Avaliações de usuários

Paul Fox looks more like a paperboy than a foreign legionnaire and struggles to make anything out of the trite dialogue in this tale of life in the French Foreign Legion which is based on the autobiography of Simon Murray. Murray seems to have led an interesting life - in addition to serving in the FFL he was the oldest man to reach the South Pole unsupported and his wife was the first woman to fly around the world in a helicopter - but Deserter is desperately dull stuff. At least Tom Hardy is on hand to provide some acting chops as Fox's comrade.

Having recently read Simon Murrays factual book 'Legionnaire ' on which this is based - I tracked down the film. The result sadly lacks the grit and gruesome integrity of the book in almost all respects. The casting doesn't really help either, with the main character coming across as rather too honest and righteous compared to his colleagues. I had hoped that the film may have captured the atmosphere of the conflict in some respects but found it sadly lacking. Likewise the quandary of whether or not to support the 'Generals Revolt' coup attempt was dealt with on a rather local basis and contradicts and belittles what actually happened. Its not a well known part of world history outside Algeria or France so for this reason alone it is worth a watch - but don't make the mistake of thinking it paints a true picture of the conflict. To learn more take a look at 'The Battle of Algiers' which was banned in France for years, or even the rather cheesy 'Lost Command' (Anthony Quinn).

Deserter is about as rich a film as the desert featured in it. Its bland, dull and uninspiring. The most notable aspect about it is Tom Hardy who is wasted in a weak role and worse film.

Sometimes it helps to step outside of the familiar. In "Deserter", my American perspective gets broadened by looking at an Arab country through the eyes of a young Brit placed within the French Foreign Legion. With my own country removed entirely from the scene, I thus start with no default "side" here. The movie does start off following the FFL, but of course expands before too long to show us (some of) the Arab side as well.

I'd like to know, but don't know, how true to reality the movie is. Most of what we're shown seemed very plausible to me. A few bits did feel "Hollywoodized" but perhaps were reasonable distillations of multiple events.

What made the biggest impression on me was the discomfort of Murray as he came face to face with the inexorable underlayment of the whole situation: that military occupation is fundamentally wrong because it is not consensual. That's a good lesson for everyone.

I'm surprised this only has a 5.3. I wouldn't call it a great movie, but it's well done and involving and deserves a higher score.

My biggest complaint is that the accents were hard for me to understand, especially near the beginning. With the mixture of different national origins of the characters and some of the dialog being in French with the rest in (mostly) French-accented English, a lot of the early lines were lost on me. I almost stopped watching after about 10 minutes due to this. I'm glad I didn't.

Almost watchable until the cafe scene 41 minutes in. Give me a break!

Good for Tom Hardy fans to see him early. You have to consider the budget (with an R-22 depicting an early helicopter). I think it's as good as you can get for the money and the training sequences reminicent of FMJ but without the humour.

What winds me up as an Irishman is that the English Legionnaire criticises what the French are doing in Algeria for 127 years, yet what his own country did/ does to Ireland for 800 years and other countries...

I had to rewatched this movie, only for the reason to watch Tom Hardy since he is one of my favorite actors up to date, that being said the movie lacks in different aspects and is somewhat boring at times, we see a young Tom Hardy showing us what he is going to become in future movies to come, that only war action scene was the only good thing about this film, the movie needed more of that, and the only other great thing is seeing that beautiful French girl, I was like wow, that being said the movie fails to deliver a good action war movie, and we only see what Tom Hardy delivers even though he was as the supporting cast, I give " Deserter" a 2 out of 10 Stars, Thats only because of Tom Hardy made me watch this movie, as for the movie is a 1 out of 10Stars.

I watched this film with interest. It appears to have some vague reality to the history of the Algerians fighting against the French.

Amazon lists this film as produced in 2016, when in fact it was filmed/produced in 2002. I could not figure out why Tom Hardy is so young in this movie if it had been produced in 2016. The fact it was produced in 2002 makes more sense" . Hardy and his colleague "Simon Murray" are 18 years younger!

I should study the French Foreign Legion a bit, because I am unaware of the brutality imposed by senior officers upon the recruits and the junior ranks. Paul Fox as Simon Murray is dazzlingly good looking. Hardy's youthful look is quite striking.

This movie is listed as "Legion of Honor on Amazon. On IMDb, it is listed as "Deserter". It is a bit confusing, as I came away from this not knowing exactly who the deserter was. I also question the historical accuracy of this film. Having said that, I do like it and I may watch it again to put together some of the "missing pieces".

