Waterloo: A Movie Review

Here is a REAL Napoleon movie!

 My New Book—Napoleon: The Revolutionary Hero—is OUT NOW!!! Check it out on Amazon:

If you were disappointed with Ridley Scott’s new Napoleon movie, prepare for something much better: 1970’s Waterloo. 

Directed by Sergei Bondarchuk, the movie stars Hollywood heavyweight Rod Steiger in the larger-than-life role of Napoleon Bonaparte.

A great movie

Rod Steiger’s acting is absolutely magnetic! From his very first words, you get sucked into his performance. Even his facial expressions—the head nods, the lip movements, the eyebrows—all breathe vitality and charisma. He perfectly captures Napoleon’s energy, spirit, ambition, attractiveness, power, strength, stoic personality, passion and patriotic love for France. 

Costume and set designs are magnificent. The Battle of Waterloo is accurately played out on the big screen, with extremely careful attention to detail. Beautiful bright colors please the eyes: patriotic palettes of red, white, and blue—all juxtaposed against green grass and grayish puffs of heavy cannon smoke. 

The uniforms all look excellent, complete with realistic-looking muskets and helmets. Tactical formations are recreated with an almost photographic accuracy. All the fighting looks very real, because they used real-life human actors as extras. 

Excellent cinematography tells Napoleon’s story using a creative variety of camera tricks. Long shots set up the monumental scenes. Dramatic camerawork—the close-ups, zoom shots, and expressive angles—all give us a brilliant glimpse into the mind of Napoleon himself. 

This cinematic masterpiece gives us Napoleon as we’ve never seen him before. It depicts his downfall in excruciating detail—and quite literally so during the “stomach ulcer” scenes. We see Napoleon at his lowest. He cries, with tears streaming down the man’s face. He sweats bullets. He is a man on the cusp of despair, even as he continues the heroic struggle to its bitter end. Yet even in his final defeat, the audience is always keenly aware of the Frenchman’s immortal greatness. 

Plot

The movie begins with Napoleon’s abdication from the throne in April 1814. The French Emperor angrily refuses to surrender to the Allies, but his own ministers pressure him into signing the Treaty of Fontainebleau. Crying as he kisses France’s flag for the last time, Napoleon gives an impassioned farewell to the French Army, affectionally calling them “my children.” 

But in February of 1815, Napoleon makes a daring escape from his exile on Elba. When he arrives in Paris, King Louis XVIII summons the Fifth Regiment to confront him. In a highly dramatic moment, Bonaparte wins them over by ordering his own Imperial Guard (about 1,000 men) to lay down their arms. Vive l’Empereur! The troops cry out. 

Napoleon confronts the Coalition at Waterloo in June. It is a long, drawn out battle. It appears Napoleon wins, but fate takes a harsh turn. The Prussians under General Blücher arrive. Napoleon’s Imperial Guard is pushed back, forcing the 30,000 troops of the French Army into a humiliating retreat. Drenched from the rain, an emotionally devastated Napoleon retreats by carriage back to Paris. 

Criticisms

The movie drags a lot, especially in the second half. Too much detail is given to the battle’s tactics, rather than the social or political context surrounding the fight. 

There’s almost no discussion of the ideological clash between republicanism and monarchism, apart from a short but well-done scene where Napoleon describes his coronation. “I found the crown in the gutter, and picked it up,” Steiger roars. “It was the people, the people, who put it on my head!” 

This scene is done much better than Phoenix’s lifeless recitation of those same lines, which completely failed to express Napoleon’s commitment to popular sovereignty. But even in Waterloo, Napoleon’s balcony speech is shot in a way that is reminiscent of Mussolini, a biased portrayal that “takes the side” of the British. 

Ridley Scott

Compared to Ridley Scott’s movie, Waterloo is a much more faithful adaptation of Napoleon’s life story. Steiger’s larger-than-life performance as the hot-blooded Corsican is far superior to Phoenix’s fatigued, passionless parody of a performance. 

The battle scenes are much more carefully done in Waterloo, although whether this is a good thing should not be taken for granted. Tactics are not interesting to everyone, and all the details can feel meticulous and overwhelming, especially to non-experts. 

Waterloo’s Wellington is a more compelling character than the one found in the Ridley Scott version. Here, the Duke is established as a worthy enemy. He is the yin to Napoleon’s yang. Whereas in Scott’s film, the Duke only appears at the end to “finish off” Napoleon; the actor who portrays him is old and ugly. The actor who plays the Duke in Waterloo, by contrast, is young, handsome, and poised; he looks and sounds like a British aristocratic gentleman. 

Unlike Ridley Scott’s movie, which is shamelessly pro-British, Waterloo takes a much more objective and unbiased approach. Neither Napoleon nor Wellington are cast in terms of “good” or “evil.” Both men are depicted as very capable, charismatic leaders who represent their respective nations. Vivid scenes of countless dead bodies scattered across the battlefield provide a much more impactful anti-war message than Ridley Scott’s lazy kill counts.

But Ridley Scott’s movie does have one advantage over Waterloo: it is a fuller interpretation of Napoleon’s life, rather than the tedious observation of a single battle.