KnotMissPriceless Why so much hype?

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Bumpy Chip It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

JohnHowardReid Alpha have given us quite an acceptable 8/10 print of Beau Ideal (1931) which, partly thanks to Loretta Young, contrives to be one of the worst films ever made. Well, at least for the first 20 minutes or so. If you're watching this, fast-forward immediately after the credits past the scene with the chained prisoners (it's repeated later in the movie) and all the terrible stuff with a group of the worst child actors ever assembled, and all the tripe with Loretta Young (she is absolutely dreadful - and is photographed most unattractively to boot). Commence watching as soon as the Foreign Legion scenes appear. They may seem rather dull and over-familiar at first, but they do build up to a splendid all-action climax. Alas, director Herbert Brenon, a master of visual excitements, proves an almost total loss with his leads. Admittedly, given his ropey dialogue, Lester Vail is not too bad, but Ralph Forbes proves even more insufferable than Miss Young. And that's saying something!

Michael_Elliott Beau Ideal (1931) ** (out of 4)Pervical Christopher Wren's sequel to Beau Geste has John Geste (Ralph Forbes) joining the French Foreign Legion after his love Isobel (Loretta Young) informs him that their friend (Frank McCormick) has joined. Pretty soon Geste finds himself in the desert and accused of leading a mutiny that he had nothing to do with. BEAU IDEAL has pretty much been forgotten today and if someone has heard of it it's probably because of how poorly it did when it was originally released. The film's quality also has a pretty low reputation but I didn't find the movie all that bad, although there's clearly something missing from it. The entire film has an incredibly strange structure that starts off with the two friends in the bottom of a dungeon and then we flashback to when they were children and then we flash-forward to a sequence between jumping yet again. I'm really not sure what the point of this was as it really adds nothing to the film and it also seems that more footage is missing. The film runs 80-minutes and while watching it I really wondered if perhaps it originally ran a lot longer but the studio cut it down before release. There are so many side plots that happen yet seem to never be mentioned again. The film also has some pretty bad moments that could become a cult classic if people actually watched the film. One example is the poor acting during the opening sequence and another happens during the mutiny in the desert. Both of these scenes are so poorly done that they will bring laughs when they're meant to be dramatic. Forbes isn't too bad in his role but he's certainly far from memorable. Young is pretty much in thankless cameo and it's funny seeing her working with the director again after the abuse he gave her on LAUGH CLOWN LAUGH.

drystyx This early version of Beau Geste deals with the youngest brother. It is still French Foreign Legion adventure, and looks more like a stage adaptation than a large budget movie.Like any Beau Geste, it deals with childhood companions who grow up and join the legion, and find themselves in heroic circumstances which remind them of their childhood.The Geste movies don't usually get into the grit and grim the way most modern movie makers like to. They generally speak in "larger than life" terms, which hold for a few minutes of a man's life.The acting leaves something to be desired. The plot is coherent, but barely. As adventure yarns go, there is no more silliness than usual.There is some grit and grind, which is theatrically done instead of graphically. The men in a prison pit languish from days of thirst and hunger. A few things that happen seem inconsistent, but we get the gist of the plot.Each Geste film has something going for it. One had Cooper, Milland, and Preston well cast. One had an introspective reluctant Cool Hand Luke sort of Geste, who was seen as a "mover" who wrote a letter, although the letter was really written by Leslie Nielson as a legion commander.This one has a historic novelty, an American who is gayer than the British characters. This apparently was not lost on the audience of the day, and was intentional, as we see from a bit of comic relief.

bob-r The third film in the trilogy, this one may seem slow to viewers who haven't been able to watch the previous two (Beau Geste, Beau Sabreur). This story wraps up all the loose ends of the other two and throws in some new and interesting twists as well. The film follows the "Geste" saga from the perspective of two other characters originally introduced in Beau Geste and again featured in Beau Sabreur. Early black and white, kind of rough around the edges by today's standards but still well worth watching.