Steam Peterloo


Peterloo is a movie starring Rory Kinnear, Maxine Peake, and Neil Bell. The story of the 1819 Peterloo Massacre where British forces attacked a peaceful pro-democracy rally in Manchester.

Other Titles
Πίτερλου, La tragedia de Peterloo, ピータールー マンチェスターの悲劇, ピータールー マンチェスターの悲劇
Running Time
2 hours 34 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
History, Drama
Mike Leigh
Mike Leigh
Philip Jackson, Neil Bell, Maxine Peake, Rory Kinnear
Audio Languages
日本語, اللغة_العربية, English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
Japanese, اللغة_العربية, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

The story of the 1819 Peterloo Massacre where British forces attacked a peaceful pro-democracy rally in Manchester.

Comments about history «Peterloo» (26)

Maria Weaver photo
Maria Weaver

This film may be too difficult to watch for some viewers. For them, I would suggest viewing a documentary film on the subject of the British and American involvement in World War II. The War is certainly the key here and not just the Boer War. It is important to watch this film in order to get an accurate picture of how the British and Americans reacted to the events of the Boer War. The British did not want to lose their colonies and so the Boers had to be defeated and their leader hanged. The Americans, on the other hand, had no such ideas. To them the Boer War was just an excuse for Britain to invade the Boer countries, something that the British had little intention of doing. If you want to understand how the Boers behaved, then you should watch the documentary. The Boers were not the villains in this film. The British were the villains.

Carol photo

What's most surprising is that Edward Zwick, the director of the great two-part TV drama series, Whose Life Is It Anyway? (the story of New York's overcrowded transit system), chose to make a movie of the story of Waterloo, which was, at the time, the most important battle in British history. The result is a movie that is both well-made and well-conceived. The acting is excellent, with many actors excelling at different points in the movie. There is none of the slapstick that can be found in other movies. It is more realistic and accurate. The story moves along at a good pace, even though at times it is a little hard to follow. The action, battle scenes and shots are all extremely well-done. One can say that the movie, although it was made long ago, is accurate and historically accurate. The sets, costumes and effects are superb, even though they are from the 1800s. It is a movie that is an eye-opener and a must-see.

Martha R. photo
Martha R.

I first saw this movie in a movie class at university, and it took a while for me to get over the fact that I had seen this movie before. In my opinion, it was a brilliant movie. I was surprised that there was no plot. That's the thing about historical epics. It's not always about what's going on, it's about what happened. In this movie, we saw the fate of one man, one man's struggle to survive. It's also a movie about the human spirit. One of the best movies I've seen in a long time. It's also a movie about love. I don't know if it's because I'm a romantic, or if it's the message it sends. It's hard to explain in a short review, but the movie is about the beautiful things in life, like love, loyalty, and the truth about the human spirit.

Danielle Gray photo
Danielle Gray

I'm not sure what the people behind this movie were expecting, but it sure as hell wasn't a movie about how the Brits killed off the Indians. After all, these are Brits, after all. I find it a bit odd that this movie gets a very low rating. I actually enjoy the movie quite a bit, and I found it to be a pretty interesting story. The characters are quite unique, and I really liked the story's development of the plot. I thought the acting was good, the cinematography was beautiful, and the story was interesting. I did have one major problem, though. I found the ending of the movie to be a bit underwhelming. I found it to be somewhat "stupid" and not really satisfying. I mean, it's only a movie, and if you just leave it like that, then you've got to be one of the dumbest people on the planet. But I guess I'm just being picky. I just thought that the ending was a bit weak, though I wouldn't go as far to say it was terrible. I just thought it was somewhat disappointing. And I just felt like the movie was a bit too long. It was probably at least an hour and a half long, and it just seemed to drag on and on. I also think the movie should have been a bit shorter. There were a few scenes that were way too long, and it just seemed like they were trying to make it longer. But I still enjoyed it, and I can't really think of any problems with it.

Tiffany Fowler photo
Tiffany Fowler

A beautiful film about one of the most famous historical events of the 20th century. It depicts the lives of an oppressed British family who journey to a remote location where they are to be executed for the crime of treason. The way in which they are brought to this location is the focus of the film. The film is set in one location and you get the feeling of a one man show. It is quite an intriguing story that shows us a true representation of the real life trials of the 30's. If you are interested in history or historical films, I highly recommend you see this film.

