The movie, although not a masterpiece, is quite realistic and historically accurate, actually it shows only a very small part of the ruthless brutality used by General Graziani against the civilian population. Some 120.000 civilians were killed in concentration camps in the attempt to quench the resistance. Graziani served only 2 years imprisonment for his crimes after the fall of Fascism, and later became honorary president of the (legal) neo-fascist party. This movie is still banned in Italy, and still recently the Italian Secret Services have prevented its official projection. The majority of Italians, even the anti-fascists, are still persuaded that our troops went to Lybia to build roads hospitals and bridges. It should not surprise that recently the former Prime Minister Berlusconi said that Mussolini never did any harm to anybody - probably not considering some hundred thousands Lybians casualties. Italians love to imagine their soldiers fraternizing with the locals and helping farmers in the fields - sadly the reality of war is quite different.
88 Reviews
A true financial disaster, but one of the greatest films to watch.
zhrmod125 July 2003
Moustapha Akkad, who produced the "Halloween" series is a Syrian-born filmmaker who has two ambitious epic films as a director. His first, the relatively forgotten film The "Message", about Mohammed and the Koran, it was (mistycal enough for me) a huge success worldwide. Then, Akkad lured Libyan dictator Molomar Qaddafi to invest million $35 in the war epic "Lion of the Desert".... One of the largest financial disasters in film history, though one of the greatest films I've seen... (Does this make sense???..)
Anthony Quinn (somehow reprising his role in the epic "Lawrence of Arabia") portrays the Libyan Guerilla fighter "Omar Mukhtar" who pledged his (as well as his countrymen's) life to drive the invading Italian forces out.
The story depicts post World War 1, pre WW2 era where Benito Mussolini (played by Rod Steiger) tries carving up the globe with empires for Italy. He uses Libya as an "easy" stepping stone to the the Middle East (Libya's occupation was not started by him.. funny and demagogical enough the young Mussolini demonstrated against the occupation of Libya in 1911).
Mukhtar, the village teacher, on the other hand made this difficult and was so successful waging his campaign against the Italians, that Mussolini sends in his top general "The Butcher" Graziani, played deliciously by the late Sir Oliver Reed (the Trap 1966, The Four Musketeers 1974, Gladiator 2000 and many more) to straighten things out.
First, the Italians just "tour" Libya, raiding, burning, killing and raping... but when an entire attack convoy is completely wiped out by rebels, Graziani decides to wage an all-out war against Libyans. Graziani pretends to come to terms with Mukhtar, but, at the same time, brings thousands of fresh Italian troops to Tripoli and marches them inland. He is the first general to use planes and tanks in the desert, destroying town after town. This way he successfully corners Mukhtar and his rebels in the mountains.
Historically accurate, in its portrayal of the Italian army and of the campaign itself, Lion of the Desert is an action packed, nearly (I say nearly..) flawless epic war film.
Rod Steiger starts with some over-acting marching around his offices barking at people. But the film quickly shifts towards the vastness and splendor of the Sahara desert. It has excellent action sequences, that employ splendid special effects and lots of stunt work.
On top of this, it's one of the bloodiest war films I've seen, with bullet wounds spraying blood and people smashed to pulps by Italian tanks. God knows how this film faded away with a mediocre rating, but then again noone really saw the film right?
The film is also a fascinating portrayal of the Arabs way of life and how it conflicts with European ideals.
The musical score of this film, by Maurice Jarre (Lawrence of Arabia), is only great at times, but often seems uninspired and lame compared to his previous works on David Lean's great films.
The cinematography and editing are classy, (one con though.. the cameras seemed a little shy of hanging around close to the big gasoline truck explosion. The best scenes in the film are battle scenes, one involving a vast army of extras destroying a nearly helpless arab village, another with Graziani's army battling the Libyans for control of a mountain bridge. Other than those two, I can't say great about the 3 or so other battle scenes (compared to these two).The overall effect of battle senes is though quite satisfying.
The cast of this film, doesn't lack big-names like Irene Papas and Sir John Gielgud but the roles were inconsequential as Mukhtar's friends. Then, there's a lot of the old Italian B-movie stars in small roles as Italian soldiers and aides..
Akkad's strong point seems to be showing Italian artillery blowing the bewildered Bedouin warriors while his weak point seems to be spending the money. The film didn't really need the lavishness and authenticity of the picture. Do you really have to hire thousands of extras and build many many replica tanks just to go destroy them for the authenticy? No surprise this movie lost money, but the fact that it made almost no money astonishes me. Could be cause early 1980´s were wrong timing for an epic film. People watched "The Empire Strikes Back" and didn't want to see a thorough recreation of some war, most never heard of.
Lion of the Desert may not be perfect, but it's just as splendid a viewing as any of the old big-budget war films like Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago, only this one's got a bit more action and politically ignored (as propoganda or is it the propoganda that endorses ignoring it??).
I highly recommend seeing the DVD in Widescreen, crisp quality and good 5.1 Dolby Digital sound, plus lots of informative extra features.
Anthony Quinn (somehow reprising his role in the epic "Lawrence of Arabia") portrays the Libyan Guerilla fighter "Omar Mukhtar" who pledged his (as well as his countrymen's) life to drive the invading Italian forces out.
The story depicts post World War 1, pre WW2 era where Benito Mussolini (played by Rod Steiger) tries carving up the globe with empires for Italy. He uses Libya as an "easy" stepping stone to the the Middle East (Libya's occupation was not started by him.. funny and demagogical enough the young Mussolini demonstrated against the occupation of Libya in 1911).
Mukhtar, the village teacher, on the other hand made this difficult and was so successful waging his campaign against the Italians, that Mussolini sends in his top general "The Butcher" Graziani, played deliciously by the late Sir Oliver Reed (the Trap 1966, The Four Musketeers 1974, Gladiator 2000 and many more) to straighten things out.
First, the Italians just "tour" Libya, raiding, burning, killing and raping... but when an entire attack convoy is completely wiped out by rebels, Graziani decides to wage an all-out war against Libyans. Graziani pretends to come to terms with Mukhtar, but, at the same time, brings thousands of fresh Italian troops to Tripoli and marches them inland. He is the first general to use planes and tanks in the desert, destroying town after town. This way he successfully corners Mukhtar and his rebels in the mountains.
Historically accurate, in its portrayal of the Italian army and of the campaign itself, Lion of the Desert is an action packed, nearly (I say nearly..) flawless epic war film.
Rod Steiger starts with some over-acting marching around his offices barking at people. But the film quickly shifts towards the vastness and splendor of the Sahara desert. It has excellent action sequences, that employ splendid special effects and lots of stunt work.
On top of this, it's one of the bloodiest war films I've seen, with bullet wounds spraying blood and people smashed to pulps by Italian tanks. God knows how this film faded away with a mediocre rating, but then again noone really saw the film right?
The film is also a fascinating portrayal of the Arabs way of life and how it conflicts with European ideals.
The musical score of this film, by Maurice Jarre (Lawrence of Arabia), is only great at times, but often seems uninspired and lame compared to his previous works on David Lean's great films.
The cinematography and editing are classy, (one con though.. the cameras seemed a little shy of hanging around close to the big gasoline truck explosion. The best scenes in the film are battle scenes, one involving a vast army of extras destroying a nearly helpless arab village, another with Graziani's army battling the Libyans for control of a mountain bridge. Other than those two, I can't say great about the 3 or so other battle scenes (compared to these two).The overall effect of battle senes is though quite satisfying.
The cast of this film, doesn't lack big-names like Irene Papas and Sir John Gielgud but the roles were inconsequential as Mukhtar's friends. Then, there's a lot of the old Italian B-movie stars in small roles as Italian soldiers and aides..
Akkad's strong point seems to be showing Italian artillery blowing the bewildered Bedouin warriors while his weak point seems to be spending the money. The film didn't really need the lavishness and authenticity of the picture. Do you really have to hire thousands of extras and build many many replica tanks just to go destroy them for the authenticy? No surprise this movie lost money, but the fact that it made almost no money astonishes me. Could be cause early 1980´s were wrong timing for an epic film. People watched "The Empire Strikes Back" and didn't want to see a thorough recreation of some war, most never heard of.
Lion of the Desert may not be perfect, but it's just as splendid a viewing as any of the old big-budget war films like Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago, only this one's got a bit more action and politically ignored (as propoganda or is it the propoganda that endorses ignoring it??).
I highly recommend seeing the DVD in Widescreen, crisp quality and good 5.1 Dolby Digital sound, plus lots of informative extra features.
An exciting tapestry of history coming alive under the great direction of Mustapha Al-Akkad...
Nazi_Fighter_David14 July 2000
"Lion of the Desert" stars Anthony Quinn as the real-life Beduin Leader Omar Mukhtar who fights with pride and courage, rage and anger Mussolini's invading troops in the Libyan Desert...
Quinn (strong, confident, never broken) plays the charismatic Islamic Libyan fighter who commits himself to a lifetime war against Italian Colonialism: "We have stood against you for 20 years and with the help of God we will stay with you till your end!"
Enraged by the 20-year war carried on by Beduin patriots opposed to the Italian occupation, the arrogant Mussolini (Rod Steiger) - the first of Europe's fascist dictators - orders his new military governor the ruthless Rodolfo Graziani (Oliver Reed) to crush and silence the Beduin rebellion by "whatever means" and capture their great leader Omar Mukhtar...
Mukhtar is forced to face his conviction and the power of Italy at its glorious height...
The film is based on the life of a brave resistance leader, a teacher of the Quran by profession... Mukhtar is a cunning warrior who masterminded the Libyan resistance... He stood against tyranny and oppression, and with the fire of his wisdom, he rallied his countrymen to liberation...
The film depicts the cruelty of Graziani's coward acts: the massive killing rampage in Kufra... We watch the invaders attacking with war-planes, tanks, cannons and machine-guns the poor village, but we also see a fascinating portrayal of the heroic Libyan forces fighting the mighty Italian artillery with old rusted rifles, giving their life for their land and their convictions...
Syrian director Mustapha Al-Akkad captures the horrific methods of the Italian army holding the helpless population in concentration camps; isolating the warriors from their families; setting fire to their fields; closing their wells; raping their women; destroying their homes; controlling the country by hanging old men and women; shooting innocent civilians, and specially the capture of the 'Old Lion', a natural fighter against 'educated' officers...