Not the most exciting film in the world, and it would've been nice to see a bit more action on the battlefield, but as a cheap knockoff of much better movies like Full Metal Jacket, Deserter isn't bad at all.

Brady is quite effective in an early role, his camaraderie with his fellow soldiers is quite touching sometimes and what war scenes exist are efficient enough for a low budget flick. There is also effective use of overseas locations that add to the atmosphere.

For fans of his earlier work, it's well worth checking out... just don't expect it to go above 'average' at any point, that's all. 5/10.

three screenplay writers including the original author and director crafted this lukewarm screenplay. what we saw was a bunch of young men who came from all different regions or countries to blindly joined the french foreign legion, a mercenary-like commissioned army to deal with the Algeria uproar fighting France's colonization for independence. i have to say that all the young men who played the recruits of the french legion did great performances, their roles were very tough and rough, not an easy job to play those roles. but in the meantime, they looked not quite competent, especially the main character, the English young man who joined the force just because he got a broken heart from an unsuccessful romance in england. this young actor, although did a pretty nice performance, but at the same time, also a pretty bad cast. too youngish, too baby faced and also looked too unconvincingly weak. his best friend and comrade then became a turned coat who joined the opposition insurgent was a better cast but still not quite fit the role. the fighting scenes were brutal but not well directed and performed. if compare to similar historical background 'intimate enemy', 'incendis' and several other great ones, this 'deserter' would not even qualified as a good movie, just a lame, lukewarm movie that failed to connect the audiences or a viewer like me.

Kinda good, kinda bad.

For the most part, though, I did mostly like 'Deserter'. It's got a weird sorta vibe to it and feels cheaply made, though with that said the locations are convincing enough. Tom Hardy does well in just his second movie, though does sport a very iffy French accent. Paul Fox is alright in (despite what that presumably retrospective poster suggests) the lead role, he looks a little like Donald O'Connor in this, so there's that.

I can fully see why some may dislike this. For me, it's one to narrowly file under 'good'.

///// 2002 Simon: An English Legionnaire Directed by Martin Huberty.

This is a good 'Foreign Legion' Film and a fairly open representation of a very complicated Period of 20th century History.

France,Algeria and the Foreign Legion all were changed by this series of events and for Simon Murray this was very much a significant time of Personal development and Experience. He also wrote a Book about this time which is also a good read for anyone interested in Legion History.

This is one of Tom Hardy's early Films,but in my Opinion, underrated.

He brought depth and character to 'Dupont' and while the Script lost a little clarity at times by the end of the tale Hardy related the complex nature of Dupont and the Challenges facing many at that time and place!

Great film highlighting Peace and Reconciliation between nations - as well as the search of a man's soul to attain peace with himself.

In the words of the narrator, when he gives the reason why he joined the French Foreign Legion: "It's really all about finding your soul. It's about getting off the path, for that is where the freedom lies. So I say, do not follow where the path might lead. Go instead where there is no path, and leave a trail."

This applies especially to the current situation between Russia and Ukraine, I think, since both nations have to find a way to live in Peace with each other other - just like France and Algeria did, after the terrible and horrific Algerian War from 1954 to 1962; which actually has some striking similarities to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine instigated by the Putin regime.

Hence Russia and Ukraine must implement a Ceasefire - so that Diplomacy and Dialogue can be restored and Peace Talks can commence. Above all Peace must be restored - so that basic Human Rights and Child Rights can be restored in Ukraine.

On that note, we strongly urge Mr. Putin (or his body double) to work something out with French President Macron; so that Peace and Prosperity can be restored in the International Community :)

Probably the best Foreign Legion film, although there are some discrepancies between the film and the book of the authentic story which it is based on. Paul Fox makes an excellent impersonation of Simon Murray which is wholly convincing, and since Simon Murray himself was the executive producer.of the film he apparently didn't object. Tom Hardy as his best friend Dupont in the legion is a more complicated role, and although they both develop strongly in opposite directions, Dupont's character is vital for the balance of the film, which otherwise would have been dominated by Paul Fox alone. You have to understand Dupont's stand and that of the other "pieds noirs" of Algeria, who had every reason to oppose the liberation of Algeria from France, while you also have to understand Simon Murray's difficult position and the decisions he had to make, although he was far more sceptical and brooding than Dupont. It's an excellent film which delves into the problem of a colonial power having to cut off its own limbs for the sake of the best of all, and the problems of this are unavoidable and unfathomable in their inevitable lasting consequences, like the scars after a civil war that never will heal.