The battle of Waterloo decided the fate of Europe for a century. It needed a great film to do it justice. What we see of the battle is great. Obviously a great deal of expense, logistical expertise and technical genius went into recreating ten hours of bloody struggle. I assume Sergei Bondarchuk delivered what Dino De Laurentiis wanted.
So why does the battle only take up about 50 minutes of screen time? If it really was necessary to cut the running time by half, couldn't we lose Napoleon being sent into, then escaping from, exile? The ball scene, too, establishes relationships which have no further impact on the story apart from giving us a pair of doomed lovers with whom to empathise. (I don't think this counts as a spoiler because the poor lad might as well be named 'Dead-meat' and have done with it.)
As you can see my overwhelming emotion here is one of frustration. 'Waterloo' has tremendous spectacle and some stunning camerawork (the aerial shots of the Allied squares are breath-taking).
It has great performances. Rod Steiger plays a Napoleon who is bitterly aware his days of glory are past as he is disabled by illness and haunted by a sense of his own mortality. Christopher Plummer's Wellington is equally effective, knowing all too well that he simply cannot afford to fail and must keep his nerve until events swing in his favour. Dan O'Herlihy is also very impressive as Marshal Ney, the impetuous red-head who seems to have suffered some form of hysteria during the battle which cost the French their best cavalry.
'Waterloo' delivers some great elements (and some howlers, such as someof the worst faked 'horse riding' I've ever seen) but just fails to be a truly great film. If only the producer/distributors had kept their nerve and left us the full version, it could have equalled Ron Maxwell's 'Gettysburg'.
So why does the battle only take up about 50 minutes of screen time? If it really was necessary to cut the running time by half, couldn't we lose Napoleon being sent into, then escaping from, exile? The ball scene, too, establishes relationships which have no further impact on the story apart from giving us a pair of doomed lovers with whom to empathise. (I don't think this counts as a spoiler because the poor lad might as well be named 'Dead-meat' and have done with it.)
As you can see my overwhelming emotion here is one of frustration. 'Waterloo' has tremendous spectacle and some stunning camerawork (the aerial shots of the Allied squares are breath-taking).
It has great performances. Rod Steiger plays a Napoleon who is bitterly aware his days of glory are past as he is disabled by illness and haunted by a sense of his own mortality. Christopher Plummer's Wellington is equally effective, knowing all too well that he simply cannot afford to fail and must keep his nerve until events swing in his favour. Dan O'Herlihy is also very impressive as Marshal Ney, the impetuous red-head who seems to have suffered some form of hysteria during the battle which cost the French their best cavalry.
'Waterloo' delivers some great elements (and some howlers, such as someof the worst faked 'horse riding' I've ever seen) but just fails to be a truly great film. If only the producer/distributors had kept their nerve and left us the full version, it could have equalled Ron Maxwell's 'Gettysburg'.