and errors in this film would take a book. So what makes this film worth watching? First, though the producers failed rather badly in their attempt to bring Waterloo to the screen, this is the only effort of its type and scale in the "saber and black powder" period of warfare before Turner Entertainment took on (and succeeded better with) _Gettysburg_. If one does have an understanding of the Waterloo campaign and battle, one can swallow hard and enjoy the spectacle of beautiful Napoleonic uniforms (probably the only historically accurate items in the film, the fate of the Prussians notwithstanding) and the visual pageant of masses of troops being maneuvered over something that sort of resembles the Waterloo topography while listening to the impressive Nino Rota soundtrack.

    This is not the worst historical movie ever made, but it is sadly deficient in many respects. God knows how it ever acquired an NEA endorsement, which is in itself a sad commentary on the quality of public education, but there it is.

    I have watched the film, and will again. But I will wince, repeatedly, while I do. END...more info