Watch March or Die For Free

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

A Masterpiece!

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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!

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.

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 !!

Following his success with "Farewell My Lovely", ITC invited Dick Richards to pay homage to another quintessentially 30s genre, the Foreign Legion movie.Unfortunately, he seems to have followed his instructions rather too literally. One imagines that ITC executives were horrified by the finished product, a gloomy, downbeat affair that went over-budget (according to Lew Grade) and which focuses on brutality and despair, rather than on heroism and adventure. Some choppy editing betrays signs of studio intervention to try to make the film more acceptable to modern audiences. Nevertheless, it's a long haul to the admittedly splendid battle which concludes the film."March or Die" is not without its merits, however. There's a superb cast and beautifully-lit, painting-like images from the great cinematographer, John Alcott. At its best the film catches a haunting mood of futility and sadness and it treats all sides - the Legion, their opponents, the archaeologists led by Max Von Sydow - with surprising even-handedness. Maurice Jarre's evocative love theme is also worthy of note. The films' biggest flaw, however, is its uneven treatment of the Foreign Legion itself. It wavers uncertainly between 30s-style adulation and 70s-era condemnation. The climax asks us to salute the enduring courage and martial traditions of the Legion, yet this contrasts oddly with the sadism and brutality we witnessed earlier. Do we really wish to admire an institution which encourages its men to abandon colleagues and let them die in the desert?