Movie Review: “Waterloo” (1970)

Possibly the worst movie poster in history.
Poster for “Waterloo”

In the days before CGI, epic war films were massive and costly undertakings. You wanted a shot of 10,000 guys marching across a field in full battle uniform? Well, you had to get them! You couldn’t just have Johnny the Computer Whiz draw them in after the fact.

As in actual warfare, there are innumerable logistical difficulties with re-creating these battles. You’ve got to have men in position, knowing how to use their equipment, and then film them as they maneuver in the field.

All that’s quite hard enough.  But when you are making a film for wide release, you have to have all that plus a story the audience can follow, structured so as to play out in a coherent and satisfying way over the course of two hours.

It’s this last bit that’s really tricky, because while history offers plenty of incredible and compelling stories, they rarely fit into neat three-act schemes that can be concisely portrayed in a couple of hours.

Waterloo starts out well, showing Napoleon’s abdication to Elba in 1814 and subsequent return in 1815.  Especially memorable is the moment when the Emperor walks alone to face his former soldiers, now under orders to kill him, and through sheer bravery and charisma wins them back over to his side. This is one part of the Napoleonic legend that seems made for the movies, and it certainly is a high point of the film.

After that, however, problems arise in this dramatization of the final chapter of Bonaparte’s career.  There are unnecessary voice-overs in which Napoleon (Rod Steiger) thinks in exposition for the benefit of the audience.  Many lines of dialogue uttered by officers on both sides seem like they were lifted from history books and changed to the present tense.

An inordinate amount of time is spent on Wellington’s staff at the Ball hosted by the Duchess of Richmond.   This scene also includes the introduction of a totally fictional and pointless love story that goes nowhere.  The only upside is the chemistry between Wellington (Christopher Plummer) and the Duchess (Virginia McKenna).

Wellington and the Duchess
“Old Boney’s advancing on Quatre-Bras… IF you know what I mean.”

The film dwells on things like this, Napoleon’s illness, and some peculiar episode involving a British soldier stealing a pig, and yet glosses over incidents like the Battles of Quatre-Bras and Ligny with a couple lines of dialogue.

It’s not that the film is inaccurate–indeed, they seem to have gone to some lengths to describe things in historically correct fashion. (Except for the romance and a reminiscence about Major-General Ponsonby’s father) The problem is that the film depicts these events in a strange and sometimes incoherent manner.

The biggest technical flaw is probably the mud.  The battle was famously delayed by wet ground after a rainy night, and indeed the film states this correctly. Where it falls down is the fact that the ground we see on screen is demonstrably dry, as evidenced by the huge clouds of dust kicked up by the columns of cavalry and infantry.

The end result is the comical visual of a frustrated Napoleon sinking in an obviously artificial mud puddle while all around him is a vast expanse of dry land. The fundamental historical fact is correctly depicted, but not in a dramatically effective way.

There are lots of issues like this.  After Marshal Ney’s ill-fated cavalry charge against the famous infantry squares, Napoleon rushes back to the field from his sickbed, crying, “What is he doing?  Everyone knows not to make a cavalry charge without infantry support!”

While completely factually accurate, this seems unlikely to be what Napoleon actually said at the time. It comes across as a line delivered for the benefit of audience members who aren’t familiar with the battle of Waterloo.

And this is the other difficult thing about making historical movies: balancing the history lesson aspect with the need to depict real characters, as opposed to instructional puppets designed to illustrate a historical lecture.

Chances are, if someone is watching the movie Waterloo, they are already a Napoleonic history fan. Sure, there might be the occasional viewer who is an ardent follower of Rod Steiger or Christopher Plummer, but if I were overseeing the production, I would make the executive decision that any viewer who doesn’t already know how the battle went is just going to have to piece it together as best they can–no reason the script should go out of its way to help them out.

Waterloo_1970_06Despite all of that, the movie isn’t horrible.  As an instructional device, it is not bad, and there is something inherently impressive about seeing huge lines of soldiers and horses advancing across a smoky field.  It gives you some vague hint of what it might have felt like to be in the battle.

It’s just that the film lacks a dramatic narrative.  Napoleon and Wellington don’t “come alive”; they just repeat their famous quotes and stoically watch the battle.  Because of this, it feels more like a recording of an elaborate re-enactment rather than a truly epic historical drama.


  1. I was reading your stellar review of ‘Napoleon’ and noticed a link to this film, so just had to take a peak.
    It was a pity about Ligny and Quatre Bra, but I suppose they couldn’t fit it all in. Also that curious scene with the Young, Blonde, Anguished, soldiers breaking the square and making a 20th century plea for peace and understanding…… seriously? These were 19th century armies, trained hard, lived hard and did indeed died hard, peace and understanding at the height of battle was not in the lexicon.
    You were quite right about the lack of depth. Steiger did try, but most of the film is in the area of a very, very good docu-drama (A few flaws ….as you point out with Ponsonby’s father- the French didn’t have lancers until 1807)

    Fun fact: As the film company was able to hire the Red Army there was no problem with extras. As the Red Army still had cavalry units for display, lots of horsed extras were available. Now when it came to shooting the scenes of cavalry charges at squares there was some inter- regimental rivalry and the cavalry extras tended to over-act, and a couple of times the squares of extras actually broke for fear of of being hit by galloping horses. This has been picked up in a few discussions on that era’s cavalry vs untrained or inexperienced squares.

    1. I think I might need to rewatch “Waterloo” having seen the new movie. It’s pretty impressive how much better of a job the 1970 film did depicting the battle vs. the modern one. I may revise some of my opinions of the 1970s film to be more positive.

      Thanks for reading this old post!

      1. One of my favourites. Like ‘Tora! Tora! Tora!’ which despite later American efforts has not been surpassed. The latest ‘Midway’ has the sinking of the Yorktown as one throw-away line- you don’t even see it happen (leastways not on any cut I’ve seen).

        Sorry drifted off topic there. “Waterloo” was spectacular for the sheer numbers involved, giving the feel of a battle. True, the struggles around Hougoumont were a few shots and events at La Haye Sainte were left out. But there again the film might have had to run to 6 hours, so no Dutch / Belgian forces either. Sorry now I’m nerding out on the battle…I’ll stop now.

What's your stake in this, cowboy?