You won't be disappointed!

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

The image of General Robert Lee keeps popping into my mind when I was watching Emperor Napoleon in Waterloo (1970).Both men were fighting for a lost cause. Both battles were the high watermark of the two tragic characters.Both Lee and Napoleon were occupying the low area of the battleground, and were determined to wipe out their rivals on the high ground. Both failed.Napoleon didn't get one third of his force under Grouchy, which he needs badly to push Wellington off balance. Lee didn't get the intelligence of General Meade's Army in time, without the help from his cavalry commander, General Stuart.One thing is for sure, the battle scenes in Waterloo (1970) are much more magnificent than those in Gettysburg (1993).

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

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.

Sergey Bondarchuk knew how to make epic war films - his War And Peace is a real masterpiece of grand scale battle scenes, deep emotional ups and downs, real psychologies, decent camera work and naked nerve tension. Here, he repeated his winning formula, but in some ways, he failed to make it a perfect war movie. Why did it happen? Since I am not a movie critic, but merely a movie fan, I can draw my conclusions on several bases - 1. The movie is too long at times and has a bad tendency to drag, which makes it a bit painful to endure. 2. There are obvious goofs and errors in editing, very clear and evident, which rob us of bigger enjoyment. 3. Some parts are performed very shallow and not so deeply convincing. Yeah, even the main characters do suffer some over-play syndrome. 4. The ideas are repeated shamelessly from War And Peace - it is very clear and obvious. All of that add to a lesser rating of a somewhat faulty but still good movie