With great special effects, excellent action sequences and with the splendor of the Sahara Desert, Akkad's motion picture combines history with spectacle to create a moving drama of heroism and commitment...
Quinn (strong, confident, never broken) plays the charismatic Islamic Libyan fighter who commits himself to a lifetime war against Italian Colonialism: "We have stood against you for 20 years and with the help of God we will stay with you till your end!"
Enraged by the 20-year war carried on by Beduin patriots opposed to the Italian occupation, the arrogant Mussolini (Rod Steiger) - the first of Europe's fascist dictators - orders his new military governor the ruthless Rodolfo Graziani (Oliver Reed) to crush and silence the Beduin rebellion by "whatever means" and capture their great leader Omar Mukhtar...
Mukhtar is forced to face his conviction and the power of Italy at its glorious height...
The film is based on the life of a brave resistance leader, a teacher of the Quran by profession... Mukhtar is a cunning warrior who masterminded the Libyan resistance... He stood against tyranny and oppression, and with the fire of his wisdom, he rallied his countrymen to liberation...
The film depicts the cruelty of Graziani's coward acts: the massive killing rampage in Kufra... We watch the invaders attacking with war-planes, tanks, cannons and machine-guns the poor village, but we also see a fascinating portrayal of the heroic Libyan forces fighting the mighty Italian artillery with old rusted rifles, giving their life for their land and their convictions...
Syrian director Mustapha Al-Akkad captures the horrific methods of the Italian army holding the helpless population in concentration camps; isolating the warriors from their families; setting fire to their fields; closing their wells; raping their women; destroying their homes; controlling the country by hanging old men and women; shooting innocent civilians, and specially the capture of the 'Old Lion', a natural fighter against 'educated' officers...
With great special effects, excellent action sequences and with the splendor of the Sahara Desert, Akkad's motion picture combines history with spectacle to create a moving drama of heroism and commitment...
I worked on this film
Lionel Strutt25 March 2003
In 1979 I was the Sound Recordist on 'Lion of The Desert' film of the film so had first hand experience of this terrific Production.
Moustapha Akkad is a first class Producer and the facilities he provided for the unit in the middle of the Libyan Desert were fantastic. I mention this because it had a strong influence on the subsequent quality of the film. I was recordist on the interviews and PR documentary material for this great film and I am proud to have been involved with it.
I had first hand experience with Anthony Quinn during the shoot. He was totally dedicated to his role. Olly Reed was able to put up a good performance but did give us a few problems with his usual antics! The rest of the cast were brilliant and the result impressive.
The scale of this Production was incredible and the thought that went into the organisation of it was amazing.
If you would like me to answer any further questions about this, please leave messages on my notice board. Look me up under Lionel Strutt. I did not receive a direct named credit on this production because I was working, as I said, on the film of the film or TV documentary. However I did spend months in the desert with the production and crew. So can relate a few interesting stories!
Moustapha Akkad is a first class Producer and the facilities he provided for the unit in the middle of the Libyan Desert were fantastic. I mention this because it had a strong influence on the subsequent quality of the film. I was recordist on the interviews and PR documentary material for this great film and I am proud to have been involved with it.
I had first hand experience with Anthony Quinn during the shoot. He was totally dedicated to his role. Olly Reed was able to put up a good performance but did give us a few problems with his usual antics! The rest of the cast were brilliant and the result impressive.
The scale of this Production was incredible and the thought that went into the organisation of it was amazing.
If you would like me to answer any further questions about this, please leave messages on my notice board. Look me up under Lionel Strutt. I did not receive a direct named credit on this production because I was working, as I said, on the film of the film or TV documentary. However I did spend months in the desert with the production and crew. So can relate a few interesting stories!
Libyan resistance hero Omar Mukhtar leads a guerrilla campaign against Italian colonisers.
max-vernon13 April 2005
I came across my video copy of this film in 1995. I was surprised that I had never heard of the film as it uses such star actors as Quinn, Gielgud, Papas, Steiger and Oliver Reed. It is the only copy I have ever come across in UK shops. To the best of my knowledge, it has never been shown in the UK on either terrestrial or satellite TV. The reason for this remains a complete mystery to me. It may be because it was financed by Gaddafi who has been the subject of international embargos for many years.
The Arab-American Moustapha Akkad produced and directed the film in Libya with Gaddafi's full support. The film is reasonably accurate and, in my opinion, fair and balanced. Anthony Quinn had a long and distinguished career playing 'ethnic types' and his portrayal of Omar Mukhtar is undoubtedly one of his finest performances. Omar in the film is probably much more of an action man than the real Mukhtar who was more of a strategist than a fighter. Or so I was informed whilst on holiday in Tunisia. The film is (understandably) one of the most famous in the Arab world, dealing as it does with Arab suffering under recent European colonialism.
Akkad uses original black and white archive film to underpin its historical authenticity. At the start to set the scene of the Italian conquest of Libya from Turkey in 1911. In the middle to show an aerial view of the concentration camps built by the Italians and also the barbed wire 'Hadrian's Wall' built along the Egyptian border. Both these strategies were intended to cut off Mukhtar from his supply sources. At the end of the film there are still photos of the real Mukhtar in chains and also of the main Italian protagonists we see in the film.
Rod Steiger blusters through his role as Mussolini, the fascist dictator who wants to send Italian colonists to a peaceful Libya, an ambition being thwarted by Omar Mukhtar's stubborn 20-year long armed resistance. Oliver Reed plays a suitably ruthless General Graziani, the man charged with crushing Mukhtar. But his character is no two-dimensional brute.There is a very engaging private dialogue between himself and the captive Mukhtar. The two men debate historic claims to Libyan soil, with Graziani pointing out that the Romans were there before the Arabs. Reed gives a very controlled performance, one of his best.
The film is very balanced in its portrayal of the Italians. On the one hand we see some terrible reprisals-shootings and hangings-against civilians. On the other hand we have two sympathetic Italian officers whose conscience is afflicted by by the war they are forced to wage. The Raf Vallone character is particularly sympathetic- very courteous, generous and kind to the captive Mukhtar. This is history telling at its best. Italian fascists were not all the same. Individuals matter. Likewise, the Italian officer chosen to defend Omar at his trial argues that Mukhtar never committed treason against the Italian state because he never accepted it rule.
On the Arab side we have John Gielgud playing the high-ranking Sharif el-Gariani character who is sent to ask Omar to end his struggle. Some Arabs were willing to collaborate with an Italian rule which was helping to modernise their country. There is a nice reference to the fact that 'the League of Nations will not help you', highlighting the limitations of this predecessor of the UN. Come to think of it, things have not changed very much!
The action scenes are spectacular, with some inspiring ambushes by the insurgents against the Italian forces. The film credits Graziani (wrongly?) with being the first general to bring tanks into the desert. The Italian assault on the oasis town of Kufra is a theatrical masterpiece. Some viewers may think that all this is probably a bit over the top. It probably is but it certainly boosts the film's entertainment level. In fact, the film could have shown Italian planes dropping poison gas bombs as they did in Abyssinia a few years later. In his biography of Mussolini, the eminent historian Denis Mack Smith maintains that this did happen in Libya.
The music is very effective and the film is emotionally charged throughout, especially during the hanging scenes. The Omar Mukhtar character is accorded a great deal of dignity and honour. The film is hagiography but so are 'Spartacus', 'Ben-Hur', 'El Cid' and scores of other epics. Does this make the film a piece of Arab propaganda? Yes and no. The film emphasises the central role of Islam in giving Omar the inner strength to continue his fight. It tells an historical tale with a great deal of accuracy but it is also a feature film which aims to entertain. In that respect it is no different to any Hollywood blockbuster about the Alamo or Pearl Harbor. In my opinion it is superior to many such blockbusters. It's just that white Caucasians have to get used to being the bad guys for a change.
Gaddafi is now coming in from the cold and opening up his country to tourism. I can only hope that this will result in the film becoming more widely available and better-known in the UK. 'Lion of the Desert' is an excellent historical epic which tells one side of the story. Some historians would argue that Mukhtar's defeat and death paved the way for the enlightened rule of Italo Balbo who governed a 'pacified' Libya after 1934 with few executions and much building of infrastructure. I would not accept this view as all imperialisms are self-justifying and ultimately unacceptable.
The Arab-American Moustapha Akkad produced and directed the film in Libya with Gaddafi's full support. The film is reasonably accurate and, in my opinion, fair and balanced. Anthony Quinn had a long and distinguished career playing 'ethnic types' and his portrayal of Omar Mukhtar is undoubtedly one of his finest performances. Omar in the film is probably much more of an action man than the real Mukhtar who was more of a strategist than a fighter. Or so I was informed whilst on holiday in Tunisia. The film is (understandably) one of the most famous in the Arab world, dealing as it does with Arab suffering under recent European colonialism.
Akkad uses original black and white archive film to underpin its historical authenticity. At the start to set the scene of the Italian conquest of Libya from Turkey in 1911. In the middle to show an aerial view of the concentration camps built by the Italians and also the barbed wire 'Hadrian's Wall' built along the Egyptian border. Both these strategies were intended to cut off Mukhtar from his supply sources. At the end of the film there are still photos of the real Mukhtar in chains and also of the main Italian protagonists we see in the film.
Rod Steiger blusters through his role as Mussolini, the fascist dictator who wants to send Italian colonists to a peaceful Libya, an ambition being thwarted by Omar Mukhtar's stubborn 20-year long armed resistance. Oliver Reed plays a suitably ruthless General Graziani, the man charged with crushing Mukhtar. But his character is no two-dimensional brute.There is a very engaging private dialogue between himself and the captive Mukhtar. The two men debate historic claims to Libyan soil, with Graziani pointing out that the Romans were there before the Arabs. Reed gives a very controlled performance, one of his best.
The film is very balanced in its portrayal of the Italians. On the one hand we see some terrible reprisals-shootings and hangings-against civilians. On the other hand we have two sympathetic Italian officers whose conscience is afflicted by by the war they are forced to wage. The Raf Vallone character is particularly sympathetic- very courteous, generous and kind to the captive Mukhtar. This is history telling at its best. Italian fascists were not all the same. Individuals matter. Likewise, the Italian officer chosen to defend Omar at his trial argues that Mukhtar never committed treason against the Italian state because he never accepted it rule.
