Excellent, Without a doubt!!

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

First off, I have seen two versions of this film. Surprisingly, the first time I saw it was on late night TV, and recalling from memory it was shown in two parts. SUPERB! It was about four full hours, and the plot and character development both made sense. THEN, I saw it was to be released in the theater (hurrah, I thought!). No. The film was destroyed by too much editing. Needless to say, I thought this whole situation weird because I remember seeing the much superior TV version before seeing the Theater version. What I major disappointment that was! Anyhow, those who have only seen the short version may wonder why Marco starts out in the movie in a different uniform (I believe he and his brother, which you never see, were in the Italian army, or something like that) and why you sort of see the the French Lt. (who looks like Charles Bronson)around the beginning, but then he sort of fades out of the script. Once again, I recall that the Arabs actually attacked the oasis at the very beginning of the movie (as seen on TV) and he was a sole survivor: Then later he kills himself. I only saw the TV version once, but this is what I recall. TV version: 9.5 out of 10. Theater version: 6.5 out of 10. Wish I could find the full version!

This is a very tasteless movie. (Gene Hackman) is one of the finest, but in here I didn't quite get what was tempting for him to be in such a role. (Catherine Deneuve) looked very frigid. (Terence Hill) well.. what kind of genius thought that he was good as an actor to cast him as a lead star in a big production movie which relied on acting more than action ??? He was the worst element with his stupid smile and glassy eyes. Just imagine a young Jean-Paul Belmondo in the same role; that would have been amusingly immortal not the other way around ! As for the meaning of the whole thing, I didn't catch on what was the real deal of it ?, what's exactly the concept of March or Die ? Is it about a bunch of people who love to be dead ? Is it about the mankind's stupidity ? Is it about an everlasting war somewhere sometime that forces some people to march or die, or to march and die ?? We've been watching all along an elegy about the human who might find himself in a hell of absurd world where he must kill or be killed for no reason. So let's say it's about the uselessness of the war as well as the falseness of colonialism (great point of view through the character of El Krim) and how the soldiers went into death for no actual principal sometimes. But on the other hand, I didn't understand (Deneuve)'s character (Simone Picard). What was the dramatic use out of one soldier killing himself because he didn't succeed sexually with a whore who divulged him openly? Or how (the gypsy) turned into another man at the end (the man that he used to be his opposite !). Ahh, questions.. questions !In fact, I developed a very resting rule lately : "Don't ask yourself a lot about a movie that didn't enjoy you that much", OH this is heaven guys ! I used nearly all my life to search for answers for too many questions. But you know what.. I clearly discovered that some movies don't deserve to tire yourself for them. Because whatever the golden results that you may find; you didn't love the movie in the first place, because anyhow anyway the movie didn't influence you with anything it presented. Bottom line : this is a case when I must say honestly and fully convinced that this movie is not for me.P.S : I found out today that one of my reviews, that didn't have any kind of abuse for anything or anyone on plant earth, had been deleted because some "……." didn't like it ???!!! It's another new reason for not fatiguing myself in writing, concluding, or standing a movie; as long as whatever what I may write will upset someone somehow, AND our dear beloved site will erase that review for him ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. It happens lots of times these days, and how the IMDb allows it easily and randomly. I think, if they let me publish my own point of view, with letting everybody delete anybody's point of view; then maybe there will be no more IMDb someday !!

Forgotten film by Gene Hackman. This was the truest depiction based on the histories of the Legion of the so called "Beau Geste" period. The book didn't have as happy an ending but both are satisfying. The film has some interesting moments in its final battle scene where the Legionaires are running around using Lewis Light Machine guns as Tommy Guns. Catherine DeNeuve was reduced to window dressing unfortunately. And surprise of surprises; Ian Holm,who is so English, plays the Berber Leader, El Krim. Morocco is a long way from the Shire. Terence Stamp is surprising as a blond gypsy who rises to the military way of life after avoiding all discipline and authority.

This is THE French Foreign Legion movie, mainly because there aren't very many of them. Jean-Claude Van Damme starred in a sort of remake in '98 ("Legionnaire"). This features a truly international cast. The lead American is Gene Hackman, as the major commander of the outpost. Terence Hill is best known for his "Trinity" character in spaghetti western comedies from Italy. He plays a new recruit, an acrobatic thief who quickly becomes an unofficial hero among the men. Von Sydow is the Swedish member, who made his name in Ingmar Bergman films; he plays an archaeologist here. Deneuve, as a visiting daughter of a deceased associate of Von Sydow's, is the famous French actress. Ian Holm is British, but plays the Arab leader. Also on hand is Jack O'Halloran, ex-boxer, as a giant ex-bodyguard for the swept away Russian aristocracy. He appeared in "Superman" the following year.As most people know, the Legion was composed of men who no longer had a place anywhere else in the world. They're all on the run from something or someone, and it's spelled out here, more than once. The time is just after World War I; the place is Morocco. The picture doesn't skimp on detailing this atmosphere; there was obviously a lot of money well spent on getting it right, though Hackman always seems a bit out of place (I believe Legion commanders had to be French, but you can do much worse than Hackman). If anything, it dwells a bit too much on detail and the first hour is tedious. The pic still didn't explain for me the purpose of having the men trudge endlessly in the desert sands, except maybe to weed out weaklings. There's a touching subplot involving a sad sack legionnaire whom Hill is unable to save despite continual effort. Mostly, the story revolves around the hardship involved, accompanied by a required sadism on the part of commanders, to get by day to day in the Legion.It all points to a thrilling battle in the final act, when the Arab leader sends his hordes against the vastly outnumbered legionnaires, who seem stuck in a 'fight to the last man' scenario. The plot has Hackman under orders to provide guard at an excavation site, giving Holm an excuse to unite the tribes in a bloody attack. It's eye-opening to hear the Arab leader speak of resisting all foreigners and realize nothing much has changed even as I type this. But the final battle is spectacular, reminiscent of "Zulu." Though outnumbered about 20 to 1, the Legion makes effective use of rapid-fire weapons. Photographed on a great location, there are some startling images of numerous bodies littering the sands. I acquired an R2 DVD, which is the best way of viewing this film at this point.