The Original L'Aigle Thread, for the sake of history. Be ye warned.
- Thread starter Patchouli Knowledge
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
dinnerdog2zero
Master Knight
If i recall correctly, they were actually soldiers of the Soviet Army.Austro said:
Ivan the Awesome
Knight
What movie would this be, because I need to see it. Immediately.dinnerdog2zero said:
dinnerdog2zero
Master Knight
Why dont you read the thread then.
The movie in question is Sergei Bondarchuk's 1970 film Waterloo. It's a decent film worth seeing. Although if huge battles is what you're after, Bondarchuk's adaptation of War and Peace featured something like 130,000 extras for the battle scenes. The movie isn't very good, but the production is really a spectacle worth seeing.
Ivan the Awesome
Knight
dinnerdog2zero said:
I thought I had read the thread, and I was looking up Kubric to no avail. I must have misread.
Docm30 said:
I think I saw the start of Waterloo, but never got into it. That is what you get for trying to watch a movie and do homework. But I will definitely check those two out. I've been interested in War and Peace lately.
He was good in Waterloo, but was better in Duck, You Sucker!Bluehawk said:I enjoyed Steiger's scene-chewing. He got the older, crankier, autocratic Bonaparte down right, if rumour would have it.
I found it IN THE GUTTER! And it was THE PEOPLE who put it on my head!
Christopher Plummer is a rather good Wellington, as well.
dinnerdog2zero
Master Knight
I apologize sir.Ivan the Awesome said:
Vicccard
Master Knight
Docm30 said:
That too, offcourse.
I don't have a phobia for historical errors, I have a phobia for historical errors made while the writer should know better, nor makes any apologie for it. Still, I trust most of you know what's wrong.
I find the best 'Napoleon' is the one in the movie 'Monsieur N'. I completly forget the actors name, but he's brilliant.
The organisers are aiming for 16.000(hoping for 20.000-25.000), but that's only for 2015. In fact, Waterloo 2014 has a max of a thousand re-enactors.
kpetschulat
Banned
Waterloo with Rod Steiger was excellent. There were only a few inaccuracies, but it was a brilliant movie with thousands of extras.
Bored? Watch Waterloo in HD thanks to a YouTuber!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKmqRqY0RLg
Now, I'm just curious... In the movie, Napoleon, played by Rod Steiger (A great actor), clenches his stomach a lot. I only read in a few places that he actually had a stomach cancer? Or some sort of stomach disease. Does anyone know if this is true?
Bored? Watch Waterloo in HD thanks to a YouTuber!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKmqRqY0RLg
Now, I'm just curious... In the movie, Napoleon, played by Rod Steiger (A great actor), clenches his stomach a lot. I only read in a few places that he actually had a stomach cancer? Or some sort of stomach disease. Does anyone know if this is true?
Italian researchers claim that he died in cancer instead of being poisoned by arsenic.kpetschulat said:Waterloo with Rod Steiger was excellent. There were only a few inaccuracies, but it was a brilliant movie with thousands of extras.
Bored? Watch Waterloo in HD thanks to a YouTuber!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKmqRqY0RLg
Now, I'm just curious... In the movie, Napoleon, played by Rod Steiger (A great actor), clenches his stomach a lot. I only read in a few places that he actually had a stomach cancer? Or some sort of stomach disease. Does anyone know if this is true?
Rangerplus10
Sergeant
Perhaps we should aim the conversation a little bit more towards the period and not actors and their deaths.
kpetschulat
Banned
Sotilas said:
Claiming, and pulling from records are different. Of course, I can claim he got shot in the head by a soldier who got teleported back in time from the year 2500, but again, that's just a claim. I do want to believe he was poisoned since most sources say he was, however the other articles and essays I read about him having a form of stomach cancer, I want to believe more. Especially since he had these stomach problems for a couple years before the battle of Waterloo.
Vicccard said:
+1
kpetschulat said:Bored? Watch Waterloo in HD thanks to a YouTuber!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKmqRqY0RLg
Time to watch Waterloo, for the bazillionth time. I can't get enough of this movie, it's so awesome.
Indeed.
And yes, Waterloo is a great movie; probably the best one ever made about the Napoleonic wars.
And Sharpe's Waterloo stinks. Not only does it throw historical inaccuracies around like Pepernoten, but it also insults the casualties suffered by and the sacrifices made by the Prussians who saved Wellington's ass. Right here.
And yes, Waterloo is a great movie; probably the best one ever made about the Napoleonic wars.
And Sharpe's Waterloo stinks. Not only does it throw historical inaccuracies around like Pepernoten, but it also insults the casualties suffered by and the sacrifices made by the Prussians who saved Wellington's ass. Right here.
Ivan the Awesome
Knight
I must admit I really preffered the first half of the Sharpe series--I find it gets really depressing after that.
I always thought that Waterloo was against Ney, and it was Napoleon himself who fought the Prussians?
I always thought that Waterloo was against Ney, and it was Napoleon himself who fought the Prussians?
Nope, that was Quatre-Bras (where the Prince of Orange saved Wellington's ass by disobeying the latter's orders), while Napoleon engaged Blücher at Ligny.
Docm30 said:
I also like Waterloo (1970), and somewhat disagree that it isn't good. I'd certainly say it's in some of the best war movies, and I give it serious credit for being even-handed unlike most war movies ever made.
That, I would say, is probably the best Napoleon movie, and Albert Dieudonné is easily the best on screen Napoleon. The resemblance is simply uncanny, he nailed the acting part, and you have to remember later in life Albert Dieudonné actually thought he really was Napoleon.
I loved the Soviet version of War and Peace, both as a movie and for its massive battles. With adjusted dollars, to this day it's supposed to be the most expensive movie ever made, and it shows. What's even more remarkable is the fact the Soviet government gave a blank check to Sergei Bondarchuk, who had practically no directing credentials save one obscure film. They gave him 120,000 Soviet soldiers, whatever budget he asked for, and let him recreate entire blocks of 19th century Moscow just to burn the entire thing down for filming. Meanwhile, proved veteran directors like Stanley Kubrick and Akira Kurosawa, who'd kill for that kind of cooperation, were denied funding.Docm30 said:
And it was a God-send after watching the insufferable American version of War and Peace.
Philippe Torreton played Napoleon in Monsieur N. (2003). Very good movie, had a lot in common with The Emperor's New Clothes (2001). However, I'd have to say Philippe Torreton is nowhere near up there with Albert Dieudonné, Vladislav Strzhelchik, Émile Drain, or hell, even Rod Steiger.Vicccard said:
The miniseries "Napoleon" (2002) is also worth a look. Not great, but pretty good, and the only good movie to follow Napoleon's entire career. I have some gripes, but they're not much and the film benefits from modern filmmaking (more realistic violence than most).
On Napoleon's whole life, there's also Sacha Guitry's Napoleon (1955), which is honest-to-God one of the worst movies I've sat through - and I've seen some bad movies. Laughably bad, I advise you avoid this movie like the plague. Austerlitz (1960) is also pretty God-awful, though not "the worst movie ever made" like a few reviewers have actually claimed.
I've also read Stanley Kubrick's Napoleon script, which was surprisingly disappointing.
Hope that wasn't all too off-topic, thought I'd throw in my two cents.
For one of my film classes in college, I did a 24-page (technically 48-page when in proper format) dissertation on most mainstream movies about Napoleon. There's some good ones, and ones that simply hurt to watch. I was surprised to see some pretty accurate and underrated portrayals of Napoleon, though.
- Status