Beau Geste

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.

The 1939 Beau Geste was almost completely faithful to the early 20th century romantic novel with much more skillful, nuanced acting and plot development. This version transforms the three Geste brothers into Americans and substitutes a very vague, underdeveloped story line regarding their presence in the Foreign Legion.

However, this is a much better action movie. Telly Savalas is superb as the sadistic sergeant, and the almost thirty year time span between films allowed for a more explicit depiction of the sexual aspect of his twisted behavior. The battle scenes are brutally realistic and the uniforms, equipment, and methods of fighting are much more accurately portrayed here.

The most serious problem with the 1966 version is an absolutely horrid soundtrack. One of the worst ever. The traditional Legion march "Le Boudin" is converted into Lawrence Welk style dentist office Muzak, even though the original, at 171 years old, has long been in the public domain and is featured in most Foreign Legion movies. Actually, "boudin" was a sausage ration issued in the old Legion. The original lyrics are pretty silly (more recent stanzas not so), but, in it's original form, the march is most stirring.

Both films are quite entertaining. Those who want a more coherent story line, more intricate acting, and stronger characters, will no doubt prefer the 1939 version. But for action and realism, this one definitely gets the nod.

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.

For those who watch the Cooper version, similarities will be made. The Cooper version is probably a bit better for most of us, and evokes more of the "childhood fantasies meet horrid realization" motif.

This film is good on its own merits. This film is completely the opposite of the other in the brothers who are killed. In fact, the third brother never even speaks, and we don't even know he is there if we watch the film. The second brother arrives late, and still serves as a character, but the entire focus is on "Beau" himself.

This film also gives us more of the sadistic NCO, played by Telly. He is not only cruel, but sadistic, as he even punishes those loyal to him.

The character of Beau is the motif of the story, however, and is what makes the film worthwhile. He is an "everyman", but yet "the man of mystery". True to life, the "man of mystery" is not someone who embarks on a ego trip, but someone who just lives life. It is not someone who tries to con, cheat, and confuse others, because Life does enough of that on its own (which makes such a person look like an inept fool to others), but someone who is honest and tries to do his job. Life ALWAYS makes such men look like "men of Mystery", because there are just too many oddities that occur.

This is what happens in "Cool Hand Luke", as Newman's character is made into a legend, yet from the beginning he tells the prison guard he doesn't want to make trouble, and he doesn't. His honesty is what turns him into a legend.

So it is here. Beau is miscast as a crusader and assassin, playing the "Inspector General" so to speak, both to the leaders, and to the men. He never tries to confuse any of them. He merely glides along, and that is what makes this film so breathtaking, and makes the action come so alive.

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.