A historical drama. A legendary picture and classic of world cinema, staged by the USA, Great Britain, Italy and the USSR, directed by the Soviet genius Sergei Bondarchuk, which the author of this review was able to watch entirely only now, on the eve of watching the painting "Napoleon" by Ridley Scott (already mentally preparing for the hat and cranberries), but we will not yet about sad things. For now, let's go back to those not too distant times, when the author of this review was young, stupid and did not know life as such, and still worked in the Soyuz store chain, and very often saw a DVD with this painting, but still did not dare to look at it (although he already loved historical paintings very much). Now he thinks that he shouldn't have appreciated this picture back then. But, as they say, "better late than never", therefore, here is a brief opinion for you - The best film adaptation of the legendary battle. There were both advantages in the picture (which are obvious, but they are worth talking about) and disadvantages (although they spoil the viewing experience, but they are worth mentioning). And this should end this introduction and proceed to the analysis.
So, the advantages: 1. The Battle of Waterloo - the painting is called "Waterloo", and this battle occupies a large part of it. The viewer will be shown a small backstory and will be shown in colors and emotionally the battle itself, which became the end of the great Napoleon's career, both military and political. The hundred days are over. Moreover, the creators did not err against the story, and showed the battle itself in sufficient detail. After "War and Peace", it was Sergei Bondarchuk who could make such a large-scale battle movie, which even now causes sincere admiration and respect for such high-quality work done. The maneuvers of the troops, the culminating moments of the battle, its main characters are perfectly shown, while both sides are considered in detail. No one else is in the cinema (and probably never again) He will not be able to show this battle like Sergei Bondarchuk did here. My respects to the masters of the past.
2. Costumes and decorations - here again it is worth praising, but this time to the costumers and those specialists who selected the area for filming and buildings, because it all looks so authentic that the viewer is literally transported to that time and as if he were in the center of those historical events. And the extras are here, just a sea. At least several hundred people are involved in the battle itself, and if we take panoramic shots, there are even more of them there. And all of them can be distinguished (although they did not show the Dutch army that fought alongside the British forces of the Duke of Wellington).
3. The atmosphere - costumes, scenery, magnificent music by the Italian composer Nino Rotta ("The Godfather"), acting by world-famous celebrities, well-written characters - all this perfectly immerses the viewer in that turbulent era. You look at the picture without stopping. It's worth a lot (especially now, in the age of the Second Evil Corporation).
4. Acting works - Christopher Plummer, Orson Welles, Jack Hawkins, Sergo Zakariadze, Evgeny Samoilov, Vladimir Druzhnikov, Oleg Vidov and so on. If we list all of them, and also together with the filmographies, then the review will turn out to be very big. Each of these actors is a value in itself, but here they came together in one picture, so you don't have to worry about acting.
So, the disadvantages: 1. Rod Steiger in the role of Napoleon - despite all the emotionality and charisma of the actor (and his skill in the profession), but he is not suitable for this role. Forgive the author of this review, but a slightly overweight Family does not resemble Napoleon of that time. Look at the portraits, read the memoirs of contemporaries of those events. Well, he doesn't look like anything. It is immediately obvious that this is an actor playing Napoleon.
2. Prolonged and unnecessary scenes - they could be shortened (the first thirty minutes) and leave the timing for the battle. Or show, for example, at least briefly the Battle of Carte Bras (in which Napoleon was able to push Wellington's army back to Waterloo, but not defeat it) and the Battle of Ligny (in which Napoleon managed to defeat the Prussian army of Field Marshal Blucher, but which managed to escape from him, which he will face already at Waterloo). These battles are only mentioned, although in the context of Waterloo they are extremely important.
3. The behavior of the Duke of Wellington is a pompous aristocrat, openly and without hesitation blames the soldiers' "rabble" for their origin. The author of this review should generally say that the real Duke of Wellington would never have dared to do such a thing, especially in this situation and knowing that his army consists of a third of recruits and Dutch allies and knowing full well about the strength and discipline of Napoleon's army? In general, either Christopher Plummer himself or director Sergei Bondarchuk contributed their "vision", and this did not benefit the picture.
Napoleon is also "afraid" of Wellington in the picture (which was complete nonsense, since they did not meet in battle until 1815), and sees Austria as the main enemy (which is ridiculous, because Russia and England represented a threat to him then, because the first has the best army in Europe, and the second - the world's best fleet).
