I had to come back here to clean the horrible new one from my mind. I like the director and Joaquin Phoenix both. They didn't have to screw it up but they certainly did.
I am now addicted to this Movie! After the BITTER disappointment of the Movie "NAPOLEON" in theaters today, I can now get my fix from this great Film!! Napoleon, in all his genius and charisma was truly illustrated in this movie!! Well done, and Thank You for Sharing!
Along with Chief Bill Gillespie in 'The Heat Of The Night', this was probably Rod Steiger's best performance. Nobody before or since played Napoleon as convincing as he did. He was one great actor R.I.P.
This movie was exquisite in every regard. The detail, and plot of the story pulls you in. The characters are believable and the viewer can invest in them an understanding which makes them likable. The acting is true to the historical figures. Christopher Plummer does a marvelous job as Wellington and Rod Steiger is a marvelous Napoleon. The supporting actors around Steiger add to the production. Sergo Zakariadze is the perfect Marshal Blucher. It is a shame that they don’t make movies like this anymore.
Some of the best battle sequences ever filmed. The charge of the Scot’s Greys is staggering. As is the aerials of the British Squares being cut up. Plumbers Wellington is beautifully understated. Bluchers “no prisoners” leaves me chilled.
Napoleon(2023) was absolutely terrible, very inaccurate especially during Waterloo. It makes Napoleon look like a weak man that cries all the time. Not to mention that most of the battles shown in the movie were the ones he lost. Never again should an Englishman direct a movie about a Frenchman.
This movie is a good example of how movie used to be made! This particular movie about Napoleon is a true classic. Not like the Napoleon movie that just came out in the theaters. That one is more just the visual effects, not true to how the battles actually happened and most based on Napoleon’s love life. This Napoleon movie made back in 1970 is a true classic in the sense that it stays true to actually what happened at the battles, the strategy, the realism of it all.
The advance of the Scot’s greys was magnificent. But undisciplined. Exquisitely filmed here. Right out of the painting. They made it to the guns as did the Light Brigade in Crimea. Failed to make it back in good order, as did that later Brigade.
@@spikespa5208Im sure some smaller country would be willing to field a few thousand troops if they got paid. Making all the uniforms and acquiring all the horses, prop muskets, etc. was also a very time consuming and expensive task I'd imagine
Excellent movie saw this years ago for me Steiger was made for this part maybe his best great actor great cast too the films battle scenes were the best ive seen a true epic.
Another sound effect they couldn’t deliver - the sound of a battlefield after it was over. Wounded moaning. Horses screaming. Horses do not lay wounded with any dignity. Knackers guns as they walked the field killing the horses.
Awesome visual of Napoleonic warfare with dynamic cinematography and a plethora of actors performing at Oscar level. Steiger and Plummer play their parts perfectly! This should have been rereleased, instead of Scott’s putrid film.
Rod Stieger was perfect potraying Napoleon in Waterloo and Christopher Plummer was perfect for the role of Wellington and the same actors that portrayed Blucther and Marshall Ney and Grouchy There was no other actors close to potray both of these miliary leaders.🇫🇷🇬🇧
At the battle's conclusion, Cambronne was commanding the last carré of the Old Guard when General Colville called on him to surrender. Cambronne replied: "La garde meurt mais ne se rend pas !" ("The Guard dies but does not surrender!"). These words were often repeated and put on the base of a statue of Cambronne in Nantes after his death. Vive L'Empereur!
The bravest of the brave. (Which is also a nickname given to Marshall Ney. His generalship was sometimes very good, sometimes not very good, but his courage was never in question!)
