Deserter [Blu-ray]

This film was recommended to me so I bought it. At the time I did not have a Reg.2 player so I was extremely disappointed that I couldn't see it. When I was able to see it, I realized why my friends had recommended it. First, it is another Tom Hardy gem, though one of the British Foxes plays the lead and is very, very good.The plot of the movie is suspenseful. You will never suspect what occurs at the end. The unrequited love angle seems almost an afterthought, tho the movie is based on a real story. It tells of the French Foreign Legion (into which no French men are allowed!) during the Algerian struggle for independence. Simon (the "Deserter") sees both sides of the struggle and wonders why, in a land so large, Arabs and Europeans cannot live together. Like they had done for generations. Poor Simon, he is so naive one thinks he will not make it out of boot camp. But he is befriended by DuPont (Hardy) and learns through him how to be a soldier and survivor. This is a terrifc movie, another indie, and I would get a copy of it before it goes out of print in both continents. It's worth it.

hello, it never amazes us that people go through stuff in the military. it is just awful, but, it takes certain people to do it. does it make better soldiers? that remains to be seen. sometimes one wonders if the awful training causes more damage than expected. this movie shows that torture and it makes a dreadful result. war movies show people in the most stressing moments, but you wonder if the results are worth it. tom hardy has improved in the most recent movies that he has been in, but this one starts his persona in the other movies. brooding is a good word to describe the character. was the movie good? it was ok. yrmv

This movie was absolutely great in the fact that it wasn't a soapbox for something. Englishman Simon Murray joins the French Foreign Legion after being turned down by the British Army during the Algerian struggle for independence. Like many Simon is running away from his past.Murray's story reports on his five years in the Legion in French dominated Algeria. What sets this story apart is Murray's desire to learn about his host nation and their traditions.Having have spent a good many years in the military, the representation of the camaraderie is spot on. A soldier is only as good as his weapon and the man/woman at his or her side. Enjoy this movie knowing the vast majority of it if NOT Hollywood.

I am always interested in the French Foreign Legion. I met a few while working in Chad, albeit thirty years later than the setting of Deserter. This was a fascinating time, I think, when the French colonies were in revolt, as was the Legion.The movie gave a good sense of time and place. The acting and storyline were fine. So, I enjoyed the movie.What makes a man join the Legion? A question for the ages. Five years is a longtime..

A poorly put together movie, partly based on historical fact. Some reviewers seem to have picked up on the line in the film that French nationals were not allowed to join the Legion. While the Legion was created primarily to allow foreigners to serve France, the soldiers were (and still are) always commanded by French Officers. French nationals were allowed to join and even now constitute about 24% of the serving soldiers.Apart from that long held (but incorrect) rumor, the basis of the story appears to be accurate. Unfortunately, the way the movie was put together made it difficult to follow. Scenes seemed to jump ahead to the next with no carry over so it was difficult to understand. While headlined as a Tom Hardy movie, he, in fact was only a secondary player.

Once again we see "based on a true story" at the beginning of the film. I do not see where Simon Murray had very much, if anything to do with this film. His character in the movie was portrayed as an idealistic wimp; the real Simon Murray was a very tough hombre. The book is an essay of the brutality within the Legion, which the film has great difficulty in bringing to the screen. The first half of Full Metal Jacket is far more effective and convincing in that respect. I have read Legionaire three times, and was hoping the movie would convey the spirit and events contained therin. It did not. This movie has about as much historical accuracy as Mel Gibson's "Braveheart". Very little. Do not buy this DVD; buy the book and enjoy it as a descent into the Hell of joining the Legion.

This movie only touched on the book. I wish other parts were expanded upon such as his rise through the ranks and some of the other battles fought in, what he experienced losing numerous comrades, him knocking out a french officer and of course, the women and booze. It would be hard to dial his book into less than two hr time frame...if you liked the movie, read the book

I don't know if a lot of this film was left on the cutting room floor or what, but the movie just doesn't work.I might watch it again but only because I am in love with Tom Hardy. His character is the best one. You already know that my opinion is biased. The lead character just didn't do anything for me at all. I really can't see that character in the Legion. I really have to blame the actor, the casting person, and the script for this.The story could have been good, but I wound up getting people confused. I kept asking my friend who watched it with me, "Is that the one girl or the other girl?" Some things took too long to develop, and some story elements didn't develop at all.

This film wasn't what I expected it to be. The scenery was stunning and the acting fantastic but I found it a little slow at times - however, it is still worth watching and, as always, Tom Hardy is his usual 'moody' self. The story is based in the 60's and the French Foreign Legion and two characters that enlist - The Legion isn't as glamorous or as romantic as one might envisaged (which is obvious by the training they receive.) Naturally there is a lot more to the plot than just the new recruits and I am sure the majority of viewers will enjoy watching the film.

Only released on DVD in 2011 after being first released in 2003 to coincide with the growing fame of Tom Hardy, quite a plodding film, with a not very good script and some cardboard acting from everyone except Tom Hardy. It was obvious that the film was made by someone with a left leaning ideology about colonial rule in Algeria in the 1960. The front cover depicts plenty of action, not what you will see in the movie, made on a tight budget.

My dad stumbled across this obscurity on TV one night and recommended it, it's a well made film and very enjoyable. It should be noted Hardy is not the main star, his picture has been placed prominently on the cover due to his current status but nonetheless the performances all round are excellent and for someone such as myself who generally wouldn't watch war films this was great

Not a bad film but the true story as told in the autobiography on which this film is based, was much more interesting, as was the post-Legion life of Simon Murray.

I agree with many other reviewers that much better films about legionnaires - or indeed about anything - have been made. Actually, the portion of the film focussing on the training is not altogether uninteresting, but the script is otherwise quite bad, the characters' motivations totally unclear most, if not all of the time.In defence of the marketing of the re-release, I will say that it's not entirely unreasonable to feature Tom Hardy as noticeably as they have done: his role is quite essential, and he has almost as much screen time as the main character. So anyone wanting to buy this purely to see him should go ahead. Just don't expect much of a movie experience.