In keeping with his experience as a war correspondent/photographer, Pierre Schoendoerffers does not waste any screen time here on preliminaries but launches us straight into the action and establishes the two principal protagonists from the outset. The dynamic between the archetypal young idealist of Jacques Perrin and the grizzled veteran played by Bruno Cremer is impressive and both actors excel.

There are no gung-ho, macho, mock heroics here but a grim depiction of human beings in extremis. By all accounts the director was demanding of his cast and the making of it on location in Cambodia must have been distinctly unpleasant although not nearly as unpleasant as the real thing!

A film such as this would have been far less effective in colour and Schoendoerffer's masterstroke here is in utilising the services of one of France's greatest lighting cameramen Raoul Coutard whose bleak, monochromatic cinematography gives the effect of newsreel footage.

At a time when nations are having to come to terms with and face the consequences of their colonial past this film is ripe for rediscovery.

Despite its controversial nature and the French public's weariness with colonial conflicts this film did surprisingly well at the box office.

Brilliant military historian Antony Beevor has declared this to be the greatest war film ever, an opinion few would share. However, judged on its raw power, immediacy and an overwhelming sense of 'being there', it must surely take high rank.

At the core this film is a proto-Vietnam war movie. Which in itself is funny seeing how the French Indochina War was a prequel of sorts of the Vietnam War. Anthony Beevor, the most respected war historian, has described this movie as being the one portraying the military the best. I would agree.

The movie might be the archetype of the Vietnam War movie. It has all the elements that became staples of the genre. It has the forsaken and isolated platoon, the long, weary and ultimately pointless activities/marches, the dreadful hostile tropical environment etc... The only thing it lacks is the shattering of exceptionalism, although you could argue that the young lieutenant fills that role somewhat.

However, this movie in particular felt fresh and lighter than other war movies. It tells its story exclusively from a military point of view. It is a very minimalistic movie; it is about people in tough situations. In this movie the war is not a heroic thing. It is not romantic, tragic, epic or brave. It is primarily exhausting, tiresome. It isn't cool by any means; it is dirty by all means. The life of a soldier is not shooting, or fighting, it's mainly walking under moist heat. It is about being tired, not being able to sleep, being thirsty, being hungry. It shows a very mundane aspect of war, and therefore it allows itself to be sincere about it. More than any other war movie, there is something very raw about it, in a good way. The movie is very honest, it feels real.

It might be also because there is no story to speak of. The movie takes place in parallel to the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu. There are echoes of the war and how the conflict progresses, but for the most part the platoon is isolated. You spend two hours with these guys and you completely understand that the war is unwinnable. Instead of a story the plot focuses rather on the soldiers. Especially the young idealistic, nerdy, officer opposed to the battle-hardened veteran. It is an pattern that is reused in Platoon with more drama. Here it starts as an antagonism of sorts but, interestingly, the events turn it into camaraderie. Bruno Cremer is the hero of this movie. And it is kind of bold for a movie from the sixties, when the anti-hero archetype was not as widespread and even less associated with the army.

The strengths of the film are emphasized by the mise-en-scene. The movie has that Nouvelle Vague effortlessness. It is not in the streets and cafés of the big city, it is the bushes in the jungle and going through rivers. The style is also very simple, yet it is effective. The image is in black and white, it conveys that feeling that in the jungle everything looks the same. The only music that is used is the tunes the soldiers get when they set up their radio. It is brilliant.

French Indochina, May 1954. While the Battle of Dien Bien Phu rages, a nearby French platoon is ordered to abandon its isolated base and march to a more secure location. The journey is fraught with danger: they are surrounded on all sides by forces several times larger than them. Commanding the platoon is a young, inexperienced Lieutenant. His senior NCO is very experienced, a veteran of WW2, but the two don't always see eye to eye.

Watched this because famed military historian Antony Beevor regards this as the greatest war movie ever made. Turns out, it's not, but it is very good.

Written and directed by Pierre Schoendoerffer and based on his novel, The 317th Platoon is the first "Vietnam War" movie in a sense. It might not be the Americans fighting the Viet Cong or NVA but the French Indochina War was the precursor to the Vietnam War. Replace Americans with French in a Vietnam War drama and you have this movie: the setting, tactics and feel to the movie are very similar.

Quite realistic in its portrayal of war: the danger, the randomness, the impact of seemingly minor decisions, the wastefulness and futility of it all. Other than the latter aspect, not hugely profound: is more about the plot journey than the destination. In addition, does drift in spells and the ending is too abrupt, hence the less-than-perfect score.