When filming Napoleon's abdication speech, producer Dino De Laurentiis ordered the cameraman not to load a new reel of film to save costs. The film ran out before Rod Steiger had finished delivering this highly emotional speech. The actor was not pleased. This historical war epic film was, at the time it was made, one of the most expensive pictures ever made. Soldiers of the Red Army were used as extras to portray the British army. They panicked repeatedly and scattered during the filming of some of the cavalry charges. Attempts to reassure them by marking the closest approach of the horses with white tape similarly failed, and the scene was cut. General Sir Thomas Picton (Jack Hawkins) is correctly shown dressed in a civilian coat and a top hat. He had traveled in haste to reach the army and had arrived ahead of most of his luggage - including his uniforms. It was joked at the time that the director was in charge of the seventh-largest army in the world. Actor Terence Alexander, who played Lord Uxbridge, has said that the Russian intelligence organization the KGB was monitoring non-Russian cast members throughout the production. This was the only English-language film directed by Sergey Bondarchuk. When Louis XVIII first appears on screen, he is reading "Le Moniteur Universel", the leading French newspaper from the time of the Revolution. It was founded in 1789 and ceased publication in 1868. In 1799 Napoleon seized control of the paper, which became the state propaganda organ of Imperial France. The paper still exists in a different form, under a different title, as the official state publication of the French Republic. When the British offered to surrender to the Old Guard, Vicomte De Cambronne supposedly said, "The Old Guard dies and does not surrender." A rumor was started that after British General Colville insisted they surrender Cambronne replied "Merde". However, it is widely understood that Cambronne was captured before he could respond. Cambronne himself denies both quotes, which seems to point to his capture before a response. "The Old Guard dies and does not surrender" was later found to be most likely said by General Claude-Etienne Michel. The Soviet army planted 5000 trees as well as crops of barley, rye, and wildflowers. They also installed six miles of underground piping to facilitate the creation of mud. Jack Hawkins's larynx had been surgically removed four years earlier due to cancer. All of his lines are dubbed by another actor. John Savident was badly injured when he fell off his horse during filming. Rod Steiger and Christopher Plummer didn't have a scene together in this film. A personal favorite of Peter Jackson. Before the charge of the Union Brigade, Ponsonby recounts the story of his father's death who he alleges was killed by the French. "His horse got bogged in a plowed field and the brute just gave up. Seven damn lancers had him like a tiger in a pit. (...) bad luck, he had 400 better horses in his stables at Hatton." That tale is pure fiction included only to foreshadow Ponsonby's impending death scene which is depicted in the same manner. In reality, Ponsonby's father, William Ponsonby, 1st Baron Ponsonby, was not killed by the French. He died in Seymour Street, London, on November 5, 1806, and was buried in Ireland. Ponsonby himself was given the chance to surrender at Waterloo by the French lancers who had recognized his rank and worth as a prisoner. However, Ponsonby failed to understand them, and when a group of his own Union Brigade spotted him and rode to his rescue, the French lancers had no option but to kill him. The smoke from the battlefield kept getting inside Jack Hawkins' stoma. Though third billed in the film's credits and on movie posters and promo materials, actor Orson Welles only appears in the picture very briefly, in a pre-credits sequence. Christopher Plummer would later reprise his role as the Duke of Wellington in The Duke of Wellington (1974). Filming took place over more than six months in 1969, the 200th anniversary of Napoleon's birth. Eagle in a Cage (1972) and The Adventures of Gerard (1970), two other films about Napoleon, were made in the same year. All three were box-office failures. Russian director Sergey Bondarchuk was hired based on the strength of his four Russian "War and Peace" epic pictures he had directed during the mid-1960s but Bondarchuk had not directed the English language War and Peace (1956) movie. Sixteen days of the production shoot were lost with most of the delays due to inclement weather. Footage of the film's depiction of the Battle of Waterloo would later be used in The Man Who Saw Tomorrow (1981), which was presented and narrated by Orson Welles (King Louis XVIII). Rod Steiger and Christopher Plummer would later appear in Jesus of Nazareth (1977). Principal photography took about 28 weeks. Rod Steiger's marriage to Claire Bloom ended after she left him for the man he entrusted to look after her while he was away making this film. Opening credits: Napoleon Bonaparte, inspiring his people with his military and political genius and his revolutionary fervor, became, within a few brief years, Emperor of the French and master of all Europe. In 1812, after 15 years of victory, Napoleon met with disaster in the Russian Campaign. By 1813, defeated by the combined forces of Austria, Russia, Prussia, and England at Leipzig, Napoleon was driven to the very gates of Paris - there to await his destiny.
Thank you for the upload can't stop watching these amazing performances and Wellington used a Roman legion defence formation the French's cavalry stood no chance. Was expecting a sack formation then would have been all over for the French's cavalry. Regardless superb performance all too many great actors performing to just mention one. I would not have turn my back to my troops will march right along their sides.
Despite some historical shortcuts, the film Waterloo by Sergei Bondartchouk in 1970 is indeed much closer to historical reality than the film Napoleon by Ridley Scott which accumulates the fantasies and gross historical errors ( Napoleon had the Pyramids shot, we do not see the military interest especially since the battle took place more than 20 km from the pyramids and that it was baptized "Battle of the Pyramids" by Napoleon only for prestigious propaganda purposes or Napoleon attending the execution of Queen Marie Antoinette then that at the same time he was fighting at the siege of Toulon against the English or Blue, white, red flags during the execution of Marie Antoinette in 1793 while this French national flag will be adopted until February 15, 1794?!!).Waterloo is part of the fake sequel to the monumental War and Peace directed in 1966 by the same Soviet director Bondartchouk who deals with the period of Austerlitz retired from Russia remarkably reconstituted .These two films are among the best films devoted to the life of Napoleon with the Napoleon of Abel Gance in 1929 which deals with the youth of Napoleon under the French revolution and a film of 1989 more unknown "The hostage of Europe" dealing with the life of Napoleon prisoner in Saint Helena and his last moments of the Polish director Jerzy ;The fundamental mistake is to deal with the incredible life of Napoleon Bonaparte in one film so his life would require several films on their own and that the most successful films are those that deal with a particular period of Napoleon’s life.Nevertheless, there are still several periods of Napoleon’s life that have not been treated in cinema and remain even mysterious in the life of Napoleon.So, no film about the pivotal days after the Battle of Waterloo, Contrary to popular belief it was not the military defeat of Waterloo that caused the fall of Napoleon but a real parliamentary coup on June 22, 1815 in Paris where French parliamentarians hostile to Napoleon elected in the April parliamentary elections 1815 that Napoleon had summoned after his return from exile from the island of"Elbe, allied themselves against Napoleon in an improbable and unexpected way despite their oppositions between the liberals, Republicans and royalists to withdraw its powers although the constitution does not allow it and historians wonder why Napoleon, who had arrested parliamentarians when he took power in 1799, refused this time-to have the hostile parliamentarians arrested by the army that was loyal to him and despite the advice of his brother Lucien whose council he had already refused to suspend the newly elected assemblies before his departure on campaign in June 1815. The French army with its subordinate officers and officers loyal to the emperor (unlike the majority of marshals) a state in the state initially refused to submit to King Louis XVIII restored by the enemy powers of France, so that the war continued in fortresses in France until November 1815 after the Battle of Waterloo on 18 June 1815. Marshal Davout, Minister of War and Governor of Paris, managed to repel the Prussian army of Blücher on 1 July 1815 at Rocquencourt before being persuaded by Talleyrand and Fouché to hand over his military powers to a provisional government in charge of restore King Louis XVIII. Indeed, the defeated French army at Waterloo was not destroyed and Grouchy managed to bring it back to France where Davout, Minister of War, could raise 800,000 men and with Lucien Bonaparte, Minister Lazare Carnot and General Lamarque urged Napoleon to retake command of the army in order to wage a defensive war of attrition within the country’s fortresses against enemy armies invading France as did King Louix XIV at the beginning of the 18th century century with the iron belt of Vauban during the war of succession of Spain.But Napoleon preferred to abdicate on 22 June 1815, which still questions historians; -Weariness of power or awareness of diminishing age-related strengths and/or illness already weakening at Waterloo. -Will to avoid civil war and destruction on French territory after many years of war (the war of succession of Spain under Louis XIV lasted 13 years from 1701 to 1714). -Concern to leave power by submitting to the wishes of the majority of French parliamentarians in order to leave the image of a liberal and democratic head of state to posterity. The new prime minister of King Louis XVIII, the Duke of Richelieu used diplomacy with the French military and managed to convince those who resisted in the fortresses not to capitulate to the enemy armies but to return them to King Louis XVIII who became the legitimate head of state of the country.