Nevertheless, despite enormous efforts and a very large budget at that time (twenty-five million francs in prices of the late sixties), the picture failed miserably at the box office. I don't know for what reason. For the author of this review, people are very strange creatures. Sometimes he doesn't understand them. Well, what happened happened. And although the picture did not have commercial success, but after a while it gained cult status and now it deserves to be in the piggy bank of the "Classics of World Cinema".
A score of 9 out of 10 and a recommendation to watch!
So, the advantages: 1. The Battle of Waterloo - the painting is called "Waterloo", and this battle occupies a large part of it. The viewer will be shown a small backstory and will be shown in colors and emotionally the battle itself, which became the end of the great Napoleon's career, both military and political. The hundred days are over. Moreover, the creators did not err against the story, and showed the battle itself in sufficient detail. After "War and Peace", it was Sergei Bondarchuk who could make such a large-scale battle movie, which even now causes sincere admiration and respect for such high-quality work done. The maneuvers of the troops, the culminating moments of the battle, its main characters are perfectly shown, while both sides are considered in detail. No one else is in the cinema (and probably never again) He will not be able to show this battle like Sergei Bondarchuk did here. My respects to the masters of the past.
2. Costumes and decorations - here again it is worth praising, but this time to the costumers and those specialists who selected the area for filming and buildings, because it all looks so authentic that the viewer is literally transported to that time and as if he were in the center of those historical events. And the extras are here, just a sea. At least several hundred people are involved in the battle itself, and if we take panoramic shots, there are even more of them there. And all of them can be distinguished (although they did not show the Dutch army that fought alongside the British forces of the Duke of Wellington).
3. The atmosphere - costumes, scenery, magnificent music by the Italian composer Nino Rotta ("The Godfather"), acting by world-famous celebrities, well-written characters - all this perfectly immerses the viewer in that turbulent era. You look at the picture without stopping. It's worth a lot (especially now, in the age of the Second Evil Corporation).
4. Acting works - Christopher Plummer, Orson Welles, Jack Hawkins, Sergo Zakariadze, Evgeny Samoilov, Vladimir Druzhnikov, Oleg Vidov and so on. If we list all of them, and also together with the filmographies, then the review will turn out to be very big. Each of these actors is a value in itself, but here they came together in one picture, so you don't have to worry about acting.
So, the disadvantages: 1. Rod Steiger in the role of Napoleon - despite all the emotionality and charisma of the actor (and his skill in the profession), but he is not suitable for this role. Forgive the author of this review, but a slightly overweight Family does not resemble Napoleon of that time. Look at the portraits, read the memoirs of contemporaries of those events. Well, he doesn't look like anything. It is immediately obvious that this is an actor playing Napoleon.
2. Prolonged and unnecessary scenes - they could be shortened (the first thirty minutes) and leave the timing for the battle. Or show, for example, at least briefly the Battle of Carte Bras (in which Napoleon was able to push Wellington's army back to Waterloo, but not defeat it) and the Battle of Ligny (in which Napoleon managed to defeat the Prussian army of Field Marshal Blucher, but which managed to escape from him, which he will face already at Waterloo). These battles are only mentioned, although in the context of Waterloo they are extremely important.
3. The behavior of the Duke of Wellington is a pompous aristocrat, openly and without hesitation blames the soldiers' "rabble" for their origin. The author of this review should generally say that the real Duke of Wellington would never have dared to do such a thing, especially in this situation and knowing that his army consists of a third of recruits and Dutch allies and knowing full well about the strength and discipline of Napoleon's army? In general, either Christopher Plummer himself or director Sergei Bondarchuk contributed their "vision", and this did not benefit the picture.
Napoleon is also "afraid" of Wellington in the picture (which was complete nonsense, since they did not meet in battle until 1815), and sees Austria as the main enemy (which is ridiculous, because Russia and England represented a threat to him then, because the first has the best army in Europe, and the second - the world's best fleet).
Nevertheless, despite enormous efforts and a very large budget at that time (twenty-five million francs in prices of the late sixties), the picture failed miserably at the box office. I don't know for what reason. For the author of this review, people are very strange creatures. Sometimes he doesn't understand them. Well, what happened happened. And although the picture did not have commercial success, but after a while it gained cult status and now it deserves to be in the piggy bank of the "Classics of World Cinema".
A score of 9 out of 10 and a recommendation to watch!