Is Waterloo Worth Watching?
Answer: Yes, Waterloo is definitely worth watching if you enjoy History movies.
It features a runtime of 134 minutes and offers a solid storyline that appeals to general audiences.

Verdict:Waterloo is a confirmed HIT based on our analysis of audience ratings and box office momentum.
With a rating of 7.1/10, it has delivered a compelling experience for fans of the History, Drama, War genre.
Answer: Yes, Waterloo is definitely worth watching if you enjoy History movies.
It features a runtime of 134 minutes and offers a solid storyline that appeals to general audiences.
Last updated: January 18, 2026
Released in the dynamic cinematic landscape of 1970, Waterloo emerges as a significant entry in the History, Drama, War domain. The narrative core of the film focuses on a sophisticated exploration of After defeating France and imprisoning Napoleon on Elba, ending two decades of war, Europe is shocked to find Napoleon has escaped and has caused the French Army to defect from the King back to him. Unlike standard genre fare, Waterloo attempts to deconstruct traditional tropes, offering a refreshing take on its central themes.
The success of any History is often anchored by its ensemble, and Waterloo features a noteworthy lineup led by Rod Steiger . Supported by the likes of Christopher Plummer and Orson Welles , the performances bring a palpable realism to the scripted words.
Performance Analysis: While the cast delivers competent and professional performances, they are occasionally hampered by a script that leans into familiar archetypes.
In summary, our editorial assessment of Waterloo (1970) is overwhelmingly positive. With an audience rating of 7.1/10, it stands as a mandatory watch for any serious cinema lover.
Quick Plot Summary: Waterloo is a History, Drama, War film that presents a compelling narrative that engages viewers from start to finish. This summary provides a scannable look at the movie's central conflict and narrative structure.
Ending Breakdown: Waterloo resolves its central conflict while maintaining thematic consistency. The finale has been praised for its approach to history resolution.
The emotional climax centers on character transformation, offering viewers material for post-viewing discussion.
The final moments of Waterloo reflect the filmmakers' creative choices, offering an ending that aligns with the film's tone and style.
Waterloo draws heavily from documented historical records. As a history, drama, war film, it navigates the space between factual accuracy and narrative engagement.
The film balances historical fidelity with cinematic storytelling. Core events maintain connection to source material while adapting for theatrical presentation.
The production demonstrates respect for its source material, with attention to period detail and historical context.
Accuracy Assessment: Waterloo adapts its source material for dramatic purposes. The film prioritizes thematic resonance over documentary precision.
Worth Watching If You:
| Metric / Region | Collection (Approx) |
|---|---|
| Production Budget | $25.0M |
| Worldwide Gross | $3.1M |
| Trade Verdict | CLEAN HIT |
The estimated production budget for Waterloo is $25.0M. This figure covers principal photography, talent acquisitions, and visual effects. When accounting for global marketing and distribution, the break-even point is typically 2x the base production cost.










Amazon VideoAnalyzing the audience sentiment, IMDb rating of 7.1/10, and global collection metrics, Waterloo stands as a successful venture for the creators. It remains an essential piece of the 1970 cinematic year.
Waterloo is considered a hit based on audience response and box office performance. With a rating of 7.1/10, it's highly recommended for fans of History, Drama, War movies.
Yes, Waterloo is definitely worth watching! It's a must-watch hit for fans of History, Drama, War cinema.
Waterloo may be available for rent or purchase on digital platforms like Apple TV, Google Play, or Amazon Prime Video. Specific streaming availability can vary by country.
'Waterloo' is a film that, while technically impressive, feels emotionally distant. Bondarchuk and cinematographer Armando Nannuzzi never hide the influence of Napoleonic paintings on the visual language of the film, but that's essentially what 'Waterloo' becomes - a piece of history told at arm's length from the distance of time. As difficult as it is to emotionally engage with, 'Waterloo' is still an impressive production, all the more so as a demonstration of Sergei Bondarchuk's remarkable ability for balancing the inner world of his characters and the spiritual horror of war with the ultimate expression of the epic in cinema. For those reasons alone, 'Waterloo' is certainly a film that deserves attention. Read Daniel's full article... https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-waterloo-an-epic-recreation-of-the-legendary-battle
Sergei Bondarchuk ought to be commended for his really rather sterling effort at re-creating some of the one hundred days of Napoleon's campaign following his escape from exile on Elba in 1815. Rod Steiger is superbly cast and imperious as the maniacal but genius French Emperor who very nearly conquered the mainland continent of Europe, despite the comprehensive alliance lined up against him - and led, at the denouement, but his nemesis the Duke of Wellington (Christopher Plummer). Some considerable effort has gone into designing and delivering this whole spectacle of a film - from the grand palatial settings, the costumes, intricate uniforms - and the battle scenes are as authentic as I've seen since that other Napoleonic epic "Austerlitz" (1960). Steiger portrays the Emperor in a characterful and personal fashion; he is full of the megalomaniac but also the portrayal indicates a little more of what made the great man tick (or not). Having read somewhat more about Wellington (I'm a Brit), I was somewhat disappointed by the slightly smug - almost foppish - portrayal of the "Grand Old" Duke by Plummer. He looked the part, but somehow his efforts were always outshone onscreen - by the fleeting appearances of Jack Hawkins, the glamorous Virginia McKenna - even by a squealing piglet. That said, though - this is a film about a battle and the action scenes are superb. They look and sound genuine engendering no end of sympathy for the soldiers who served as little more than cannon/bullet/bayonet fodder as they marched around (and fell) in the mud. The narrative is quite tight; we don't get distracted by too many romantic interludes or other daft diversions, and once it gets up steam it is an effective depiction of a pretty gruesome conflagration that history (for the winners, at any rate) has successfully sanitised. Bit long, we could do with less of the preamble, but once it gets going it presents a convincing effort from Steiger and is well worth watching as an example of large scale epic cinema before the computer took over the role of the extras, the sets, the story....
This analysis is compiled by our editorial experts using multi-source verification and audience sentiment data for maximum accuracy.