merklekranz First off, Gene Hackman is always excellent in authoritative roles, whether it be "March or Die" or "Hoosiers". As the commanding officer of a Legion assigned to protect a desert archaeological expedition, Hackman argues unsuccessfully, but quite convincingly, that the dig will have dire consequences. The real surprise here is Terence Hill as the soldier who resists authority. This is without question a completely different Terence Hill than the buffoon we see in his "spaghetti westerns". The film takes it's time to develop characters, and then trains them for their destiny with disaster in the desert. There is nothing predictable about this movie, as it has several twists that are non obvious. Recommended. - MERK

Chrysanthepop Dick Richards's 'March or Die' is an interesting film set in Morocco during the French colonization. It nicely entangles the war drama and the love triangle. As the captain, we see a ruthless William but his feelings for Simone show a more human side. Marco is the clever thief and a skilled smooth talker with a good heart but he too has a vulnerable side. Simone is perhaps the most complex of characters as she is ambivalent concerning William and in love with Marco though she cannot bring herself to say it. The main characters are quite well fleshed out. The pacing is slow at times. The love sequences are well executed and it is very well underplayed. There is no sugar syrupy moment. The cinematography is okay. A wonderful Gene Hackman is both hateful and sympathetic. Terence Hill performs very naturally. Max Von Sydow is good but Ian Holm is unintentionally funny and it looks as if he's mocking a Moroccan tribes leader rather than playing it. A radiant Catherine Deneuve is sublime. Gosh, she looks so beautiful! The rest of the cast do well. The movie sort of has a dated feel to it but 'March or Die' is good enough watch for a Thursday night.

elshikh4 This is a very tasteless movie. (Gene Hackman) is one of the finest, but in here I didn't quite get what was tempting for him to be in such a role. (Catherine Deneuve) looked very frigid. (Terence Hill) well.. what kind of genius thought that he was good as an actor to cast him as a lead star in a big production movie which relied on acting more than action ??? He was the worst element with his stupid smile and glassy eyes. Just imagine a young Jean-Paul Belmondo in the same role; that would have been amusingly immortal not the other way around ! As for the meaning of the whole thing, I didn't catch on what was the real deal of it ?, what's exactly the concept of March or Die ? Is it about a bunch of people who love to be dead ? Is it about the mankind's stupidity ? Is it about an everlasting war somewhere sometime that forces some people to march or die, or to march and die ?? We've been watching all along an elegy about the human who might find himself in a hell of absurd world where he must kill or be killed for no reason. So let's say it's about the uselessness of the war as well as the falseness of colonialism (great point of view through the character of El Krim) and how the soldiers went into death for no actual principal sometimes. But on the other hand, I didn't understand (Deneuve)'s character (Simone Picard). What was the dramatic use out of one soldier killing himself because he didn't succeed sexually with a whore who divulged him openly? Or how (the gypsy) turned into another man at the end (the man that he used to be his opposite !). Ahh, questions.. questions !In fact, I developed a very resting rule lately : "Don't ask yourself a lot about a movie that didn't enjoy you that much", OH this is heaven guys ! I used nearly all my life to search for answers for too many questions. But you know what.. I clearly discovered that some movies don't deserve to tire yourself for them. Because whatever the golden results that you may find; you didn't love the movie in the first place, because anyhow anyway the movie didn't influence you with anything it presented. Bottom line : this is a case when I must say honestly and fully convinced that this movie is not for me.P.S : I found out today that one of my reviews, that didn't have any kind of abuse for anything or anyone on plant earth, had been deleted because some "……." didn't like it ???!!! It's another new reason for not fatiguing myself in writing, concluding, or standing a movie; as long as whatever what I may write will upset someone somehow, AND our dear beloved site will erase that review for him ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. It happens lots of times these days, and how the IMDb allows it easily and randomly. I think, if they let me publish my own point of view, with letting everybody delete anybody's point of view; then maybe there will be no more IMDb someday !!

ereinion I found this film underrated both by critics and specially audience.I mean,its the only film where you get the chance of seeing Gene Hackman and Terence Hill sharing the screen,not to mention Catherine Deneuve as lovely as always.Hackman's role is interesting and he never once fails in bringing it to life.Its touching,specially in the end where he dies.Hill does his best part ever without a doubt.I was surprised to see him pull off such a good role.A fine supporting cast includes Max Von Sydow and Ian Holm,as well as giant Jack O'Halloran in a memorable role as the Russian soldier Ivan.Anyway,i think the audience failed to see the real value here,as it often happens.It is a story of the Legion and its soldiers,but not just that.It includes strong issues such as imperialism,religious fanatism and the harsh army discipline,with a good love story thrown in.I dont know what else can you possibly want?A solid 8.