On the Arab side we have John Gielgud playing the high-ranking Sharif el-Gariani character who is sent to ask Omar to end his struggle. Some Arabs were willing to collaborate with an Italian rule which was helping to modernise their country. There is a nice reference to the fact that 'the League of Nations will not help you', highlighting the limitations of this predecessor of the UN. Come to think of it, things have not changed very much!
The action scenes are spectacular, with some inspiring ambushes by the insurgents against the Italian forces. The film credits Graziani (wrongly?) with being the first general to bring tanks into the desert. The Italian assault on the oasis town of Kufra is a theatrical masterpiece. Some viewers may think that all this is probably a bit over the top. It probably is but it certainly boosts the film's entertainment level. In fact, the film could have shown Italian planes dropping poison gas bombs as they did in Abyssinia a few years later. In his biography of Mussolini, the eminent historian Denis Mack Smith maintains that this did happen in Libya.
The music is very effective and the film is emotionally charged throughout, especially during the hanging scenes. The Omar Mukhtar character is accorded a great deal of dignity and honour. The film is hagiography but so are 'Spartacus', 'Ben-Hur', 'El Cid' and scores of other epics. Does this make the film a piece of Arab propaganda? Yes and no. The film emphasises the central role of Islam in giving Omar the inner strength to continue his fight. It tells an historical tale with a great deal of accuracy but it is also a feature film which aims to entertain. In that respect it is no different to any Hollywood blockbuster about the Alamo or Pearl Harbor. In my opinion it is superior to many such blockbusters. It's just that white Caucasians have to get used to being the bad guys for a change.
Gaddafi is now coming in from the cold and opening up his country to tourism. I can only hope that this will result in the film becoming more widely available and better-known in the UK. 'Lion of the Desert' is an excellent historical epic which tells one side of the story. Some historians would argue that Mukhtar's defeat and death paved the way for the enlightened rule of Italo Balbo who governed a 'pacified' Libya after 1934 with few executions and much building of infrastructure. I would not accept this view as all imperialisms are self-justifying and ultimately unacceptable.
A buried treasure
jjulian100930 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I was amazed at the first-rate production values and excellent and fascinating historical period recreation of "Lion of the Desert", which I'd never heard about before stumbling upon it in the DVD rental shop this week. For starters, it's director, Moustapha Akkad, employed the same cinematographer and soundtrack composer that David Lean had for "Lawrence of Arabia", which is the film both historically and thematically related to "Lion". The lead players are Brits or Yanks, diminishing the impact of the film considerably (at least "Lawrence" had Omar Sharif play its most significant character other than O'toole in the title role). Having said that, credit must be given to Quinn, Steiger, Reid and Gielgud for giving solid and credible performances. The action scenes are pulled off with considerable élan. It's one of the last of the films with thousands of real extras, rather than computer generated soldiers, being masterfully orchestrated to provide great verisimilitude and a sense of genuine chaos which would be inherent in such pitched battles. Well worth watching is the "Making of" bonus material in which Director Akkad discloses not only his meticulous devotion to historical accuracy (battle scenes were filmed on the actual locations where they transpired, costumes copied from the extensive Italian photograph and film archives of the period, and even Mussolini's old barber was hired to cut Rod Steiger's hair precisely as the "Duce" had his done.) Akkad and his cast obviously were passionate about making this film in very difficult desert conditions, and it shows nearly every scene. I was particularly impressed with Reid's ability to make the villainous General Graziani seem an interesting, if repellent character.
I recommend this film highly to David Lean fans or anyone who likes to see historical epics unstintingly produced and handsomely mounted.
I recommend this film highly to David Lean fans or anyone who likes to see historical epics unstintingly produced and handsomely mounted.
A great movie most have never heard of.
spaceharb24 July 2005
I just finished watching this movie, and man was I impressed. It's better if you don't know the history here, because then it doesn't spoil the surprises. The movie started out slow (as do most movies based on true stories), but started to get good about 15 minutes into it. This was a great action film for it's time. The Muslim world needs more leaders like Omar Mukhtar.
Anthony Quinn is truly one of the greatest actors I've seen. He never lets his role veil the story. I found that he made this movie better than Braveheart, which was also a good movie, but had too much over-acting and exaggerations. Oliver Reed was also good, I wish they did more movies together. Credit to Mustapha Akkad as well, he needs to stop wasting his time with the Halloween movies, and make some more war movies, that's what he's good at.
The only problem with this film is the terrible audio, so you have to constantly play with the volume whenever it switches between fighting scenes and conversations. So keep the remote close by and enjoy!
Anthony Quinn is truly one of the greatest actors I've seen. He never lets his role veil the story. I found that he made this movie better than Braveheart, which was also a good movie, but had too much over-acting and exaggerations. Oliver Reed was also good, I wish they did more movies together. Credit to Mustapha Akkad as well, he needs to stop wasting his time with the Halloween movies, and make some more war movies, that's what he's good at.
The only problem with this film is the terrible audio, so you have to constantly play with the volume whenever it switches between fighting scenes and conversations. So keep the remote close by and enjoy!
Desert Master Piece!
LoayOmran4 November 2001
It is a great shame that only 158 users have voted for this movie until now, this probably reflects great ignorance about this Master Piece. This is the real story of the Great Libyan Hero Omar Al Mukhtar, who fought the Italian occupation of Libya early in the 20th century. You will be surprised with what this movie has to offer. It will take your breath away ... You will laugh and you will cry ... You will scream and shout ... You will hope it never ends. BraveHeart? Yeah that was a good movie, but nowhere as brilliant as this is. This does not only tell the life story of a Great man, it also teaches you the noble aspects that build up a truly Unforgettable Warrior. It explains what Tolerance is all about.
This movie truly shows the the savage means which the conquering Italian army used to treat the Libyan natives. The struggle for freedom took place in the heart of the African desert. Omar Al Mukhtar (The Lion of the Desert), who led the Libyan resistance, a role played in this movie by Anthony Quinn ... this has to be his best ever performance. An Oscar Nominee worth ... nothing less. Director, Moustapha Akkad, who is also famous for the great yet unknown classic Risâlah, al- (1976), gives his best shot at direction here. Excellent work.
Rent this now, if its available, Its worth every penny. You will be the witness of utter brilliance and great performances. Watch it, vote for it, Give it the respect it deserves.
This movie truly shows the the savage means which the conquering Italian army used to treat the Libyan natives. The struggle for freedom took place in the heart of the African desert. Omar Al Mukhtar (The Lion of the Desert), who led the Libyan resistance, a role played in this movie by Anthony Quinn ... this has to be his best ever performance. An Oscar Nominee worth ... nothing less. Director, Moustapha Akkad, who is also famous for the great yet unknown classic Risâlah, al- (1976), gives his best shot at direction here. Excellent work.
Rent this now, if its available, Its worth every penny. You will be the witness of utter brilliance and great performances. Watch it, vote for it, Give it the respect it deserves.
Epical-historic-drama characterized by Omar Mukhtar against Italian general Graziani
ma-cortes16 April 2008
This is a British- Italian- Lybian co-production(financed by Lybian dictator Muammar Qaddafi), it starts explaining that Italy tries to retrieve the Roman Empire glory. In 1911, conquers Libya , including Tripoli, Tobruk and Benghazi. 1922, Benito Mussolini rules over Italy. 1929, Mussolini(Rod Steiger) assigns Rodolfo Graziani(Oliver Reed) the mission to stifle the Bedouin guerrilla and pulls off a new invasion . Graziani, under direct orders dictator Mussolini, along with Amadeo, Duke of Aosta(Sky Dumont) goes to Libya soil fend off the rebellious. Omar Mukhtar(Anthony Quinn) organizes Lybian forces to keep the Italian army formed by tanks and armored vehicles facing off Bedouin troops on horseback. Mukhtar , the Lion of the desert, and his rebels patriots hold off the encroachment for twenty years, from 1911- 1931. Omar Mukhtar was tried and executed by hanging in 1931. Soon after the fall of Mussolini General Graziani was tried and prisoned , he died in 1955. The characters in this film are real and the events based on historical facts.
This is a desert epic-historical-drama with breathtaking battles and magnificent acting. Stunning acting by main casting, Anthony Quinn and Oliver Reed, both hold an extraordinary battle of wits. Besides excellent Rod Steiger as Mussolini, role who he formerly played in ¨Last four days¨(1977). Outstanding performances by secondary cast as Andrew Keir, Raf Vallone, Irene Papas, Gastone Moschin, among others.
The movie is well produced and directed by Moustapha Akkad with a David Lean's style and using a similar crew and assistants, as the cameraman Jack Hildyard and the musician Maurice Jarre. He was a famous producer, when in 1978 John Carpenter came to him with the Halloween's script , Akkad produced it and Carpenter made it and was a big hit and later produced the sequels. Akkad also produced and directed ¨The Message¨ also with Anthony Quinn concerning about the prophet Mahoma. Moustapha Akkad, unfortunately died in Amman , Jordan by injuries in terrorist bombing.
This is a desert epic-historical-drama with breathtaking battles and magnificent acting. Stunning acting by main casting, Anthony Quinn and Oliver Reed, both hold an extraordinary battle of wits. Besides excellent Rod Steiger as Mussolini, role who he formerly played in ¨Last four days¨(1977). Outstanding performances by secondary cast as Andrew Keir, Raf Vallone, Irene Papas, Gastone Moschin, among others.
The movie is well produced and directed by Moustapha Akkad with a David Lean's style and using a similar crew and assistants, as the cameraman Jack Hildyard and the musician Maurice Jarre. He was a famous producer, when in 1978 John Carpenter came to him with the Halloween's script , Akkad produced it and Carpenter made it and was a big hit and later produced the sequels. Akkad also produced and directed ¨The Message¨ also with Anthony Quinn concerning about the prophet Mahoma. Moustapha Akkad, unfortunately died in Amman , Jordan by injuries in terrorist bombing.
Anthony Quinn's best!