Keith Jensen photo
Keith Jensen

After reading the negative reviews on this site I was prepared to give this movie a miss. But, after reading the comments on this site I have to say that this movie is worth the watch. I am not a fan of old Hollywood movies. They tend to be boring and I am never bored watching them. However, this movie was actually entertaining. I really enjoyed this movie. It is about an old soldier who takes on the role of the new king. I don't want to give too much away, but if you have read the description on this site, you should know what is going to happen. I liked the characters, the actors and the story. The music was awesome, and the cinematography was awesome. If you are an old Hollywood movie fan, you should enjoy this movie.

Edward photo

I just got done watching the final version of 'Lucky 38', a new British production directed by Roger Taylor (who also wrote the script and helped with photography), and I have to say that this version is far better than the earlier version I saw. The old movie was, to put it mildly, a soap opera in the sense that it was very bland and amateurish. The new version is better than the original, which seemed to go on forever and didn't make any sense. This new version is much better, and it's very different from the first version, which I actually found a bit dull and slow. It has a lot of action, and the old movie was really boring, boring, boring. The new version is very exciting and exciting. This is a great movie and I'm glad I saw it, but I can't help but feel that the old movie was a bit dull. I'm still not sure if I think this is the best version of 'Lucky 38' that has ever been made, but it is a very good movie.

Jose R. photo
Jose R.

The end of the great British Empire is seen in this movie. I am a fan of Lee Marvin, but he is superb in this film, with his face, his voice and his character. I will always remember him as Captain Jack Sparrow in the Star Wars saga. Here he is the pirate Sir Francis Drake, a man who lost his eye in a fight and lost his friend as well. He seeks out the legendary sword of El Dorado and returns to the old glory of his ancestors. He meets a Spanish woman who he falls in love with, and they fall in love, too. He is captured by the British government and it's up to him to prove his innocence. This movie is a tribute to Sir Francis Drake and his heroes, and it is also a tribute to the old ships and ships of the old days, as well as to the French and Spanish. For me, it is a beautiful film, and a masterpiece of the British cinema.

Edward photo

My view on this movie is that it's a very good movie and I'm glad that I saw it, but I still don't understand why some people are so negative on it. I think the movie has some great scenes and very great actors, but I'm not sure that it has the ability to be a great movie, mainly because I think that it's too long, and sometimes it's a bit boring. I think that the first hour could have been shorter and that the story could have been better, like with some of the scenes. I also think that the movie could have been a little bit more "star-struck", like with Hugh Jackman and Scarlett Johansson. I don't know if it's a bad thing or not, but it seems to me that some people are not liking the movie because it's too long and because it's not like the "Star Wars" movies. All in all, I think that it's a good movie and I have rated it 8/10.

Laura Schneider photo
Laura Schneider

This is one of my favourite movies of all time. It's also one of my favourite movies about the Catholic Church. It is a tale about a very powerful and kind man. The movie focuses on his two sons. His older son is going to be in the seminary and his younger son is a writer. The two sons have a great relationship. His older son asks him to write a story about his first time in battle. He tells his younger son that he had the privilege of being there and he has to write about it. The story is a real story and it is a story about the men who fought there. It is a very interesting story and it will stick with you. The movie is a story about two men who knew each other well. It is a very sad story but it's a very moving one. It's a movie about a man who has been forced to live in fear and it's about his sons. It is a very sad movie but it's a very moving movie.

Maria Cruz photo
Maria Cruz

This is a great movie! It really shows that no matter what situation you're in, you have to stand strong and not let others ruin what is yours. It was also great to see that people actually stood up for each other and went against the police! I really liked the scene where the police "bombarded" the crowd with bullets! It was so realistic and so sad. I really liked this movie, and I recommend it to everyone.

Diana R. photo
Diana R.

A very interesting film. The pacing is perfect and the story is well developed. The acting was excellent. However, as I said, the pacing is great, but the story is not. The story is fascinating, but the pacing is rather slow and sometimes even confusing. There are some interesting and gripping scenes in the film, but the film does not really flow well. The film is a bit like a puzzle. It starts out great, and then goes from here to there and then back to here. You have to pay attention and pay attention very carefully, because you are never really sure what is going to happen next. It's also a bit like a movie where the movie is a little bit longer than it needed to be. I really enjoyed the film, but it could have been much better.

