Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

The Worst Film Ever

Surprisingly incoherent and boring

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

A worthwhile film creates memorable characters with whom we can in some way identify; the memorable film takes the willing viewer to mental outlooks and physical places not normally experienced, and offers a distinctive viewpoint concerning a specific issue; Days of Glory qualifies in all departments.While it is easily defined as a "War Film," it is also a film about the way a dominant culture can manipulate those who depend on it, the people who fight for it, and the privileges it rewards to the fighters. Four solders from Africa join the mainland French to help defeat the Germans; unknowingly, they are often used as mere cannon fodder. We watch several distinctive individuals as they encounter assaults on their growth from without and within; the men are drawn with insight and care and their interactions are emotionally moving.Some critics carp that they have seen this film before in other guises, that it is not unlike, say, Saving Private Ryan--only true, I think, if a viewer has become too jaded with too many war films, with too much blood. Even if some of the situations have been shown in film before, the acting here is so powerful that the entire ensemble won an unusual Best Acting Award at Cannes--entirely deserved, and an unheralded sacrifice by fighting men that has been finally recognized and rescued from the dustbin of history.

It's good, well filmed, well played (casts two actors I have been appreciating for a long time, so maybe I am biased...). Though, no enthusiasm, no projection here at we are almost in a fictional documentary and/or an homage. Necessary still. The real question is why I am not as disturbed by this as by "Waltz with Bachir": different places, different times, same absurdity of war, same manipulation of governments. Is it just because I was already aware of the treatment this soldiers received, or, more interestingly maybe, is it because it's too hard for us to admit guilt of your own country? Or could it also be that these events are not fresh enough anymore to disturb us and that the time serves as a defence tool? This explanation is actually making sense today, as Rachid Bouchareb's new film on the common history of France and Algeria is coming out. It is about the period when Algeria was seeking independence and France denying it, i.e. the 60s. And more importantly it is making much more controversy, as you would expect if the recency hypothesis is correct.

'Indigenes' tells the story of Algerians who fought for France in world war two. A complicated racial hierarchy existed: French-born, Algerian-born French, Arabs, and black Africans: the film concentrates on Arab characters, but gives a conveys a strong sense of the unity and divisions among these groups. But aside from this, it's also simply one of the best war films ever made, conveying brilliantly the utter hell of battle, and painting a portrait of World War Two that often invokes thoughts of World War One far more than it does blitzkrieg, as soldiers literally march across France and fight in the most squalid of conditions. Bernard Blancan is superb as a sergeant in denial of his own identity; but the whole cast is strong. My only quibble is with the English language title: 'Days of Glory' seems a strange title for a film that more recalls the sentiments of Wilfred Owen than of Hollywood.

I enjoyed the film and I probably would have given it a rating of 8 except for one thing. By the time the halfway point of the movie was reached, I couldn't help but notice that the actor playing Saïd (Jamel Debbouze) always had his right hand in his pocket. Since I was watching it on DVD, I of course had to stop and look him up on IMDb. After finding out that he had no right hand, I was then very distracted through the remainder of the film.I saw that he was a co-producer of the film. I question his judgment of not wearing a prosthetic hand in many of the scenes. Much of the movie took place in cold weather and they were all wearing gloves. Also, in the final scenes, he was the only one in the fire fight using only a hand gun, which looked odd. I just think that having your hand constantly in your pocket is not the best way to disguise this handicap.Harold LLoyd wore a prosthetic glove in many movies after his unfortunate accident when he lost his thumb and forefinger. I'm sure if he walked around with his hand in his pocket all of the time, people would have noticed.