Frank DeLa Cour6 June 2001
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** According to the documentary Quinn was so obsessed with the role, that he refused to shave for more than a year after the movie had been completed. I like movies like 'The Guns of Navarone' and 'Zorba the Greek' as much as the next guy, but in 'Lion...' he shows his true potential as a marvellous actor playing a teacher who turns beduin leader fighting the italians from 1911 (when the italians first set foot in Libya) to 1931.
'Lion of the desert' is sort of a 'Braveheart' meets 'Lawrence of Arabia'. I like 'Lion.' more than both of them though- can't really explain why, perhaps because of its minute historical accuracy.
'Lion...' is a great example of how marketing can either break or make a movie. Sadly, upon it's release it wasn't given the typical Hollywood treatment (this movie is not made by a major Hollywood studio), so many people missed out on this masterpiece. The critics loved it though, although many thought it was too violent (there's a lot of blood and you get to watch people run over by tanks and such).
One thing that crossed my mind is that this movie has so many elements also appearing in the Oscar winning 'Braveheart' by Mel Gibson, (SPOILERS:) Both movies have the enemy wanting 'time', in order to organize its troups, both movies use clever guerilla ambushing techniques, both movies have the hero executed in the end, both movies have nobels trying to convince our hero to surrender- the list goes on. Perhaps Mr. Gibson thought that no one would notice? (SPOILER END)
'Lion...' has everything that a true epic requires: Brilliant battle scenes, a great script, lots of extras and great actors (Rod Steiger as a very convincing Mussolini, Oliver Reed as a fascist general and John Gielgud as a beduin noble).
If you find this movie at your local video store, don't hesitate to rent it (or buy the DVD).
Interesting sidenote: Mussolini was actually arrested in 1911, because he participated in a demonstration against the italian invasion of Lybia. Sort of ironic that he tightened the grip when he himself came to power in 1921.
'Lion of the desert' is sort of a 'Braveheart' meets 'Lawrence of Arabia'. I like 'Lion.' more than both of them though- can't really explain why, perhaps because of its minute historical accuracy.
'Lion...' is a great example of how marketing can either break or make a movie. Sadly, upon it's release it wasn't given the typical Hollywood treatment (this movie is not made by a major Hollywood studio), so many people missed out on this masterpiece. The critics loved it though, although many thought it was too violent (there's a lot of blood and you get to watch people run over by tanks and such).
One thing that crossed my mind is that this movie has so many elements also appearing in the Oscar winning 'Braveheart' by Mel Gibson, (SPOILERS:) Both movies have the enemy wanting 'time', in order to organize its troups, both movies use clever guerilla ambushing techniques, both movies have the hero executed in the end, both movies have nobels trying to convince our hero to surrender- the list goes on. Perhaps Mr. Gibson thought that no one would notice? (SPOILER END)
'Lion...' has everything that a true epic requires: Brilliant battle scenes, a great script, lots of extras and great actors (Rod Steiger as a very convincing Mussolini, Oliver Reed as a fascist general and John Gielgud as a beduin noble).
If you find this movie at your local video store, don't hesitate to rent it (or buy the DVD).
Interesting sidenote: Mussolini was actually arrested in 1911, because he participated in a demonstration against the italian invasion of Lybia. Sort of ironic that he tightened the grip when he himself came to power in 1921.
'Braveheart' of Libya
shakercoola24 June 2018
A Libyan historical epic; A story about Mussolini's Italian Colonisation of Libya and the 6th Governor who leads the offensive against the native resistance. The resistance is led by Omar al-Mukhtar Muhammad bin Farhat al-Manifi, a teacher of the Qur'an by profession, he was also skilled in the strategies and tactics of desert warfare, known locally by the Italians as 'Matari of the Mnifa' and here known as Lion of the Desert, the leader of native resistance in Eastern Libya under the Senussids. He is considered the national hero of Libya and a symbol of resistance in the Berber, Arab and Islamic worlds.
Like 'Battle of the Algiers', detailing French colonisation, it was banned. 'Lions of the Desert' was banned for seven years in Italy. We don't fully get to grips with the real people of this story, they are a bit thinly-drawn, and the narrative dynamic is a well worn David vs Goliath turn which continues to be made in equivalent films such as like Braveheart (1995). Nevertheless, the story is a good one and the war strategy and tactics played out are interesting. The battle sequences are right in number, but editing is not tight enough so it begins to drag in the middle, and for a biopic we needed more backstory for the marvellous Anthony Quinn to get his teeth into. Nonetheless, the locations are magnificently pictured, all filmed in Libya, and all the performances are good, even if the acting is a little hammy in places; we can almost look past the English character actors as part of the Lion's faithful crew.
Saw it when it was released in theaters
samkat131731 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I was almost out of high school and a big history and war movie buff when I saw the marque poster in a nearby cinema. I caught it on a matinée and was captivated throughout the whole movie. It's definitely an epic, with wide shots of the deserts, immense deployment of extras, intense battle scenes, all whirling around the main character, Omar Mukhtar, played quite well by Anthony Quinn. While there is the sense of futility in the struggle between the old world of the desert and the new order of the industrial 'modern' world, I found a feeling of half-victory, where the battle was lost(despite some tough fighting), but the war was in no way won by the Italians. Overall a great picture. One of the most memorable scenes for me: after an Italian column is smashed by Mukhtar's men, one of his men shoots an Italian who surrendered. Quinn grabs the weapon, and insists they do not shoot those who surrender. The shooter retorts that the Italians do it to their people, and Quinn asks 'and you will allow them to be your teachers?'. That scene always stayed with me...
Although it has obvious flaws, it deserves to be revisited and appreciated for what it is.
filipemanuelneto29 March 2021
This film is interesting from several points of view. One of them is that it addresses a little-remembered page of the colonial past: the Senussi rebellion in Libya lasted for decades and marked a generation of Libyans, whereas for Europeans it was a dramatic situation that the devastation of World War II shot to the footnotes of the history books.
First, some history highlights: Italy did not have colonies until the beginning of the 20th century and was one of the last European countries to move towards African colonization. In 1911, after a short war with the Ottomans, they conquered the coast of Libya. The advancing decades allowed the Italians, through successive agreements with other colonial powers, to acquire more territories in the region. However, the change of administration was very displeasing to the Libyan Berbers, led by the Senussi tribe. Thus began the Libyan resistance to Italian colonization, and Omar Al Mukhtar emerged as the leader of the resistance. When he took power in 1922, Benito Mussolini bet on the resolution of this conflict, already lasting for eleven years, using all the means and all the brutality that he could dispose of, in case it was necessary.
The film clearly takes the side of the rebels and does not shy away from showing all the brutality and crudity of the Italian troops and their generals, particularly General Graziani. This being a proven historical fact, I am doubtful when I read some critics who point out the partiality of the film's account to the fact that the production was financed by Libyan President Muammar Al-Gaddafi, a dictator who opened his country's coffers to finance more than a western film production. But, in fact, it is still an ironic fact...
The film is not remarkable, and at times it looks like a poor duplicate of "Lawrence of Arabia". Even so, it is also not a bad film, and it certainly deserved to have had better luck at the box office... I have certainly seen worse films that have fared far better in the difficult task of convincing the public to drop some cash and enter the theater. Moustapha Akkad, the director, reveals that he has enough competence to deal with the millionaire production he has in hand, which has hundreds of people, means and money. Even so, the script seems coarse, some dialogues do not work and the editing were not happy. To make things even more difficult, the film is very long and has a very uneven pace and an anti-climatic and excessively slow ending.
The cast consists of several big names from the industry of the time, with Anthony Quinn and Oliver Reed securing the main characters. Both are excellent actors and are in great shape here, their performance being one of the most redeeming and saving elements of the film. Quinn gives us a dignified, restrained, chivalrous and almost romantic interpretation of the rebel hero, whereas Reed could hardly be more dark, cold and pragmatic. Irene Papas, another very competent actress, plays a minor role, but full of drama, and Rod Steiger was quite good. The cast also has works well delivered by actors such as Raf Vallone, Sky du Mont, Stefano Patrizi and others.
Technically, it is a film where the effort, very strong, stands out to be historically rigorous and to give credibility to each scene, dress or prop. The careful choice of filming locations helped a lot and adds visual beauty to the film. Unfortunately, the cinematography did not match the effort: the washed colors and low contrast take away its impact and beauty. The visual and sound effects are discreet but work effectively and the soundtrack does its job well.
First, some history highlights: Italy did not have colonies until the beginning of the 20th century and was one of the last European countries to move towards African colonization. In 1911, after a short war with the Ottomans, they conquered the coast of Libya. The advancing decades allowed the Italians, through successive agreements with other colonial powers, to acquire more territories in the region. However, the change of administration was very displeasing to the Libyan Berbers, led by the Senussi tribe. Thus began the Libyan resistance to Italian colonization, and Omar Al Mukhtar emerged as the leader of the resistance. When he took power in 1922, Benito Mussolini bet on the resolution of this conflict, already lasting for eleven years, using all the means and all the brutality that he could dispose of, in case it was necessary.
The film clearly takes the side of the rebels and does not shy away from showing all the brutality and crudity of the Italian troops and their generals, particularly General Graziani. This being a proven historical fact, I am doubtful when I read some critics who point out the partiality of the film's account to the fact that the production was financed by Libyan President Muammar Al-Gaddafi, a dictator who opened his country's coffers to finance more than a western film production. But, in fact, it is still an ironic fact...
The film is not remarkable, and at times it looks like a poor duplicate of "Lawrence of Arabia". Even so, it is also not a bad film, and it certainly deserved to have had better luck at the box office... I have certainly seen worse films that have fared far better in the difficult task of convincing the public to drop some cash and enter the theater. Moustapha Akkad, the director, reveals that he has enough competence to deal with the millionaire production he has in hand, which has hundreds of people, means and money. Even so, the script seems coarse, some dialogues do not work and the editing were not happy. To make things even more difficult, the film is very long and has a very uneven pace and an anti-climatic and excessively slow ending.
The cast consists of several big names from the industry of the time, with Anthony Quinn and Oliver Reed securing the main characters. Both are excellent actors and are in great shape here, their performance being one of the most redeeming and saving elements of the film. Quinn gives us a dignified, restrained, chivalrous and almost romantic interpretation of the rebel hero, whereas Reed could hardly be more dark, cold and pragmatic. Irene Papas, another very competent actress, plays a minor role, but full of drama, and Rod Steiger was quite good. The cast also has works well delivered by actors such as Raf Vallone, Sky du Mont, Stefano Patrizi and others.