Ethan photo

I have never seen a film with more detail on the first day of the Battle of Waterloo. It was fascinating to see the damage and the British casualties. I was also fascinated by the way in which the cast is drawn. It was very interesting to see that the French army was divided into different nationalities. The roles were played by both sides. The British cast was great. I don't remember seeing many British actors playing British characters. The English actors and actresses were great as well. I enjoyed seeing William Defoe in the lead role. His character was one of the best in the film. I also liked the cast of Robert Crawford, Michael York, Peter Brook and Raymond Carver. The only weak link was Thomas Hardy. I did not care for his character. He was too serious and too dramatic. All in all, a great film. I highly recommend it.

Richard E. photo
Richard E.

This film is a very good depiction of a British military event in the late 1690's in the West Indies. The film begins with the first known contact between a Portuguese expedition and the local natives, led by Antonio de Andrade, who would become the first recorded missionary to colonize the New World. It was during this contact that Spanish and Portuguese ships from Africa began to arrive in the New World to supply the sugar plantations of the Caribbean. It was during this time that Christopher Columbus would journey to the New World and conduct the first successful voyage to the Americas. The film presents an accurate portrayal of the events that took place during this period, including the first expedition led by Francisco de Montejo and his people. The film shows the force of Montejo's men, led by his very young son Diego, who led them on a desperate mission to the New World, attempting to convert the natives to Christianity. This film is very good, although it is a bit long. It was very exciting to see the results of this expedition. The film ends on a positive note, although it did seem a little slow. This is a film that I would recommend to anyone who has a love for history and/or a love for movies about the European colonial experience in the New World.

Amber photo

Although the ending was predictable and the cast was terrible, the cinematography was excellent, the scenery was beautiful, and the cinematography was breathtaking. I saw it in the theater with my wife, and we both had the experience of a lifetime. This film is a must see. One of the most beautiful films ever made. I hope this film does well. It deserves it. I had no idea how much this film would blow me away, and I'm so glad I got to see it. It was like watching a painting come alive. It's very poetic and emotional, and I think it's best when you feel the characters and what they're going through. It's like watching a painting come alive. The music is also amazing, it's so appropriate and fits the movie perfectly. The cinematography is amazing. I'm going to go see it again. I will definitely buy this film. This film is amazing and it's a must see. If you haven't seen it, you should. It is definitely worth it. It's a movie I'll never forget.

Donna O. photo
Donna O.

.and I will be the first to admit, I did not know what to expect from the film. I had read the book. I knew that it was historical. I had seen the movie. And I really liked it. It was so different from the book. It felt more like a long documentary. It was actually one of those films where the movie was good but the book was better. When you watch it, the book will be the biggest thing you think of, but the movie will be better. It is great to have a great movie when you know the book. I can't wait to read the book. It will be great. I loved the film. I think it was just as good as the book. It was about a hundred times better than the book. I'm not saying it is better than the book, I'm just saying it is better than the book. It is really hard to make a movie like this. I really hope they make another version of it.

Michelle B. photo
Michelle B.

This is the film that made William Holden famous and brought him international fame. And it's not the type of film you'd expect to see, either. Based on an account written by the man himself, it depicts the battle of Waterloo as portrayed by Holden himself and his friends and fellow soldiers. Though it is based on a true story, the movie is not so much about the battle, but about the man who led it. Some of the famous figures in the film include the famed actor Laurence Olivier, the actor Matthew Broderick, the writer-director Roland Emmerich and the actor Peter O'Toole. But it is the man himself that really drives the film, and with the help of director Roland Emmerich, he has created a movie that's a masterpiece of the highest order. The movie is a biopic that's very well written, but it's far from being a historical drama. It's more of a love story, though. The story of William Holden is told through an interview he gave in the movie. The real William Holden was a Englishman who served in the Royal Navy from 1805 to 1807, and then spent the rest of his life in the U.S. In 1805, he went to the U.S. for a short stint as a military officer and then became a self-made millionaire. It was during this time that he wrote a book on the battlefield of Waterloo and in the same interview he says the following: "The great battle of Waterloo was one of the most brutal and bloody encounters of all time. The enemy was led by a great leader who was surrounded by his men. He was famous throughout Europe for his brutality and cruelty. His name was Napoleon Bonaparte. He was a cruel and a savage leader. His soldiers could not endure him. They beat him, whipped him, made him run and crawl through the streets in a single bound. I saw it. I saw it with my own eyes. Napoleon Bonaparte, the man, had an attitude that was reminiscent of the great leaders of the past. He was a leader of the most despicable kind." The quote is used in the movie as the title of the film, and although the movie is about the battle, it is about the people who fought there and it shows the personal tragedy of these people. It is a story that's not about the battle, but about the lives of the people who lived it. The entire movie is told through the eyes of these people, and they do not show their lives as a struggle for victory. They live it as an event that happens to them, and they portray it in a manner that's very poetic.

