Beau Geste le baroudeur

Leslie Nielsen, in one of his few serious actor parts, dies off too quickly in this color extravaganza, leaving Telly to rampage and wreak sadistic treatment on those under his command. Dean Stockwell and Doug McClure, "Americans", try to do their parts well, but, they just didn't strike me as the best choices, at the time, for their roles. The color treatment, uniforms, and action sequences are reminiscent of other blazing gun battle scene loaded movies, but nothing sterling or Oscar-winning here, except, maybe, Savalas, as the contemptible despot. Movie length could also have been better, too much was left out, even for an adapted story from Hollywood. Still, I would like to see this again in widescreen DVD, or even VHS. But, where would I find a good original copy ? It seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth, if it ever existed at all !

OK, so, it's not a classic, nor is it a masterpiece, but let's be fair here: it' entertaining and in my own personal opinion, underrated. Some historic inaccuracies are indeed blatant, but hey, it's an adventure movie, not a historic one. If you wish to watch a history based one look elsewhere, but if you like to see Telly Savalas in his heyday, and as usual rather strong and harsh performance, then this movie is really made for us.

Strangely, when I watched the movie (made one year earlier than the "Dirty Dozen"), I couldn't help thinking at parallelisms with Lee Marvin's depiction of. Major Reisman, who was indeed a tough cookie and a S. O. B., just as the character Savalas plays in this one.

One cannot but wonder how Telly Savalas finally got to play Major Wright in the last two sequels to the original "Dirty Dozen" bunch. Probably because someone may have seen his role in this movie.

The rest of the cast does a competent and convincing job, and even Leslie Nielsen (who went in his later days to play. Frank Drebin in the successful Comedy series "The Naked Gun" among others), did depict the Commander of the Foreign Legion's Regiment with distinctiveness.

But as said, if you expected a faithful retelling of the original story you came to the wrong place. This take is quite different and depicts probably a bit better, without romantic interludes, the harsh and cruel realities that made out the Foreign Legion.

One could consider it a forerunner to the later produced "March or Die" (1977), starring Gene Hackman, Terence Hill and Catherine Deneuve, but as stated, without any female participation.

As such I consider it a discreet movie that should be left as a solo effort, without comparing it to any other similarly titled film.

In my view, the only mistake the producers and director made, was indeed to name it "Beau Geste". They could easily have changed the names in it and titled it "The hard life of the Legionnaires", which would indeed have had more honesty in it. Another title that comes to mind could have been "Lost in a Dream of Freedom".

But whatever other title would have been given to it, it would certainly have attracted audiences of the time to go and watch it.

Sometimes it is the wrong choices that make some movies appear as either bad pictures, or as poor productions, when in reality there a many other worse examples, both in story telling, as well as in performance.

This indeed is a worthy movie to be watched as it is, since if one forgets for a moment the so called realism, and tries to take in the moral values that it attempts to convey, one might find that this film actually succeeded in its projection of this message.

I for one enjoyed it as one of the better small movies made in the mid-sixties, particularly for the interaction among all the characters, which came through as honest without all the "schmaltz" (sweetness) that similar movies try to infuse in such stories.

Try to watch it in this spirit, forgetting both the title and its original source and you will see that in the end you will be satisfied by it.

This qualifies as a tolerable "time-killer" largely because it's the kind of movie which, alas, Hollywood hardly ever makes anymore, but it pales in comparison to the 1939 version with Gary Cooper or the 1926 version with Ronald Colman. Guy Stockwell and Doug McClure play brothers, (the third one having been deleted from the story), and while both are agreeable actors, they seem too "modern" and "American" for this kind of period piece. (It's set in 1906.) However, these two good-looking and athletic actors fit nicely into the movie's blatant and unapologetic penchant for "beefcake in bondage." McClure, stripped to the waist, is punished by being locked into a sweat-box, and boy does he sweat, while Stockwell, also stripped to the waist, suffers a flogging -- which ranks 85th in the book, "Lash! The Hundred Great Scenes of Men Being Whipped in then Movies" -- as well as a punishment which has him buried to the neck in the sun-scorched sand. (Just one year later, Stockwell and McClure were re-teamed for "The King's Pirate." In that movie, McClure was the one who got to feel the sting of a whip across his bare back.) Telly Savales is given free rein to snarl and glower but he's almost too well-cast as the villainous sergeant. The ending borders on the laughable with its high fatality rate for actors entirely dependent on their rank in the movie's official billing.

This one always used to appeared in the TV Guide as "a surprisingly good version". That's understandable, given the casting of Telly Savalas and Doug McClure. It's easy to dismiss it outright based on their reputations, but this movie was made when both were doing movies, before their TV careers, well before Telly started sucking lollipops and saying "who loves ya, baby?", and before Doug's string of truly awful B (or C) movies. Guy Stockwell is fine as the stalwart elder brother, and Leslie Neilsen a surprise as the drunken commanding officer. The plot is straightforward and serviceable, the action is exciting, the set pieces and themes well handled. I saw this movie first as a young man, and was taken by the action. I saw it again when I was a little older, and came to appreciate Telly Savalas' performance (indeed, it's about the only performance from him that I liked). I would watch it any time it was on. I tried the original, 1939 version, but found it too slow and talky for my tastes, like a great many old classics. Having never read the book, I was unoffended by the changes made to the story line. On its own merits, it's a good actioner. I admit I played "Beau Geste" with my Airfix soldiers in the sandbox, pitting the Bedouins against the Legionaries. It was one of those movies that left an indelible impact on my young mind. I wish it would get more consideration than it gets, because I would like for it to come on once in a while still, or be made available on VHS, if not DVD.

Having never read the book or seen any of the earlier versions, I have to admit being pleasantly surprised with this, the third version of the famous tale. It can't really be said to boast an A-list cast, though Telly Savalas arguably dominates most scenes as the sadistic Dagineau. This time the ostensible lead Guy Stockwell, gets to play a much more personable and loyal brother than the one he plays in his earlier War Lord, where his screen brother is the regularly heroic Charlton Heston.

What impressed me was how good the film looks and how convincing a substitute Arizona and a Universal backlot is for the Sahara. Sorry, but after appreciating the vivid technicolours in this film, I don't think anyone could convince me (as many of the other reviewers here try to do so), that the earlier black and white versions (with the 1926 version being silent for goodness sake) are more enjoyable watching. The other thing that I found unexpectedly good were the handling of the battle scenes primarily in the second half of the film. For a 1966 movie, they are quite realistic, suspenseful and intense, with some liberally spilt blood thrown in for good measure.

Your time won't be wasted spending a couple of hours with Beau Geste.