Technically, it is a film where the effort, very strong, stands out to be historically rigorous and to give credibility to each scene, dress or prop. The careful choice of filming locations helped a lot and adds visual beauty to the film. Unfortunately, the cinematography did not match the effort: the washed colors and low contrast take away its impact and beauty. The visual and sound effects are discreet but work effectively and the soundtrack does its job well.
A hit and miss epic
Machiavelli8420 April 2023
It seems like a match made in epic movie heaven. Wonderful actors in the cast like Anthony Quinn, Oliver Reed, Rod Steiger, and John Gielgud. Directed by Moustapha Akkad, who did a marvelous job with "The Message". Music by Maurice Jarre, famous for doing the soundtracks of classics such as "Lawrence of Arabia", "Doctor Zhivago", "The Longest Day", and countless others. A large budget. Sweeping sets. Hundreds of extras. What could possibly go wrong? As this film shows, sadly, quite a bit can go wrong. But a lot can go right as well.
Let's talk first about what went right.
"Lion of the Desert" is a film funded by Libyan during the time when it was still under the command of Muammar "We Came, We Saw, He Died" Gaddafi. It tells the story of Omar al-Mukhtar, the titular Lion of the Desert, who fought against the Italians during both Italo-Senussi Wars in Libya. It follows his struggle from the time when Italy appointed General Rodolfo Graziani until his eventually capture and execution. It also showcases the concentration camps employed by Italy against the Bedouin. As an epic film, this movie certainly delivers. Battle scenes are epic on the level of "Lawrence of Arabia". All the sets, such as Mussolini's headquarters and the Libyan camps, are sweeping and massive, and do a good job capturing the larger than life story. The uniforms also seem accurate (although I'm sure someone out there can correct me), and it's near to see a film about a particular era and conflict that you rarely get to see portrayed on film.
Acting overall is also wonderful. Anthony Quinn does a good job as Mukhtar, and from what I heard he actually traveled around Libya and studied how their old men acted to see just how he could best imitate the Bedouin leader. Oliver Reed must have thought the film was made of gum, because he chews just about every scene he's in - but with the character, it certainly works. Rod Steiger, though only in a few scenes, does a good job playing Mussolini. Even minor actors do a wonderful job in their roles. Sadly, the acting in this film also leads into one of its major problems, but I'll get to that later.
The editing and use of music is also very commendable. The greatest, and most powerful, example of this is seen with the film's handling of the concentration camps. You see the suffering of the Bedouin, and see carts full of dead bodies moving between the tents. Suddenly, the film cuts to black and white stock footage of the camps. Maurice Jarre's music reaches a shrill right at that very moment. It's like the film is jolting you away from the actors and sets and props, and dropping you right into history. It's like the film is telling you, "No, really, this happened. It's not just in a movie. People truly suffered and died." It's perhaps one of the best handlings of a people's suffering put to film. I dare say it's even more powerful than a lot of cinematic handlings of the Holocaust. I could feel my heart skipping a beat, and feel my blood turn cold, as I watched that scene.
Now... let's talk about what went wrong.
As I said before, acting overall is well done... but there's a catch to that. Reed is over the top and conniving as Graziani, while Quinn is way too reserved and moral as Mukhtar. As a result, Graziani comes across as a bigger player in the story, while Mukhtar mostly just lumbers around and reacts to what Graziani does. In fact, some of the best lines of the film come not from Mukhtar, but from Graziani. ("Look... the mice... they could never resist the cheese, could they?") As the film progressed, I found myself ironically becoming more attached to Graziani than I did Mukhtar. It reminded me of a complaint a lot of people had for the Kevin Costner "Robin Hood": Alan Rickman's sheriff was so much more memorable and well acted than Costner's Robin that the audience ends up feeling more connected with the villain than the hero. I had no reason to feel connected to Mukhtar other than he's the nominal hero of the story, and well, I have to like him then, right? Because he's "the good guy". But that's all he has going for him. Even when Graziani begins to attack Kufra, Mukhtar's response is basically "Meh" and lets Graziani takes the city. Again, because Reed's Graziani has more personality and flair than Quinn's Mukhtar, you end up wishing that the movie was more about the Italian than the Bedouin.
Another problem is the film's pacing. While the film starts out well, the story starts to becomes really episodic. Graziani does something. Mukhtar reacts to it. Graziani comes up with another scheme. Mukhtar reacts to it. Graziani comes up with another scheme. Mukhtar reacts to that too. Rinse and repeat. I grew up watching films like "Gettysburg" and "Lawrence of Arabia", so a film's long length doesn't bug me... but at some point even I found myself getting BORED with the film. It also got annoying, because it felt like every time they battled, some of Mukhtar's men would die off like he was about to be defeated... but JUST ENOUGH would survive to keep the film going. Again, this happens over and over and over and over. At some point I could hear Elaine from Seinfeld yelling in a movie theater at Mukhtar, "Just get captured already!!" Because this film is so long, this results in the viewing being something of a chore. This is also rather unnecessary, as a lot of the planning Graziani does was, in real life, done much quicker than as portrayed in the film. (For example, he set up the fence between Libya and Egypt shortly after he took command.) Obviously they were wanting to drag the film out a bit longer than this would have made it, but, as I pointed out, this ends up hurting it.
Some of the battle scenes are also incredibly goofy. Italian soldiers are basically one step above Storm Troopers, with the only difference between the Italians manage to land a few shots. While I know the Italian military has a rather bad reputation in the World Wars, this film takes it to a whole new level. This reaches a climax at the part where Mukhtar tricks the Italian tanks into parking in an area filled with detonated mines. This plan only works because the script says it does, because the whole set up is waaaaaay too convenient: Mukhtar and his men just happened to know WHERE the tanks would drive, and EXACTLY where they would stop, and the fact that they even WOULD stop, and Mukhtar's men happened to plant all the mines EXACTLY where the tanks would be parked... Yeah, if it sounds really absurd, that's because it is. The whole scene seemed to exist only because Gaddafi wanted a few more exploding vehicles in his movie.
This comes to the biggest problem, which is the film's clear bias. It's well known that this was funded by the Libyan government, and well... it definitely shows. Italians are portrayed as overly evil, with no good in them save for perhaps three characters. (One of whom gets shot by his fellow Italians for liking the Libyans too much.) I'm not saying the Italians DIDN'T do anything bad in the war, mind you (remember several paragraphs ago I was commending the film for its portrayal of the concentration camps), but this film looks at one side's evil way too much while portraying the other side as near innocent. You don't get to hear about how Italian farmers were being attacked and murdered by Libyan guerillas, which was one of the reasons why the Italian government wanted the war ended so quickly. You don't get to hear about how Mukhtar actually agreed to make peace with the Italians, then broke that agreement once his men got enough weapons and supplies. You just get to watch Italian troops entering villages and killing civilians. (In fact, this is really the only time you ever see Italian soldiers doing well in battle... when they're up against unarmed civilians.) Even the Battle of Kufra, which was actually a major strategic and tactical achievement for the Italian military, and quite a show of brilliance from Graziani, is mostly portrayed as another chance to show how mean the Italians are. As most people know, this film was banned in Italy for a long time, due to heavy criticism from Italians against it, and... well... I really can't blame the Italians on this one.
This film is definitely a one time viewing. It certainly covers a larger than life story, and does so with enough positive traits to keep you interested. Sadly, it's negatives hurt it far more than they would in other films. I would recommend it to those interested in seeing epic films like this... just remember that Gaddafi foot the bill.
Let's talk first about what went right.
"Lion of the Desert" is a film funded by Libyan during the time when it was still under the command of Muammar "We Came, We Saw, He Died" Gaddafi. It tells the story of Omar al-Mukhtar, the titular Lion of the Desert, who fought against the Italians during both Italo-Senussi Wars in Libya. It follows his struggle from the time when Italy appointed General Rodolfo Graziani until his eventually capture and execution. It also showcases the concentration camps employed by Italy against the Bedouin. As an epic film, this movie certainly delivers. Battle scenes are epic on the level of "Lawrence of Arabia". All the sets, such as Mussolini's headquarters and the Libyan camps, are sweeping and massive, and do a good job capturing the larger than life story. The uniforms also seem accurate (although I'm sure someone out there can correct me), and it's near to see a film about a particular era and conflict that you rarely get to see portrayed on film.
Acting overall is also wonderful. Anthony Quinn does a good job as Mukhtar, and from what I heard he actually traveled around Libya and studied how their old men acted to see just how he could best imitate the Bedouin leader. Oliver Reed must have thought the film was made of gum, because he chews just about every scene he's in - but with the character, it certainly works. Rod Steiger, though only in a few scenes, does a good job playing Mussolini. Even minor actors do a wonderful job in their roles. Sadly, the acting in this film also leads into one of its major problems, but I'll get to that later.
The editing and use of music is also very commendable. The greatest, and most powerful, example of this is seen with the film's handling of the concentration camps. You see the suffering of the Bedouin, and see carts full of dead bodies moving between the tents. Suddenly, the film cuts to black and white stock footage of the camps. Maurice Jarre's music reaches a shrill right at that very moment. It's like the film is jolting you away from the actors and sets and props, and dropping you right into history. It's like the film is telling you, "No, really, this happened. It's not just in a movie. People truly suffered and died." It's perhaps one of the best handlings of a people's suffering put to film. I dare say it's even more powerful than a lot of cinematic handlings of the Holocaust. I could feel my heart skipping a beat, and feel my blood turn cold, as I watched that scene.
Now... let's talk about what went wrong.
As I said before, acting overall is well done... but there's a catch to that. Reed is over the top and conniving as Graziani, while Quinn is way too reserved and moral as Mukhtar. As a result, Graziani comes across as a bigger player in the story, while Mukhtar mostly just lumbers around and reacts to what Graziani does. In fact, some of the best lines of the film come not from Mukhtar, but from Graziani. ("Look... the mice... they could never resist the cheese, could they?") As the film progressed, I found myself ironically becoming more attached to Graziani than I did Mukhtar. It reminded me of a complaint a lot of people had for the Kevin Costner "Robin Hood": Alan Rickman's sheriff was so much more memorable and well acted than Costner's Robin that the audience ends up feeling more connected with the villain than the hero. I had no reason to feel connected to Mukhtar other than he's the nominal hero of the story, and well, I have to like him then, right? Because he's "the good guy". But that's all he has going for him. Even when Graziani begins to attack Kufra, Mukhtar's response is basically "Meh" and lets Graziani takes the city. Again, because Reed's Graziani has more personality and flair than Quinn's Mukhtar, you end up wishing that the movie was more about the Italian than the Bedouin.
