ThiefHott Too much of everything

Unlimitedia Sick Product of a Sick System

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

elshikh4 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 !!

Jonathon Dabell You can tell a Lew Grade production a mile off – distinctly British in style; epic in conception; peopled by international all-star casts; usually set in exotic climes. It's a formula that Grade and his company ITC employed throughout the 70s into the early 80s, resulting in titles like The Eagle Has Landed, Firepower, and Raise The Titanic! In 1977 Grade produced March Or Die, a remarkably old-fashioned Foreign Legion adventure that models all the characteristics mentioned above. Directed by the usually dependable Dick Richards – who helmed the acclaimed Farewell My Lovely just a couple years earlier - March Or Die is an unfortunate disappointment.A company of Foreign Legionnaires led by the harsh disciplinarian General Foster (Gene Hackman) is sent to Morocco shortly after World War 1. Their mission is to protect an archaeological party fronted by the dedicated Francois Marneau (Max Von Sydow). The archaeologists are carrying out an excavation at the ancient city of Erfoud, but fear an attack from Arab tribesmen following the decimation of an earlier archaeological group. Foster is not happy with the assignment – he does not consider historical artifacts worthy of his men risking their lives. This creates ongoing tension between himself and Marneau, who believes that the legionnaires should sacrifice their lives to make the excavation possible. The problems heighten when a beautiful woman named Simone Picard (Catherine Deneuve) tags along with the legionnaires. She is hoping to find out what happened to her father, a historian abducted by the Arabs when they wiped out the first archaeological team. Her presence arouses desires amongst the legionnaires, none more so than gypsy thief Marco Segrain (Terence Hill), a charming and courageous rogue who initially shows indifference towards his legionnaire colleagues but gradually grows in stature. Things climax with a huge battle at Erfoud, with swarms of united Arab tribes charging against the handful of legionnaires as they desperately try to defend their lives.On paper the star duo of Gene Hackman and Terence Hill seem a mismatch – Hackman is the heavyweight Oscar-winning character actor, Hill the handsome but limited Italian heart-throb from numerous low budget spaghetti westerns. One expects Hackman to act his counterpart off the screen. Yet, bizarrely, it is Hackman who gives the weak and uninvolving performance, while Hill raises his game to surprisingly high levels. The film is attractively shot on desert locations, but the pacing is awfully slow and few of the characters are worth caring for. Maurice Jarre's music is uncommonly flat too – very disappointing from the guy who gave us the Lawrence Of Arabia score. It is remarkable that anyone had the nerve to try an old-fashioned adventure of this type in the 70s (it was a genre that peaked in the 30s, and had been all but forgotten during the intervening decades). Sadly, the gamble doesn't really pay off – this homage to the legionnaire flicks of old becomes more of a plod than a march.

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

Bogmeister 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.