Die Glorreichen

I resisted to the end only because Jean Paul Belmondo is a nice actor. The script and direction are very weak, poorly directed fight scenes, exaggerations at every step, etc. You can see the difference in quality between the films of the '70s and those of the' 80s, clearly to the detriment of those of the '80s. And I'm not just talking about Belmondo's films, but about all the world's cinema.

An adventure action movie written by prestigious Michael Audiard, being heavily influenced by the American Warfare films, including thrills , explosion , entertainment and a lot of fun . A successful French film that was the fifth highest grossing movie of the year 1984 . April 5, 1943 : a battalion of the Foreign Legion commanded by a Brigade (Michel Constantine) arrives in El Ksour, Tunisia , to escort a fortune in gold bars to the home front. Thanks to roguish but brave Sergeant Augagneur (Jean Paul Belmondo who produced too) and other Legionnaires successfully counter attack against a German ambush and they take shelter at a bank. Later on, there appears the bank manager (Francois Perriot) and his seductive wife (Marie Laforet) , and so does a German lieutenant (Matthias Habich) , whom the French arrest . Then, Sergeant Augagneur wants to rob the gold, while warrant officer Mahuzard wishes to go on his line of military duty . Meantime , the team dwindles little by little , and eventually the gold heads south toward Betahoua.

A funny and amusing WWII satire set in 1943 in Tunisia, in which an unit of the French Foreign Legion fights the Germans over possession of a bank treasure in gold bars , being shot in similar plot to Brian G. Hutton's ¨Kelly's heroes¨ style . Along the way , a series of twists and turns take place with alliances form and break apart . Fun farce film packing noisy action , entertainment , and lots of humor with tongue in cheek . A hectic , extravagant warlike action movie with plenty of blow-up , betrayals , adventure, tanks and hilarious situations . The picture benefis itself from the two main actors , the always sympathetic Jean Paul Belmondo and the gorgeous though mature Marie Laforet . Here Jean Paul Belmondo is an out-of-luck Sergeant legionnaire who chases women and covets the bank's treasury . While Marie Laforet is a wealthy wife with ambition and damsel in distress, at times . And other secondaries giving agreeable and likeable interpretations, such as : Jacques Villeret, Michel Constantin , Francois Perriot, Michel Creton, and the German Matthias Habich.

The picture contains an attractive score by maestro Georges Delerue. As well sd colorful and evocative cinematography by Edmund Secham, shot on location in Tunisia and Paris studios, France. The motion picture was professionally directed by Henry Verneuil. He was a Turkish director working in France from the 40s. Although not a director of great reputation among the critics , his movies have almost all been aimed squarely at the commercial market . Verneuil is an expert on heist-genre such as he proved in ¨The Sicilians clan (68)¨ also with Gabin and Delon , ¨The burglars (1971)¨ with Omar Shariff and Jean Paul Belmondo , furthermore on Warlike genre : ¨Weekend at Dunkirk¨and ¨The 25th hour¨and only one Western : "Guns of San Sebastian (68)¨. He seemed to have dropped out of the film-making after 1976, but in 1981 unexpectedly reappeared with yet another of his caper film : "Thousand millions of dollars¨. Rating : 6/10, acceptable and passable . A must see for Jean Paul Belmondo fans .

At one point in Les Morfalous, Jean-Paul Belmondo's character tells the warrant officer: "I'll be frank, Edouard. It's not polite to mock us." Pause. "It's not polite." Although this war story seems often to be a bargain basement version of Kelly's Heroes, it has its moments. Another moment comes when the bank director's wife, observing her husband for the last time, gets a chance to make one really mean comment that is a play on words. Those moments do not include the cheap explosions that do no damage to the Tunisian town set where most of the action takes place in. Les Morfalous is the last of seven (by my count in IMDb) pairings of Belmondo and director Henri Verneuil. Belmondo in this movie seems as spry as ever, fighting, running and chewing the scenery. But age was catching up to him, which shows in close ups. Verneuil, a great action director, decided to end his career, after this movie, by making a series of dramatic movies about the Turkish genocide of the Armenians during World War One. I think he made the right decision, by ending his career making movies he cared about. Les Morfalous is a star vehicle that lacks the usual production gloss of Belmondo's movies in the 60s and 70s. The version I saw on the NYC CUNY Channel had subtitles but the print was grainy and washed out. Even a great print could not hide this movie's flaws: cheap action, choppy editing and too many dull characters. Belmondo is fine, the actor who plays the German officer is fine, the bank director's wife is very good looking and on target when she lists the mistakes Belmondo's sergeant made. In the end, Les Morafalous is a tired movie with too small a budget and not enough interesting action for a war movie.