Another problem is the film's pacing. While the film starts out well, the story starts to becomes really episodic. Graziani does something. Mukhtar reacts to it. Graziani comes up with another scheme. Mukhtar reacts to it. Graziani comes up with another scheme. Mukhtar reacts to that too. Rinse and repeat. I grew up watching films like "Gettysburg" and "Lawrence of Arabia", so a film's long length doesn't bug me... but at some point even I found myself getting BORED with the film. It also got annoying, because it felt like every time they battled, some of Mukhtar's men would die off like he was about to be defeated... but JUST ENOUGH would survive to keep the film going. Again, this happens over and over and over and over. At some point I could hear Elaine from Seinfeld yelling in a movie theater at Mukhtar, "Just get captured already!!" Because this film is so long, this results in the viewing being something of a chore. This is also rather unnecessary, as a lot of the planning Graziani does was, in real life, done much quicker than as portrayed in the film. (For example, he set up the fence between Libya and Egypt shortly after he took command.) Obviously they were wanting to drag the film out a bit longer than this would have made it, but, as I pointed out, this ends up hurting it.
Some of the battle scenes are also incredibly goofy. Italian soldiers are basically one step above Storm Troopers, with the only difference between the Italians manage to land a few shots. While I know the Italian military has a rather bad reputation in the World Wars, this film takes it to a whole new level. This reaches a climax at the part where Mukhtar tricks the Italian tanks into parking in an area filled with detonated mines. This plan only works because the script says it does, because the whole set up is waaaaaay too convenient: Mukhtar and his men just happened to know WHERE the tanks would drive, and EXACTLY where they would stop, and the fact that they even WOULD stop, and Mukhtar's men happened to plant all the mines EXACTLY where the tanks would be parked... Yeah, if it sounds really absurd, that's because it is. The whole scene seemed to exist only because Gaddafi wanted a few more exploding vehicles in his movie.
This comes to the biggest problem, which is the film's clear bias. It's well known that this was funded by the Libyan government, and well... it definitely shows. Italians are portrayed as overly evil, with no good in them save for perhaps three characters. (One of whom gets shot by his fellow Italians for liking the Libyans too much.) I'm not saying the Italians DIDN'T do anything bad in the war, mind you (remember several paragraphs ago I was commending the film for its portrayal of the concentration camps), but this film looks at one side's evil way too much while portraying the other side as near innocent. You don't get to hear about how Italian farmers were being attacked and murdered by Libyan guerillas, which was one of the reasons why the Italian government wanted the war ended so quickly. You don't get to hear about how Mukhtar actually agreed to make peace with the Italians, then broke that agreement once his men got enough weapons and supplies. You just get to watch Italian troops entering villages and killing civilians. (In fact, this is really the only time you ever see Italian soldiers doing well in battle... when they're up against unarmed civilians.) Even the Battle of Kufra, which was actually a major strategic and tactical achievement for the Italian military, and quite a show of brilliance from Graziani, is mostly portrayed as another chance to show how mean the Italians are. As most people know, this film was banned in Italy for a long time, due to heavy criticism from Italians against it, and... well... I really can't blame the Italians on this one.
This film is definitely a one time viewing. It certainly covers a larger than life story, and does so with enough positive traits to keep you interested. Sadly, it's negatives hurt it far more than they would in other films. I would recommend it to those interested in seeing epic films like this... just remember that Gaddafi foot the bill.
The late, great Anthonny Quinn
OttoVonB19 July 2006
Prelude to WWII. Omar Mukhtar, a brilliant Bedouin leader, wages war against oppressive Italian Fascist forces (led by the bloodthirsty General Graziani) in his native Lybia.
Director Moustapha Akkad (The Message) clearly learnt a few lessons from "Lawrence of Arabia", mainly how best to use the charismatic Anthony Quinn. As Mukhtar, Quinn gives a nuanced portrayal of compassion and wisdom. Whenever he features in a scene, it becomes impossible to tear one's eyes off the screen. Thankfully, Oliver Reed proves a magnificently cruel and seething counterpoint as General Graziani. Irene Papas provides strong supporting work and Rod Steiger turns in a delightful cameo as Benito Musslini.
Moustapha Akkad uses a solid structure and keeps it riveting throughout, extracting fine performances from all his actors and technical collaborators. Where "The Message" was impressive but cold (due to its invisible hero and reverence), "Lion in the Desert" has an emotional core and throws up scene after impressive scene. The desert battle scenes are incredibly messy and savage and have a sense of multiple individual action amid chaos, rather than elaborate choreography. This perfectly suits the theme of Bedouin guerrilla. Production values are considerable and Maurice Jarre provides one of his most underrated scores.
Some viewers will find qualms with the fact that, despite the coda that proclaims that Lybia managed to liberate itself, the country was then for long under the oppressive rule of Kadaffi. In truth, this little addition might have something to do with the fact that Kadaffi assisted in funding the film. If you can overlook this (not to difficult), you can appreciate the true focus: Mukhtar. This remains a beautiful film about a people's resistance.
"Lion in the Desert" is an important film, if only because it offers a very accessible (to Western audiences) Arab perspective. It is also impressively well made: an accomplished chapter in the era of great epics that flourished with David Lean's masterpieces and ended with Richard Attenbourgh's Gandhi.
See this!
Director Moustapha Akkad (The Message) clearly learnt a few lessons from "Lawrence of Arabia", mainly how best to use the charismatic Anthony Quinn. As Mukhtar, Quinn gives a nuanced portrayal of compassion and wisdom. Whenever he features in a scene, it becomes impossible to tear one's eyes off the screen. Thankfully, Oliver Reed proves a magnificently cruel and seething counterpoint as General Graziani. Irene Papas provides strong supporting work and Rod Steiger turns in a delightful cameo as Benito Musslini.
Moustapha Akkad uses a solid structure and keeps it riveting throughout, extracting fine performances from all his actors and technical collaborators. Where "The Message" was impressive but cold (due to its invisible hero and reverence), "Lion in the Desert" has an emotional core and throws up scene after impressive scene. The desert battle scenes are incredibly messy and savage and have a sense of multiple individual action amid chaos, rather than elaborate choreography. This perfectly suits the theme of Bedouin guerrilla. Production values are considerable and Maurice Jarre provides one of his most underrated scores.
Some viewers will find qualms with the fact that, despite the coda that proclaims that Lybia managed to liberate itself, the country was then for long under the oppressive rule of Kadaffi. In truth, this little addition might have something to do with the fact that Kadaffi assisted in funding the film. If you can overlook this (not to difficult), you can appreciate the true focus: Mukhtar. This remains a beautiful film about a people's resistance.
"Lion in the Desert" is an important film, if only because it offers a very accessible (to Western audiences) Arab perspective. It is also impressively well made: an accomplished chapter in the era of great epics that flourished with David Lean's masterpieces and ended with Richard Attenbourgh's Gandhi.
See this!
"As for me, I will live longer than my hangman"
BaronStein23 March 2006
From the first time I saw this movie I thought it great. It is refreshing to see an historical movie done accurately and yet prove entertaining. I thought it was the finest performance ever given by Anthony Quinn. A couple of years ago I saw an interview with Quinn in which he said that it was the role he was proudest of and he was right about it.
It's not really amazing though that the such a great film was a commercial failure in the US certainly. One only has to recall the line about the right of settlers (Italian) "not one minute of right, to the pasture not one cow" to see the parallel drawn to events in a country some 1000 mile or so to the east. Italian justification of their occupation based on a two thousand year old pedigree got to the nub of today's headlines in the middle east.
Lybia, the 'Berber Kingdom', has a long history. It has been part of the civilized world and great empires dating back to Carthage and including Greeks, Romans, Moors, etc. For those interested in music they have the chance to see how 'bagpipes' were and are played from where they came. Early on the movie, when the young men return to the village, their dance is accompanied by bagpipes.
Omar's last words are brilliant and haunting: "As for me, I will live longer than my hangman". One of the militias in Lebanon, during its civil war, was called the 'Omar Mukhtar brigade'.
It's not really amazing though that the such a great film was a commercial failure in the US certainly. One only has to recall the line about the right of settlers (Italian) "not one minute of right, to the pasture not one cow" to see the parallel drawn to events in a country some 1000 mile or so to the east. Italian justification of their occupation based on a two thousand year old pedigree got to the nub of today's headlines in the middle east.
Lybia, the 'Berber Kingdom', has a long history. It has been part of the civilized world and great empires dating back to Carthage and including Greeks, Romans, Moors, etc. For those interested in music they have the chance to see how 'bagpipes' were and are played from where they came. Early on the movie, when the young men return to the village, their dance is accompanied by bagpipes.
Omar's last words are brilliant and haunting: "As for me, I will live longer than my hangman". One of the militias in Lebanon, during its civil war, was called the 'Omar Mukhtar brigade'.
One man lead resistance against the imperialist designs of the Italian dictator.
lal_i4 March 2005
7.1 is a ridiculous rating. This movies deserves much higher and I can assure those who have not seen it that they will agree with me once they have seen it.
Almost all aspects of movie making are amazingly rendered. It will easily compare with any movie about war and politics. The savagery, otherwise recorded only in books, is depicted marvelously. I want to praise a couple of actors but it would not be correct to leave anyone out so I am just saying that they were all tailor made for their roles. There is some real reel footage in the movie and that drives home the points raised in this movie.
On a tangent it is interesting that the so called civilized countries continuously plumbed new depths of uncivilized actions only for land and riches . It is an amazing display of imperialistic debauchery.
Almost all aspects of movie making are amazingly rendered. It will easily compare with any movie about war and politics. The savagery, otherwise recorded only in books, is depicted marvelously. I want to praise a couple of actors but it would not be correct to leave anyone out so I am just saying that they were all tailor made for their roles. There is some real reel footage in the movie and that drives home the points raised in this movie.