Jessica photo

My only criticism is that the music in the film isn't as effective as the music in the original. But that doesn't matter because it's still a great film. The camera work, acting and sets are all superb. The sets are very realistic and the costumes and makeup are just as realistic. The camera work is more gritty than the original. The original had some shaky camera work that was very distracting, this version doesn't have that at all. This is also the first time I've ever seen a movie where the lead actor didn't know the title of the movie until the end. The title of the movie is spoken over the actors' mouths. I haven't seen a movie where the title is spoken over the actors mouths since Thelma and Louise.

Carol Webb photo
Carol Webb

I saw this film when it came out on video in the early nineties. I had seen it in theater and didn't like it but my friend loved it and we watched it together and I fell in love with it. When I heard that the movie was going to be released on video and I started looking for it I was so excited. It was on video for about a year and I finally got it on DVD and it was just as good as I remembered. I think it's important to see the movie before reading the book. If you like the movie you should read the book. I was surprised how well they worked it all together. This is an excellent movie for anyone who likes the old Hollywood films. It's not a bad movie it's just different. I give it a 9 out of 10. If you like this movie you should check out the book.

Christine photo

The movie, directed by JK Simmons, is a lot like the book. The main reason it was made in the first place was to help with the already anticipated film. It does not do this, however, and ends up seeming incomplete. That is not to say that the book is bad, it's quite good. The movie did a good job at showing the French Revolution. The revolutionaries were people who did not seem to understand that the French Revolution was not about revolution. It was about independence from the King, for the French people. The movie focuses on the main characters of Waterloo, Charles de Montesquieu, and Benjamin Franklin. These two men were quite influential in the making of the Revolution. The movie was interesting to watch and it was interesting to see how different groups of people viewed the war. For the first part, I was very confused. I did not understand what was happening. As the movie progressed, I understood it more and more. The ending was very good. It was very well done and just completed what I thought was an incomplete movie.

Patricia photo

This is an excellent movie about the famous and notorious British actor James Belushi. It tells the story of James Belushi and his two brothers, who are both talented and stand out on the screen. The story centers around one of their many hits. James Belushi, who was one of the most popular actors of the 1960s, was a star. He was known for playing many characters in movies. He was famous for the role of Jack the Ripper, and for his role in Kiss Me, Kate. He also starred in the movies The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle, Rock and Roll, and A Fish Called Wanda. And he also starred in the TV series, Maude. But his best work was in The Artist, Kiss Me, Kate, and The Elephant Man. He also starred in several other movies that were not well known. One of them was the movie The Leopard Man, also known as The Leopard Man II. The story is based on the real-life story of a hunter, who is accused of killing a lion. The main character of the movie is played by James Belushi, who plays a role of the hunter. He is also a big star, as he is very popular and famous. He is also known for his role as Jack the Ripper. The role of James Belushi was one of his best and best roles. But he also starred in many other movies, like The Artist, Kiss Me, Kate, and A Fish Called Wanda. The actor is known for his many roles. The movie tells the story of his life. It is an interesting movie about James Belushi. It tells about his childhood, his early years, his life as an actor, his marriage, his career, and his death. It also tells about the relationship between his brothers, who are both talented and stand out on the screen. And it also tells about his job as a trophy hunter, and about his love for his wife. The film is very well done. The story is well written. It is very well-paced. And the actors, who are well known and famous, are in excellent form. It is an excellent film that is highly recommended.

Michael P. photo
Michael P.

