Peereddi I was totally surprised at how great this film.You could feel your paranoia rise as the film went on and as you gradually learned the details of the real situation.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Married Baby Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

joangreg 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!

Chrysanthepop Dick Richards's 'March or Die' is an interesting film set in Morocco during the French colonization. It nicely entangles the war drama and the love triangle. As the captain, we see a ruthless William but his feelings for Simone show a more human side. Marco is the clever thief and a skilled smooth talker with a good heart but he too has a vulnerable side. Simone is perhaps the most complex of characters as she is ambivalent concerning William and in love with Marco though she cannot bring herself to say it. The main characters are quite well fleshed out. The pacing is slow at times. The love sequences are well executed and it is very well underplayed. There is no sugar syrupy moment. The cinematography is okay. A wonderful Gene Hackman is both hateful and sympathetic. Terence Hill performs very naturally. Max Von Sydow is good but Ian Holm is unintentionally funny and it looks as if he's mocking a Moroccan tribes leader rather than playing it. A radiant Catherine Deneuve is sublime. Gosh, she looks so beautiful! The rest of the cast do well. The movie sort of has a dated feel to it but 'March or Die' is good enough watch for a Thursday night.

MARIO GAUCI My first viewing of this one came via a local TV screening back in the early 1980s when we still only had a black-and-white TV set and the film has virtually vanished without a trace from TV screens since then. I had originally intended to revisit it over the Christmas period – along with other exotic adventure films I've seen at the time like CHU-CHIN-CHOW (1934), ABDUL THE DAMNED (1935) and FORT ALGIERS (1953) – but I had to postpone those plans; now that I've watched the "Carry On" spoof of Foreign Legion films, FOLLOW THAT CAMEL (1967), it seemed an appropriate time to give it another look. Obviously, I don't usually go for pan-and-scan transfers of widescreen films but, as I said, this film has become such a rarity that I leapt at the chance to watch this one again on the R2 DVD I found at a local rental store.Anyway, during the 1970s it became fashionable to revive old Hollywood genres and the master at this game was Peter Bogdanovich but, equally successful, was Dick Richards with his Philip Marlowe adaptation FAREWELL, MY LOVELY (1975); unfortunately, both directors would soon have a dud on their hands – Bogdanovich with the musical pastiche AT LONG LAST LOVE (1975) and Richards with MARCH OR DIE! Rewatching it now, it's hardly as disastrous as its reputation would have you believe: in fact, I thought that, shot by shot, it was quite well directed. What it clearly needed was a more exciting plot, a less predictable narrative and, most importantly perhaps, a more suitable leading man. While personally I got a kick out of seeing childhood favorite Terence Hill (i.e. Italian Spaghetti Western/action-comedy film star Mario Girotti) share the screen with such acting heavyweights as Gene Hackman, Catherine Deneuve, Max Von Sydow and Ian Holm, his light touch was clearly inadequate for the role of the thief-turned-soldier who falls foul of his misanthropic Captain (Hackman) but is soon consoled by a French belle (Deneuve).Deneuve made one of her infrequent appearances in an English-speaking film and, while her character is not exactly given much to do, she is more "troubled" than she at first appears: she is fascinated by the old lady in the whorehouse (shades of BELLE DE JOUR [1967] perhaps?) and sacrifices herself to Hackman in order to save Hill from dooming himself for her love (as others had done before him); Von Sydow also antagonizes Hackman in his quest to unearth the priceless archaeological relics found in the desert – which, to the latter, belong to the Arabs (who are more than welcome to them) and, being a renegade American, sees no point in increasing the glory of France through the loss of the lives of his men (most of which are also foreigners); Ian Holm plays the cultured but ruthless Arab leader and, it was also nice to see Hackman share the screen once more with Marcel Bozzuffi (whom he had famously dispatched in THE FRENCH CONNECTION [1971]) and Jack O' Halloran (who would go on to play Non, one of the villainous Kryptonian trio in the first two SUPERMAN films); the latter was also in Richards' FAREWELL, MY LOVELY and I recently had the pleasure to talk to him on this very Forum about the film under review itself! As usual, the film-makers' heart was set in the right place given their employment of, not just the star-studded international cast, but also cinematographer John Alcott and composer Maurice Jarre but, as I said earlier, their good intentions were let down by a fairly routine plot which, despite the occasional, valiant interjections of existentialism a' la the previous year's THE DESERT OF THE TARTARS (which also featured Max Von Sydow and an unusually strong role for Italian heart-throb Giuliano Gemma!), fails to coalesce into a memorable or entire successful whole. Gene Hackman once said about MARCH OR DIE that the audience marched in and the film died: maybe they just couldn't take it seriously after seeing the whole Foreign Legion genre being sent up (yet again) on the screen just a few months earlier in British comic Marty Feldman's directorial debut, THE LAST REMAKE OF BEAU GESTE (1977)...

asinyne This is a very unusual film in some ways, and very interesting. Gene Hackman is good, and Terence Hill is excellent in a different part for him. Hill almost seems to be acting as Steve Mcqueen. Whatever his technique, its effective. There is one thing that sets this film apart from every other movie out there, it has one of the all time great battles. Yes, it has to be one of the best ever filmed, a thing of true beauty. Violent, gritty, and very realistic. You can feel the desperation as the legionaires frantically play out their own version of Custer's Last Stand. Truthfully, the big climatic battle scene could stand alone as a good film. If you like Hackman or Hill/Mcqueen don't miss this one. Papillion joins the Foreign Legion...very cool!!!!! Loved it