Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Paynbob It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

H_Mahran This is a masterpiece, an epic tragedy that resembles a critical and uncovered chapter of human's struggle against discrimination, poverty, tyranny and inequality, this movie explains a lot about the diversity of the modern days French society and the historical right of Arabs in France through the sacrifices of their ancestors to liberate France when it was in its weakest state, defeated, occupied and humiliated.The original title in French is "indigènes" (indigenous) which refers to the native North Africans in French culture, I find this title more relevant than the English more commercial one "Days of Glory".For the first half of the movie I wasn't getting the "glory" in nomad soldiers from the remote villages or Algerian mountains recruited in the French army to liberate France from German invasion! that was absolute dishonor according to my principles, it was obvious that French commanders don't give a damn to the number of casualties between Arab and African soldiers as long as they achieve a symbolic victory over their oppressive opponent, discrimination was institutionalized, even "returning home" meant to French commanders returning to the French mainland, not returning every soldier to his own village in Africa.Soldiers mingle into the French territories with people cheering and praising their courage in the battlefield, Arab soldiers feel they belong to France, Saiid says to a French young lady that was listening to his courage stories: "je libère une pays, c'est mon pays" (I liberate a country, it's my country).Soldiers are now fighting for glory, for the principles of the French Revolution (liberté, égalité, fraternité) and under the slogans of Charles de Gaulle, they fight against Nazism and tyranny, they reject the German temptations to dilute their loyalty to the French army, they still see clear discrimination but still aspire for equality and fair compensation when they complete their mission and liberate what's now their own land, France.Music plays a great part in this movie, soundtrack and songs by Cheb Khalid are a solid part of the tragedy with its Arabic lyrics about alienation and leaving motherland in search for glory, homesickness and yearning to homeland's characteristics.

MartinHafer I was happy to see this film. After all, practically every WWII film about the war in Europe focuses on the soldiers from the major combatants--Americans, Brits, Germans or the French. However, this one is about men from the French colony of Algeria--folks you seldom ever hear about and I am sure many people from my country had no idea these folks fought for the Allies. In fact, now that I think about it, the only film where I can remember North African troops was "Two Women" and the Moroccan soldiers who raped the two ladies in the film! So, fortunately, these brave men get their due in "Days of Glory"."Days of Glory" focuses on four men in particular. These four volunteered to free their mother country in 1943. However, they soon saw that they weren't quite regular soldiers. Instead of receiving accolades or rank for their efforts, the men noticed that the white Christian French soldiers received these honors and the job of these Algerians was to shut up and die. Other examples of prejudice against these men were shown throughout the film as well as many incidents where they proved themselves in action.While I am thrilled that the men in this film finally get their due, I only give the film a 7. This means the film is good and worth seeing, but it had room for improvement. My problem with the film is that despite being a heart-moving topic, the film, strangely, was a bit bland. Much of this is because you never really felt that you learned who these men were since the film felt quite episodic. I wanted to see more humanity and individual stories. Still, it's quite a good film despite this.

Aristides-2 Somewhat anomalous and powerful WWII story about racial hypocrisy between native born Frenchmen and men born in North African colonies; where is the Liberty, Equality, Fraternity? I was going to use the word 'amateurish' to describe the filmmaker but I have seen excellent movies made by amateurs, many of them done by people in film school. No, a better word is 'untalented'. The battle sequences are dramatically not cohesive, illogical and when it comes to the next-to-final battle scene it degenerates into a 40's class b WWII John Wayne film; the German soldiers apparently committing virtual mass suicide, walking into firefights with not much sense of covertness, much like the ending battle in 'Saving Private Ryan'. At times too the subtitles were non-sequiturs not seeming to be connected to what the characters were actually speaking about. Then there was the production design/art direction howler when a large Nazi eagle sign was removed from the facade of a liberated village's building. It looked like something a high school theatrical production crew would construct. See 'Days of Glory' for the rarely told historical story of cultural despicability that occurred during WWII but don't anticipate anything close to seeing a 'great film'.

Jim I enjoyed the film and I probably would have given it a rating of 8 except for one thing. By the time the halfway point of the movie was reached, I couldn't help but notice that the actor playing Saïd (Jamel Debbouze) always had his right hand in his pocket. Since I was watching it on DVD, I of course had to stop and look him up on IMDb. After finding out that he had no right hand, I was then very distracted through the remainder of the film.I saw that he was a co-producer of the film. I question his judgment of not wearing a prosthetic hand in many of the scenes. Much of the movie took place in cold weather and they were all wearing gloves. Also, in the final scenes, he was the only one in the fire fight using only a hand gun, which looked odd. I just think that having your hand constantly in your pocket is not the best way to disguise this handicap.Harold LLoyd wore a prosthetic glove in many movies after his unfortunate accident when he lost his thumb and forefinger. I'm sure if he walked around with his hand in his pocket all of the time, people would have noticed.