If I recall correctly, one of the Rothchild brothers pulled a fast one on the british finacial sector ar this time. They had a rider two days or so ahead anounce that england lost the battle of waterloo hence the war. All the bonds at the time plummeted in price were talking 8 cents to the 100 in discount. Well, that brother bought up everything in sight that they could and in two days time the news came that england won the battle and war which sent those bonds skyrocketing in value. That brother scooped up all the financial intruments, hence the banking sector and well the rest is history. Talk about a fast one. Were talking trillions in todays money. A complete grab of power. That family has been on top ever since. Facts.
When Napoleon gives his General an entire army and orders him to stay between the Prussians and the British, not allowing them to join forces. Instead, this man leisurely follows the Prussians not only allowing them to save an already beaten Wellington, but also resulting in an entire French army not participating in the battle. That’s the man who actually defeated Napoleon
Even so Napoleon could never win the broader war. There would just be another waterloo and another until he was beaten which would probably be sooner rather than later.
I kindof doubt it - extras must be paid, choreographing a huge number of people would take much time also, and studios are probably all about budget and scheduling @@georgecoventry8441
An interesting piece of history and the disastrous effects of the cult of personality and the insanity that leads to tens of thousands of deaths. This is reflective of current conditions in the world and the outcome of man dominating man to his harm and the shocking end to those who are trapped into following a mad man to their ruination. And yet time and again people do not learn the lessons of history.
The Napoleonic wars were for the most part instigated by the UK and other European countries, not Napoleon. His Napoleonic code and liberation of Jewish people along with other watered-down revolutionary ideals were far in advance of the rest of the continent. A real cause for condeming Napoleon would be his reinstitution of slavery and attempted invasion of Haiti, which has never made it into the popular English-language history because the British are guilty of those as well on both counts.
Napoleon was no madman. He was simply a very talented and ambitious officer who rose rapidly due to his excellence in leading soldiers to victory. All the royal houses in Europe (which was every other European nation except the French after 1789) were determined to crush the French Revolution and the French governments that followed it, because they were seen as a dire threat to traditional hereditary monarchies everywhere. Thus, a continual series of wars between France and the other European powers was inevitable after the French Revolution. It started happening some time before Napoleon was ever heard of, and it would have kept happening whether or not he'd ever been heard of. But, he just happened to be a military genius, he was there at exactly the right time, and so he was incredibly successful in defeating those other nations on the field of battle. Most of Napoleon's wars were declared ON France by the other powers...not by France on THEM. Napoleon then fought those other powers and he usually beat them. That's why they hated him so much. Not because he was "mad", but simply because he was very, very good at defeating them. If he'd been born an Englishman and had had a similarly spectacular career leading British soldiers in battle, he'd be celebrated in our English-speaking culture as the greatest hero of his age. By the way, another reason they hated him was that he was not born "of royal blood" from a traditional line of monarchs. Therefore, they felt he was of the wrong class, illegitimate for such a position, and had no right to rule as "Emperor of France". As Wellington (brilliantly played by Christopher Plummer) ironically said in the film, "He is not a gentleman." That meant he had no right to be in a "gentleman's" position in society, such as being a member of the House of Lords or the crowned head of a nation. He was too "low class" for that. But Wellington was a smart man, and he knew perfectly well that Napoleon's talents as a military commander were without question, thus "his hat is worth 50,000 men on the field of battle". Wellington was part of that "gentleman's" club that Napoleon hadn't been born into, but he was also intelligent enough to see beyond it to the realities of the situation. Napoleon earned every success he achieved, and he got those successes through sheer excellence, talent, determination, and courage. (One could say the same of Wellington, by the way. They were both exceptional generals.)
So much horror. But thanks to the Prussians , they saved the coalition and ended Napoleon’s quest to rule Europe. They never forgot the horror from Austerlitz.
the only thing missing from this film is the depiction of the carnage cannonballs and rifles caused to mass formations that ridley scott's napoleon showed vividly. beautifully arrayed troops, in colorful uniforms dying heroically ... far beyond the case ...