The film ultimately stands as a flawed yet somewhat entertaining entry in the World War II genre, marred by significant shortcomings that prevent it from reaching the heights of more accomplished war films. While it presents an engaging premise and makes solid use of its desert setting, its execution leaves much to be desired, particularly in terms of direction, acting credibility, and overall cohesion.

Visually, the film has its moments, with the cinematography effectively capturing the harsh, sun-drenched landscapes that reinforce the sense of isolation. However, the film suffers from noticeable stylistic anachronisms. Hairstyles, wardrobe choices, and certain props feel out of place for the 1940s setting, diminishing the immersion. While some war films meticulously recreate period-accurate aesthetics, this one takes a looser, less disciplined approach, which undermines its credibility.

The action sequences are competently staged, relying on practical effects and pyrotechnics that add a degree of realism. Yet, beyond these surface-level thrills, the film lacks the weight and intensity needed to make its set pieces truly impactful. The choreography often feels too staged, with little of the raw unpredictability that characterizes the best war films. This issue extends to the overall staging of scenes, where group movements and background action feel poorly coordinated. There is a clear lack of directorial control over the positioning and purpose of secondary characters, leading to a sense of confusion in the mise-en-scène. Extras and minor players often appear aimless, failing to contribute meaningfully to the atmosphere of a given moment.

The film's pacing is another drawback. It meanders between moments of tension, adventure, and humor without ever fully committing to a cohesive tone. Some comedic elements feel forced, clashing with the more serious themes, and the lack of a clear directorial vision results in tonal inconsistencies that weaken the narrative. Unlike war films that successfully balance humor with danger-such as Kelly's Heroes, which seamlessly integrates irreverence with wartime peril-this film stumbles in its attempt to do the same. The humor often undercuts the stakes rather than enhancing the tension, making it difficult to invest fully in the unfolding events.

Performance-wise, the film is largely let down by its direction rather than the actors themselves. The lead delivers a serviceable performance, bringing charisma to the role, but the dialogue often feels under-rehearsed, with interactions that lack spontaneity and conviction. Supporting characters fare even worse, with many seemingly uncertain of their purpose in each scene. The delivery of lines frequently feels stilted, as if the cast was not given sufficient preparation or clear direction on how to approach their roles. The result is a series of interactions that feel hollow, failing to create the necessary dramatic tension or chemistry between characters.

The film's technical aspects further highlight its shortcomings. In addition to anachronistic design choices, there are clear signs of rushed production, with continuity errors and inconsistencies in character positioning between shots. These issues, while minor on their own, accumulate over the course of the film, reinforcing the sense that it was not as tightly controlled as it should have been. A strong director can elevate even a modestly budgeted film through precise scene blocking and meticulous attention to detail, but that level of craftsmanship is noticeably absent here.

The soundtrack, while serviceable, does little to elevate the film. It provides the expected cues for tension and action but lacks the kind of memorable themes that define truly great war films. At times, it even feels at odds with the scenes, further emphasizing the tonal confusion that plagues the movie.

In the end, the film earns a passing grade, but only barely. It is not without entertainment value, particularly for those who appreciate war films with a more lighthearted or adventurous slant. However, its lack of directorial control, underdeveloped performances, and overall uneven execution prevent it from standing out. For dedicated fans of World War II cinema, it remains a curiosity rather than a must-watch-a film that had potential but ultimately falls short due to its lack of polish and coherence.

This is a Movie playing in World War II with Legionaires,it`s not even the best Movie Belmondo ever did,but it`s worth having a look at it. Jean-Paul Belmondo plays his typical ironic,charming and sporting role as he ever did(in the late 70`s and 80`s).There`s a lot of Action in it some Kind of humor and in my opinion tense,all in all for me it`s a clear 8.