On a tangent it is interesting that the so called civilized countries continuously plumbed new depths of uncivilized actions only for land and riches . It is an amazing display of imperialistic debauchery.
A misunderstood film
Blueghost21 April 2004
A pretty good desert epic with lots of action, this film is often thought to be a propaganda piece for Libya and Islam, with anti-Italian overtones.
Not quite.
The film is no more anti-Italian than it is pro-Islam. That is to say it is neither. It's a grand scale film that shows a Facist state's attempt to colonize and reign over north Africa in the early half of the 20th century, and how the native populace waged a guerilla war against this effort. It does not cast aspersions on Italians, nor pushes Islam as a religion. Italy happens to be swept up in a facist mindset whose forces are at odds with a people who are predominantly Muslim.
Anthony Quinn himself states in the "Making of..." documentary that the lead character, Omar al-Mukhtar, was not fighting for Islam, nor proselytizing in any way. He was one of many guerilla leaders who was trying to push the facists out of Libya. And even then he's only trying to regain that which was taken by facists, and not so much force Italians themselves to leave. Facists who, at the time, happened to be from Italy. From what I've seen the film does its best to accurately depict what went on during Italy's expansionist period under Mussolini, and shows this episode of political and military contention between the two sides in Libya.
There's lots of good acting here, and grand battle scenes. The cinematography is the usual style for this sort of film. Unfortunately the cast was chosen more for their names to sell the film than anything else. Even so they, Quin, Reed, Steiger and the rest do a pretty good job of showing us how the men of the time acted and behaved, and Quinn does en exceptional job of showing a humble but resolved Mukhtar. The battle scenes, for the most part, are pretty good. There's one or two hammy performances by a couple of the supporting cast members, but they're overshadowed by the rest of the film.
The DVD transfer is OK. Anchor Bay's gone to some extra lengths to put some extra goodies on the disk, but the film's image could've used a dual layer process.
If you're a fan of military epics this film should entertain. A good watch.
Not quite.
The film is no more anti-Italian than it is pro-Islam. That is to say it is neither. It's a grand scale film that shows a Facist state's attempt to colonize and reign over north Africa in the early half of the 20th century, and how the native populace waged a guerilla war against this effort. It does not cast aspersions on Italians, nor pushes Islam as a religion. Italy happens to be swept up in a facist mindset whose forces are at odds with a people who are predominantly Muslim.
Anthony Quinn himself states in the "Making of..." documentary that the lead character, Omar al-Mukhtar, was not fighting for Islam, nor proselytizing in any way. He was one of many guerilla leaders who was trying to push the facists out of Libya. And even then he's only trying to regain that which was taken by facists, and not so much force Italians themselves to leave. Facists who, at the time, happened to be from Italy. From what I've seen the film does its best to accurately depict what went on during Italy's expansionist period under Mussolini, and shows this episode of political and military contention between the two sides in Libya.
There's lots of good acting here, and grand battle scenes. The cinematography is the usual style for this sort of film. Unfortunately the cast was chosen more for their names to sell the film than anything else. Even so they, Quin, Reed, Steiger and the rest do a pretty good job of showing us how the men of the time acted and behaved, and Quinn does en exceptional job of showing a humble but resolved Mukhtar. The battle scenes, for the most part, are pretty good. There's one or two hammy performances by a couple of the supporting cast members, but they're overshadowed by the rest of the film.
The DVD transfer is OK. Anchor Bay's gone to some extra lengths to put some extra goodies on the disk, but the film's image could've used a dual layer process.
If you're a fan of military epics this film should entertain. A good watch.
A great epic!
miagil14 November 2005
I believe that one needs to be made of a special material to direct/produce such an epic. Moustapha believed in what he was doing when shooting the movie. He went to out of his way to make sure that everything he filmed was as real as possible. The battle scenes were planned with all detail but also the small scenes with Tony Quinn, Irene Papas or any other actor. It is a real pity that death has taken him before he could produce/direct "Salahadin", his long wanted project that would have shown the world another face of Islam. He tried with Omar Muhktar but I am sure that he would have done much better with Salahadin. Moustapha Akkad and his work as a film maker will be remembered.
The Hearts And Minds
bkoganbing4 January 2010
It was one poorly disguised fact that Libyan oil money made Lion Of The Desert under the supervision of President Muamar Khaddafy of Libya. I guess Khadafy was trying to inherit the leadership mantle of Muktar Oman who led resistance to the Italian occupation of what became Libya after World War II. Knowing that the guy whose idea of war was blowing up airliners with civilian passengers kind of sours the message that Lion Of The Desert is trying to bring.
Libya was grabbed off by Italy in the Balkan Wars which was kind of a dress rehearsal for several countries going into World War I. Previously the Bedouin territory was part of the decaying Ottoman Empire and Muktar Oman as played by Anthony Quinn is leading the resistance, still going on in the late Twenties.
But Italy has undergone the Fascist revolution and Benito Mussolini as played by Rod Steiger is now in charge. He's sending in one of his best generals Rudolfo Graziani played here by Oliver Reed. Graziani is just the kind of ruthless man that's needed to subdue the Bedouins if anyone can.
Reed and Quinn are an evenly matched pair of foes despite Italy having all the advantages of 20th Century armaments. Quinn however has the hearts and minds of the people.
The film was directed by Moustapha Akkad and it is miles better than his previous effort The Messenger about the founding of Islam. Still knowing who is financing the message does kind of sour the film. Perhaps one day it will be judged on its own merits.
Libya was grabbed off by Italy in the Balkan Wars which was kind of a dress rehearsal for several countries going into World War I. Previously the Bedouin territory was part of the decaying Ottoman Empire and Muktar Oman as played by Anthony Quinn is leading the resistance, still going on in the late Twenties.
But Italy has undergone the Fascist revolution and Benito Mussolini as played by Rod Steiger is now in charge. He's sending in one of his best generals Rudolfo Graziani played here by Oliver Reed. Graziani is just the kind of ruthless man that's needed to subdue the Bedouins if anyone can.
Reed and Quinn are an evenly matched pair of foes despite Italy having all the advantages of 20th Century armaments. Quinn however has the hearts and minds of the people.
The film was directed by Moustapha Akkad and it is miles better than his previous effort The Messenger about the founding of Islam. Still knowing who is financing the message does kind of sour the film. Perhaps one day it will be judged on its own merits.
Why on Earth was this a financial failure?
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews4 July 2009
I'm not questioning the math of it, that part's quite clear. No, why did this not get more attention? Perhaps too few know the history, which I must admit that I, myself, was unaware of, though it feels quite authentic. It could be the violence... this is rather brutal, and there are those that would call it downright distasteful. Personally, I call it "realistic" and "not unnecessarily toned down". War is not pleasant, much less glamorous. That is a myth, perpetrated by those who wish to keep it going, the people who benefit. This gives an accurate depiction of the fighting, for both sides. Regardless of the reason, I hope that this film is no longer overlooked. Akkad directed three times, and I've now seen, and rated perfect 10's, two of them, the one remaining being an Arabic version of Mohammad: Messenger of God, which was in English. I don't know what kept him out of the chair apart from these instances, but I hope he felt he had told all that he had in him, for it would be a true shame if he did not get the chance to. The plot is incredible, and genuinely inspirational. Writing, all the way, is excellent, the credible characters with proper motivation, the memorable and quotable dialog, and the script as a whole, all amazing. The music is an epic, orchestral score. All of the effects and action are impeccable. The acting performances are beyond reproach. While this does, off course, hold some bias, I never felt manipulated or lied to, as I watched it. Instead, I was engaged and experienced a recreation of the past, and a portion of it that should not be forgotten. In spite of the listing here on the site, the cut I saw was 153 minutes, or about two and a half hours, long. There is no sexuality or language in this. The DVD comes with a theatrical trailer and a making of, produced around the same time as the feature, and they are good and well-done with that in mind. I recommend this to anyone who believes they can stomach the gruesome visuals that are found(I maintain that the use, and amount, are not gratuitous) in it. 10/10
Interesting epic, strongly acted by its leads and impressive in scale but hurt by occasional imperfections.
barnabyrudge24 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Despite being one of the most financially disastrous films ever made (costing a lot to make, and making very little back), Lion Of The Desert is a surprisingly good epic film about the Italian occupation of Libya in 1929. The film focuses on two of the key players on each side – the Italian forces are marshaled with ruthless iron-like discipline by their notorious Colonel Graziani, while the Libyans defend themselves under the guidance of spiritual guerrilla freedom fighter Omar Mukhtar (a.k.a the Lion of the Desert). It's an interesting clash of ideals and personalities which makes for a worthwhile – if never truly outstanding – historical epic.
In 1929, the Italians grow desperate as their occupation of Libya reaches crisis point. The Libyans simply refuse to accept that another country has any rights to their homeland and reject all attempts by the Italians to justify their presence there. Mussolini (Rod Steiger) sends one of his most promising and fearsome soldiers to resolve the tension – Colonel Rodolfo Graziani (Oliver Reed). Graziani's approach is one of ruthless and merciless force – he has Libyans executed in front of their families for working with guerrillas; he sets up concentration camps in the desert where Libyans are frequently hanged or starved to death; he orders his tanks to wipe out villages and towns with the aim of total annihilation. Yet somehow, against this modern army armed with their tanks and machine guns, the Libyans manage to fight back under the guidance of an elderly freedom fighter named Omar Mukhtar (Anthony Quinn). Mukhtar continually embarrasses his mighty opponent by leading cunning Arab attacks against them. They come from the desert like lightning, strike at the Italian soldiers and communication lines, then fade back into the landscape before they can be caught or killed. It is nearly two years before Graziani finally captures and hangs Mukhtar in front of his people, hoping to finally crush the spirit of the Libyan resistance.
