Gloriosa Retirada

The 1964 film, though today largely unknown outside of specialized circles, stands as a quietly monumental work within the WWII combat subgenre. While it may not reach the lofty heights of general cinematic masterpieces, it undoubtedly earns its place as an iconic entry in war cinema-an essential reference point for those seriously interested in the micro-histories of retreat, disillusionment, and psychological collapse during the Second World War.

At the helm of this rigorously composed narrative is Henry Verneuil, whose directorial precision orchestrates every element of the film with disciplined clarity. Known also for his work in The Vultures (1967) with Belmondo, The 25th Hour (1967) with Anthony Quinn, and the tragicomedy The Cow and I (La Vache et le Prisonnier, 1959) with Fernandel, Verneuil brings to this project a deep familiarity with WWII as cinematic material. His direction is not flamboyant but exacting: every scene calibrated, every moment weighted, yet never forced. He avoids the self-indulgence of spectacle, opting instead for a control that supports the atmosphere of entropic desperation. What might easily become bombastic under a less restrained hand remains grounded, tense, and narratively honest.

Much of this effect is achieved through a production design of remarkable ambition and detail. The film's mise-en-scène is rigorous in its materiality. Uniforms are rumpled, gear is missing, firearms often seem useless or ornamental. There's no fetishization of military paraphernalia, and the usual iconography of the war film-the helmet, the rifle, the rucksack-appears worn to the point of farce. This isn't a war fought by professionals but endured by individuals ill-prepared, psychologically and materially, for the collapse of order. The visual texture of decay is pervasive: sand clogging weapons, mud blending into blood, smoke blurring the horizon. The visual field itself becomes unreliable.

Within this visual disintegration, the scale of the production asserts itself with a kind of functional elegance. This is clearly a large-scale undertaking: a generous deployment of military vehicles, well-managed crowd scenes, elaborate stunt choreography, and frequent, well-timed explosions that never tip into gratuitous excess. The abundance of extras and the convincing replication of chaos serve not as an indulgence in spectacle, but as a reinforcement of thematic disarray. These elements are executed with such balance and control that they become organic to the narrative's internal logic. This is large-scale filmmaking without triumphalism-a vision of wartime collapse rendered with logistical precision.

Verneuil's orchestration of this notorious chapter-the chaotic withdrawal at Dunkirk and the perilous maneuvers that characterized it-is nothing short of masterful. It's a depiction that refuses to mythologize the moment, and instead captures the exacting disintegration of structure and morale. In doing so, the film distances itself from the celebratory narratives that often attend portrayals of this event, especially in Anglophone cinema. This is not Dunkirk (1958), where adversity ultimately underscores collective endurance. Here, the fragmentation is total, and Verneuil ensures that every stylistic and material choice drives that point home.

Through a subdued yet uncompromising aesthetic, and a narrative architecture that refuses the comforts of clarity or closure, the film makes its mark not by shouting, but by eroding the very ground beneath its characters. It is in this erosion-meticulously framed, meticulously rendered-that Verneuil's vision finds its most haunting expression. The result is a film that, while never straining to impress, leaves a deep and persistent impression: a work of remarkable craft, rare thematic discipline, and lasting resonance within the canon of WWII cinema.

It is a film deserving be loved like the novel inspiring it. The motif is more than simple - the cast and the cinematography and the brilliant simplicity , proposing fair reactions , nice dialogues, answers to the challenges, inspired portraits of love and comradery becoming friendship, precise definition of death and a great work of Jean Paul Belmondo.

Few scenes as the boats to the ships or as the horse toy in wave.

Very simple, must see it. Because it is more than a war film. It propose, in admirable manner, just simple war stories of ordinary people, out of recipes of heroism.

It takes real skill to make such an inherently dramatic story so damn boring and utterly drained of all interest and vitality.

The amazing shooting location, the vintage fighter planes, the explosions, the hundreds or thousands of background extras... all wasted on a film with no story. In place of a story, they give us a random string of random encounters between random people who talk and talk, and then talk some more about nothing. They walk and talk. They sit and talk. They smoke and talk. They drink and talk. And then some bombs go off, or some Messerschmitts fly low and strafe the soldiers. And then we're back to pointless talking. This is not a film. It's two hours of footage.

And it's unfortunately characteristic of a particular kind of French film (especially a 1960s French film) where we get a cast of automatons who don't at all resemble real human characters but go around engaging in inane chit chat or robotically spouting meaningless philosophical musings or dialectics. It's so 60s. It's so French.

After just finishing reading the novel, which I regard now as one of the best war time books and which for me spoke about poignancy, faith, sexuality, believes (not as per faith itself) and manhood, I have decided to watch the movie as well.

The movie mostly faithfully depicts the events in the novels and mostly stays true to it. Unfortunately though the movie lacks the heart and soul of the novel and rather gives (for me) a third person view of the main character as we follow him and the events in contrast to the source material.

The cast for the most part is good, though obviously Belmondo excels in his role. Set design, atmosphere and looks are incredibly good, even in 2022, if you are used to 60 - 70s era movies.

Overall, it's an entertaining movie,IF YOU HAVENT READ THE NOVEL BY NOW, THEN GO AND WATCH THE MOVIE, but for someone regarding the source material in a high esteem, unfortunatelly its a disapointment.

Cheers, David from Hungary.

I found myself distracted by the background of the continual movements of squads of soldiers, aimlessly marching backwards & forwards, in opposite directions, for no obvious reasons & completely oblivious to the presence of the three principal characters.