If anything, I like how Napoleon's manner of dress was so much more plain as compared to his Marshals (at least how this movie made it to be). Curious as to what the "truest," version of him could be.
The art painted at the time indicates that Napoleon's manner of dress is completely accurate, as are the uniforms of his marshalls and the common soldiers (and the officers and soldiers on both sides). Most officers wore very fancy uniforms, as was the normal thing. Even common soldiers had splendid looking uniforms, and the bright colors and decorations made it easy to recognize the nationality of large formations of men at a distance on battlefields full of smoke and confusion...so as not to mistake "friendly" forces for hostile ones. This was specially vital in the case of sighting the artillery. You could easily recognize any well-known unit by their uniforms. In some of the cavalry units, all the horses would be chosen to have the same color and appearance, as was the case with the Royal Scots Greys who are shown making their grand and tragic charge in the film. They charged a bit too far.
I'll have to see the new Napoleon movie for myself. I heard it was good but I'll be the judge of that. I just don't like it when they made movies based on historical events but put untrue stuff in it.
@@haynes1776 the movie was a borefest, incredibly short scenes of battles, skipped the entirety of the Italy campaign, it’s mostly about Napoleon being cucked by Josephine
14:42 your majesty...the monster has escaped !! Oh ??? And what else ??? Your Majesty, the peasants are still revolting !!... You said it, they stink on ice !!! There I always wanted to say that.......burrrrppp !!!
Napoleon knew a good deal about Wellington, but he had never fought Wellington on the field of battle. Thus, he was curious about whether Wellington was really that good a general as his Marshalls who had fought Wellington thought.......and curious what sort of tactics Wellington would use if he was pressured in various ways........and the movie shows that quite well. They were both wondering what rabbit the other might pull out of his hat. Napoleon had fought Blucher before, and he knew that Blucher was courageous, aggressive, and determined...but lacking in finesse.
Just think, if not for this distraction, Wellington was supposed to go to New Orleans to kick American butt. Wellington vs Jackson. To have seen that match up.
Jokes about the painting aside, I think Gandolfini would have made a spectacular performance as Napoleon. If there's going to be an English-language movie about the guy then they need to cast someone from New Jersey. They're the only ones who can do it right.
Music was frequently played by all the armies of that time, because it helped stir up patriotic feelings in the soldiers, and that helped them to fight better. There was nothing silly about it. It worked for the intended purpose.
Ney wasn’t playing with a full deck that day or he’d never have been baited by that “retreat.” Napoleon needed a Murat. Who was dead. The feint would not,have fooled him. Ney was seen at the end of the day, beating on a cannon with his sword.
Ney jumped to a hasty conclusion. He tended to make such reckless mistakes from time to time. I think you are quite correct that Murat would not have made the same error. I don't think it was a deliberate feint, though. Wellington was just trying to spare his soldiers the full brunt of the French artillery fire by getting them behind the reverse slope, and Ney misinterpreted what was happening as "a retreat". A good bit of luck for the British.
Not quite. He did conquer pretty much all of it by 1812 except Russia.............which proved to be too big a nut to crack. And the UK (which is not part of "Europe") And he was never able to fully defeat and pacify Spain. The same general fate met the Germans in WWII. Both they and Napoleon were ruined by trying to conquer Russia.
Nations fight for geopolitical reasons. France would have been fighting the rest of monarchist Europe after their Revolution in 1789, regardless of whether or not Napoleon had ever even existed! Some other men would have led the French in those wars. And it would have probably gone on just as long, but with fewer French victories, given that Napoleon was an absolutely exceptional military leader. He just happened to be there at the time, and his talents and determination took him straight to the top. Without him, it would have been somebody else, but they probably would not have been as good at it.
The leaders of ALL countries think that way. They will do whatever they think they must if they see it as winning a necessary victory, and avoiding defeat. (And most (if not all) of them do violate laws whenever those laws get in the way of something they really want...)