Lion Of The Desert has plenty to admire. Quinn's performance as Mukhtar is certainly very convincing, and Reed belies the fact that he was making one terrible film after another at this point in his career by turning in a very menacing portrayal of Graziani. Both of them almost have the film stolen from under their noses by Rod Steiger's immense cameo as Mussolini – exuberant acting by an exuberant actor. The film is also strong during the battle sequences – the size of the forces involved is impressively captured in some genuinely epic-scale clashes, and we are spared nothing of the unpleasant reality of combat. People are shot to pieces, tanks roll over legs and bodies crushing the lifeblood from them, and none of it is hidden or glamorised for the viewers. We certainly get to glimpse the full horrors of a battlefield. There are still flaws with Lion Of The Desert, one being the unfathomable decision to have several well-known British actors play Libyan freedom fighters. With their too-proper Queens' English accents, blue eyes, and fake-tanned skin they look foolish rather than convincing. Poor John Gielgud suffers most of all in this manner. Also the film's narrative is not always as clear as one might hope, with some characters and events that don't feel as if they've been developed properly and come across as rather hard to follow. Generally-speaking Lion Of The Desert is a good film though, certainly worth a look.
In 1929, the Italians grow desperate as their occupation of Libya reaches crisis point. The Libyans simply refuse to accept that another country has any rights to their homeland and reject all attempts by the Italians to justify their presence there. Mussolini (Rod Steiger) sends one of his most promising and fearsome soldiers to resolve the tension – Colonel Rodolfo Graziani (Oliver Reed). Graziani's approach is one of ruthless and merciless force – he has Libyans executed in front of their families for working with guerrillas; he sets up concentration camps in the desert where Libyans are frequently hanged or starved to death; he orders his tanks to wipe out villages and towns with the aim of total annihilation. Yet somehow, against this modern army armed with their tanks and machine guns, the Libyans manage to fight back under the guidance of an elderly freedom fighter named Omar Mukhtar (Anthony Quinn). Mukhtar continually embarrasses his mighty opponent by leading cunning Arab attacks against them. They come from the desert like lightning, strike at the Italian soldiers and communication lines, then fade back into the landscape before they can be caught or killed. It is nearly two years before Graziani finally captures and hangs Mukhtar in front of his people, hoping to finally crush the spirit of the Libyan resistance.
Lion Of The Desert has plenty to admire. Quinn's performance as Mukhtar is certainly very convincing, and Reed belies the fact that he was making one terrible film after another at this point in his career by turning in a very menacing portrayal of Graziani. Both of them almost have the film stolen from under their noses by Rod Steiger's immense cameo as Mussolini – exuberant acting by an exuberant actor. The film is also strong during the battle sequences – the size of the forces involved is impressively captured in some genuinely epic-scale clashes, and we are spared nothing of the unpleasant reality of combat. People are shot to pieces, tanks roll over legs and bodies crushing the lifeblood from them, and none of it is hidden or glamorised for the viewers. We certainly get to glimpse the full horrors of a battlefield. There are still flaws with Lion Of The Desert, one being the unfathomable decision to have several well-known British actors play Libyan freedom fighters. With their too-proper Queens' English accents, blue eyes, and fake-tanned skin they look foolish rather than convincing. Poor John Gielgud suffers most of all in this manner. Also the film's narrative is not always as clear as one might hope, with some characters and events that don't feel as if they've been developed properly and come across as rather hard to follow. Generally-speaking Lion Of The Desert is a good film though, certainly worth a look.
Perfect war movie
aalmehrizi24 November 2018
Old style Hollywood converts to Islam, pt 2
jaibo21 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The second (follwing Mohammed, Messenger of God) of producer turned director Moustapha Akkad's rather foolhardy attempts to create a popular Islamic cinema using Western cinematic and narrative forms which were 20 years (at least) out of date even in Hollywood, Lion of the Desert tells the story of the 20 year campaign of resistance against Italian imperialist occupation by the Bedouin desert armies of Omar Mukhtar. Anthony Quinn, who was also in Mohammed, play Mukhtar as someone's kindly old uncle, a wily old desert lion with one spectacled eye on the Koran and the other on the field of battle. Oliver Reed plays his nemesis, the Italian fascist General Rodolfo Graziani.
The film is a fairly simplistic affair. Mukhtar and his fellow Bedouin are the personifications of good, patiently and relentlessly opposing the mechanistic might of the Italians. It's horses and guns versus tanks and bombs for the most part, and the film makes no bones about being propaganda for Mukhtar's resistance movement - not too difficult to swallow, considering the army he was facing. Yet in creating such a black and white view of reality (reminiscent of the many popular films the allies produced during and after the 2nd World War), the film comes across as dated, unambiguous and conceptually crude. The society that Mukhtar was defending is not questioned, even though it is clearly a society which is relentlessly anti-modern and in which women have very little active role to play. There is an intriguing scene in which a grieving war widow brings her son to Mukhtar's tent, and the old lion gives the boy his father's book and instructs him to "tell your mother to keep it safe for you." The woman must be told by the man, even when the man is her tiny child...
The film is pretty successful in cramming a long historical story into two and a half hours of screen time, and the narrative is pretty clear. H.A.L Craig's screenplay makes rather too much use of repetitive motifs, which don't develop as the story goes on but simply come up again and again at intervals. The two most notable of these motifs are the constant encounters with "good" Italians who although they wear a fascist uniform shrink from the more abhorrent crimes they are asked to perform and have a scarcely hidden admiration for Mukhtar (exemplified by Raf Vallone's veteran negotiator), and Bedouin children in jeopardy but learning from the "spirit of Mukhtar" - this latter strand of motif leans towards the cloying and sentimental.
There is a lot to admire in the film as an achievement in big-scale movie-making. The camera-work is excellent throughout, the battle sequences impressive and certain set-pieces (the montage of the concentration camps the Italians put the Bedouin in; the hanging of Mukhtar) are impressive and worth watching the film for. The performances are pretty ripe, except for Quinn, who over-eggs his pudding by being too kindly, too scholastic, too intrinsically good to convince as a real human being. We expect Reed to be hammy, but he is large without being absurd, and predictably outdone by Steiger doing a shouting turn as Mussolini (a role he also played in 1974's Mussolini: Ultimo atto). Far worse is the tendency to cast veteran British Thespians as elder Arabs: Andrew Keir just about gets away with it, but John Gielgud as a wily old collaborator with the Italians is preposterous, with his rich upper class English tones and pale skin.
There's a certain pan-historical element to the story - the Bedouin stand for all colonised peoples fighting their colonisers; this is made explicit in the film by Mussolini comparing the wall Graziani builds with Hadrian's, and one gets the feeling watching the film that it could be inspirational to the oppressed people of Palestine now. Mukhtar, with his high ideals and refusal to torture or kill prisoners, is a very different Muslim fighter to the popular Western image of the suicide bomber today, which only makes director Akkad's death in 2005 in Amman, Jordan by an Al-Qaeda suicide bomber the more bitter and tragic.
The film is a fairly simplistic affair. Mukhtar and his fellow Bedouin are the personifications of good, patiently and relentlessly opposing the mechanistic might of the Italians. It's horses and guns versus tanks and bombs for the most part, and the film makes no bones about being propaganda for Mukhtar's resistance movement - not too difficult to swallow, considering the army he was facing. Yet in creating such a black and white view of reality (reminiscent of the many popular films the allies produced during and after the 2nd World War), the film comes across as dated, unambiguous and conceptually crude. The society that Mukhtar was defending is not questioned, even though it is clearly a society which is relentlessly anti-modern and in which women have very little active role to play. There is an intriguing scene in which a grieving war widow brings her son to Mukhtar's tent, and the old lion gives the boy his father's book and instructs him to "tell your mother to keep it safe for you." The woman must be told by the man, even when the man is her tiny child...
The film is pretty successful in cramming a long historical story into two and a half hours of screen time, and the narrative is pretty clear. H.A.L Craig's screenplay makes rather too much use of repetitive motifs, which don't develop as the story goes on but simply come up again and again at intervals. The two most notable of these motifs are the constant encounters with "good" Italians who although they wear a fascist uniform shrink from the more abhorrent crimes they are asked to perform and have a scarcely hidden admiration for Mukhtar (exemplified by Raf Vallone's veteran negotiator), and Bedouin children in jeopardy but learning from the "spirit of Mukhtar" - this latter strand of motif leans towards the cloying and sentimental.
There is a lot to admire in the film as an achievement in big-scale movie-making. The camera-work is excellent throughout, the battle sequences impressive and certain set-pieces (the montage of the concentration camps the Italians put the Bedouin in; the hanging of Mukhtar) are impressive and worth watching the film for. The performances are pretty ripe, except for Quinn, who over-eggs his pudding by being too kindly, too scholastic, too intrinsically good to convince as a real human being. We expect Reed to be hammy, but he is large without being absurd, and predictably outdone by Steiger doing a shouting turn as Mussolini (a role he also played in 1974's Mussolini: Ultimo atto). Far worse is the tendency to cast veteran British Thespians as elder Arabs: Andrew Keir just about gets away with it, but John Gielgud as a wily old collaborator with the Italians is preposterous, with his rich upper class English tones and pale skin.
There's a certain pan-historical element to the story - the Bedouin stand for all colonised peoples fighting their colonisers; this is made explicit in the film by Mussolini comparing the wall Graziani builds with Hadrian's, and one gets the feeling watching the film that it could be inspirational to the oppressed people of Palestine now. Mukhtar, with his high ideals and refusal to torture or kill prisoners, is a very different Muslim fighter to the popular Western image of the suicide bomber today, which only makes director Akkad's death in 2005 in Amman, Jordan by an Al-Qaeda suicide bomber the more bitter and tragic.
Good film with a very dangerous message.
reop4 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Although I strongly disagree with the ban issued by Italian authorities (which represents an infringement upon the filmmaker's freedom of expression and the viewers' freedom of documentation), I cannot help but think that the film is pure negative propaganda against the Italian army and the Fascist colonial policy. Moreover, it is propaganda boarding on caricature. Rod Steiger as Mussolini is not much different from Charlie Chapling (or Mel Brooks) imitating Hitler. Antony Quinn, as Omar Mukhtar, is.....too good to be true. The film is certainly highly professional; the reconstruction of Palazzo Venezia (Mussolini's headquarters) stunning and the accuracy in re-creating the 1922 weapons very credible. Colonialism was definitely a sad page in Western History, but it cannot be judged with the 21st Century mentality. By depicting the Italians "all bad", and the Muslims "all good", I am afraid we open the road to a future film where the Westerners will be, once again, "all bad", whereas the "all good" will be Osama Bin Laden
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