This is a great movie and it is not a bad movie at all. It has all the elements of the classic James Bond films, and is a very fun movie to watch. The cinematography is absolutely stunning, the actors do a great job, and the story is great. It is very refreshing to see a James Bond movie without the silly gadgets and the silly humor that usually come with them. The only thing that I didn't like about this movie was that there were some characters that seemed to be extra, which made the movie seem less real. All in all, I recommend this movie to anyone, and I can't wait for the next James Bond movie.

Frances Barnes photo
Frances Barnes

In the time of the French Revolution, the British and French were engaged in an arms race. One of the weapons was the guillotine, but the French were unable to use it, so the English became the standard for the rest of the world. However, the French government was not about to surrender without a fight. In 1793, Napoleon Bonaparte (Albert Finney) was appointed to head the French Army and became ruler of France. He appointed two men to rule France: General de Valmont (John Gielgud) and his deputy, Admiral Desmarets (John Gielgud). Desmarets wanted to send a message to the British. They sent William Pitt (Robert Powell) and the Duke of Wellington (David Hemmings) to Paris to negotiate the French surrender. Pitt and Wellington were accompanied by the governor of France, Joseph Bonaparte (Robert Carlyle) and the minister, Louis XVI (William Katt). Pitt and Wellington were not ready to surrender their country to Napoleon. The French government sent Bonaparte and his troops to punish the British for their surrender. They arrested their leader, William Pitt, and put him on trial for treason. Bonaparte was found guilty and sentenced to be hung. However, his court-appointed lawyer, Joseph Bonaparte (Robert Carlyle) saved him. He persuaded Bonaparte's court to let him go. Bonaparte was immediately thrown in a room and hung. He was buried in the garden of the palace. He was the last person to be executed in France. In the same year, in England, the British government was planning to send an expedition to the continent to find a way to stop Napoleon. This led to the British in 1793 forming the Royal Society. The Royal Society created a secret society, the Royal Society, to explore all aspects of science and to build a foundation of understanding for the future. Napoleon Bonaparte (Albert Finney) became a member of the Royal Society. After his death, the society was disbanded. The society was revived in 1834. It was composed of scientists who were intellectuals who would be educated in a variety of sciences. The Royal Society was a highly secretive society, which only few members knew. Albert Finney was a member of the society. He was considered a genius. His name was Albert Finney, and he was a member of the Royal Society. Albert Finney's name was the most famous among all the members of the society. He was the most intelligent and the most forward-thinking of all the members. He was also the most intelligent among the members. Albert Finney's father, Alphonse Finney (Robert

Gregory M. photo
Gregory M.

The film is about the story of the Battle of Waterloo. It starts off with the Battle of Waterloo, then is later seen as a story of the Battle of Waterloo. The film is divided into two parts, the first half is about the battle itself, then the second half is about the aftermath and the characters involved. The characters are all pretty cool, and the film is full of action, drama, and character development. The film also has some interesting historical elements, such as the death of the Duke of Wellington. There is also a romance story, as well as some really cool historical figures, like the Earl of March or the Marquis de Lafayette. The film is definitely worth a watch, but I do think it is a bit long, as I found it hard to follow some of the plot, but I did understand it pretty well. I also think the film is somewhat slow and dull in parts, but I do think it is a great movie and it is great that it is not a remake. Overall, I think the film is an excellent film, and a great follow-up to the 2001 film, Napoleon. I give the film 8/10 stars.

Janet Riley photo
Janet Riley

Even though there are a few scenes that seem to be set in the '60s, I did find myself wondering if the movie was in fact set in the '60s. The script seemed to be so thoroughly modernized, I couldn't help but wonder if the entire film was actually set in the '60s. The most important element in a movie like this is a strong script. A weak script can ruin a movie. There were many times when the plot seemed to be falling apart and there seemed to be little to no connection between the characters. But, the acting was top-notch. The best part of the movie was the music, which was just absolutely fantastic. I don't know if it was the editing, but I found that the movie seemed to jump in and out of time quite a bit, which made it very confusing. There were also a lot of scenes that seemed to be cut from the original theatrical release. Although the movie didn't leave much to be desired, there were a few moments that were just a little out of place. I think this was the only film that I could really pinpoint the reason for the difference in this film and the original film. Although the first film is the definitive version of the movie, I would definitely recommend the second one.

James H. photo
James H.

This is an incredibly entertaining movie with a great story line. It's really too bad that it was made by British. This is one of the greatest movies I have ever seen, one of my favorite movies of all time. This is a movie I would watch over and over again.