input: I have seen this film three times now, and each time I see it, it becomes more personal and more emotional to watch.

The acting is amazing, which is not hard to believe since it is Daniel Day Lewis, who is an amazing actor. Brenda Fricker is the surprise wonder in it, though. She captures your heart as the mother of a physically disabled boy, who is not able to walk, or speak until he is in his late teens.

I can't say enough good things about the movie, but I will stop here. I recommend it to anyone who enjoys movies that are based on actual events, or just enjoy good dramas in general.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: You can tell a Lew Grade production a mile off distinctly British in style; epic in conception; peopled by international all-star casts; usually set in exotic climes. It's a formula that Grade and his company ITC employed throughout the 70s into the early 80s, resulting in titles like The Eagle Has Landed, Firepower, and Raise The Titanic! In 1977 Grade produced March Or Die, a remarkably old-fashioned Foreign Legion adventure that models all the characteristics mentioned above. Directed by the usually dependable Dick Richards who helmed the acclaimed Farewell My Lovely just a couple years earlier - March Or Die is an unfortunate disappointment.

A company of Foreign Legionnaires led by the harsh disciplinarian General Foster (Gene Hackman) is sent to Morocco shortly after World War 1. Their mission is to protect an archaeological party fronted by the dedicated Francois Marneau (Max Von Sydow). The archaeologists are carrying out an excavation at the ancient city of Erfoud, but fear an attack from Arab tribesmen following the decimation of an earlier archaeological group. Foster is not happy with the assignment he does not consider historical artifacts worthy of his men risking their lives. This creates ongoing tension between himself and Marneau, who believes that the legionnaires should sacrifice their lives to make the excavation possible. The problems heighten when a beautiful woman named Simone Picard (Catherine Deneuve) tags along with the legionnaires. She is hoping to find out what happened to her father, a historian abducted by the Arabs when they wiped out the first archaeological team. Her presence arouses desires amongst the legionnaires, none more so than gypsy thief Marco Segrain (Terence Hill), a charming and courageous rogue who initially shows indifference towards his legionnaire colleagues but gradually grows in stature. Things climax with a huge battle at Erfoud, with swarms of united Arab tribes charging against the handful of legionnaires as they desperately try to defend their lives.

On paper the star duo of Gene Hackman and Terence Hill seem a mismatch Hackman is the heavyweight Oscar-winning character actor, Hill the handsome but limited Italian heart-throb from numerous low budget spaghetti westerns. One expects Hackman to act his counterpart off the screen. Yet, bizarrely, it is Hackman who gives the weak and uninvolving performance, while Hill raises his game to surprisingly high levels. The film is attractively shot on desert locations, but the pacing is awfully slow and few of the characters are worth caring for. Maurice Jarre's music is uncommonly flat too very disappointing from the guy who gave us the Lawrence Of Arabia score. It is remarkable that anyone had the nerve to try an old-fashioned adventure of this type in the 70s (it was a genre that peaked in the 30s, and had been all but forgotten during the intervening decades). Sadly, the gamble doesn't really pay off this homage to the legionnaire flicks of old becomes more of a plod than a march.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: The movie took a new angle to Gandhi's life, which is nice to see and it shows how human he was. His relationship with Harilal is something that Gandhi was troubled by and mentioned it several times as his failure as a father in his autobiography.

My big gripe is that I thought Gandhi was surprisingly uncharismatic in the movie. It could have been better acted by the person who played Gandhi. Some of Gandhi's statements seemed too smug and it seemed as if he was intentionally portrayed in a negative light in some parts of the movie.

The movie is not really all-rounded, but focused only narrowly on the relationship of the father and son. The rest is blurred out and only used to show the time frame and the general setting of the movie.

Overall nice movie if you keep in mind that it is not a complete picture.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: If I could give it a zero, I'd change my mind and give it a -10 instead. Absolutely horrible movie with no movie plot, doesn't make sense of what is happening. Just PLAIN BORING. Please don't waste your money on this one. Pleaseee!!! This movie could have done so well if it truly depicted the real zodiac killer's story, but nopes, I didn't feel anything but disgust while watching it. Do yourself a favor and rent some classic movies instead, its better to watch a movie you've already seen like 3-4 times than watch this crap! I don't understand why people even bother to make such movies when they know its not going to do well. Zodiac killer should be called 'Boriac killer' instead!!!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative