Le Déserteur

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".

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...

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.

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.

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.