The Wind and the Lion (1975) User Reviews

Waving the Big Stick

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 30 December 2006]

Lovely Candace Bergen as the widow Perdicaris are kidnapped and held for ransom by the Sheik Raisuli played by one dashing Sean Connery. The incident comes during 1904 as Theodore Roosevelt runs for election to the presidency in his own right. Needing a good example to show off the muscular foreign policy of the United States, Brian Keith as Roosevelt issues a stunning declaration to the Sultan of Morocco, "Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead."

But in this adaptation of that incident the famous declaration is the only true thing about this story. The Perdicaris in question was in reality one Ion Perdicaris who was a Greek immigrant and dilettante playboy. In fact Perdicaris gave up his American citizenship years ago and was back as a Greek national. Never mind that though, his predicament was serviceable enough at the time.

The damsel in distress makes better screen material though so it's a widow woman and her two kids that are in harm's way here. Of course as presented here the incident is also used by some of our European powers to get their foothold into Morocco. The intrigues get far beyond one brigand's demand for ransom.

The Wind and the Lion is hardly history. But it is an enjoyable film and Sean Connery is always fun to watch. Brian Keith also fits my conception of Theodore Roosevelt and the scenes in the Roosevelt White House do ring true to all the stories told. John Huston plays the ever patient Secretary of State John Hay who Roosevelt had inherited from his predecessor William McKinley.

But kids don't use this film to skip reading a history assignment on the Theodore Roosevelt era.

Handsomely mounted adventure film.

[poolandrews · 6/10 · 2 June 2008]

The Wind and the Lion starts in Tangier in Morocco on October 15 1904 where an American woman named Eden Pedecaris (Candice Bergen) & her two young children Jennifer (Polly Gottesman) & William (Simon Harrison) are kidnapped by the gang of men lead by Moroccan rebel Mulay Hamid El Raisuli (Sean Connery) the Lord of the Rif, Sultan to the Berbers & the last of the Barbary Pirates. Word of the kidnapping gets back to President Theodore Roosevelt (Brain Keith) who decides to use the situation as a show of strength & issues the ultimatum 'Pedecaris alive or Raisuli dead'. As the struggle for power in the Middle East & Morocco wages between the Europeans, the Americans & the Moroccan people Raisuli & Pedercaris become pawns, they become symbols of war & what to fight for or against as the Middle East sees in the beginning of the 20th Century in turbulent fashion...

Written & directed by John Milius this historical adventure is loosely based on real events but in essence is a fictional work, whether you like The Wind and the Lion will probably depend on how much you enjoy period adventure films. Of course the fact that the film is partly about an American war against Middle Eastern extremist's who kidnap people & demand a ransom has parallels to what's happening right now in the real world, doesn't it? The character's are well written & likable, it's odd to see Sean Connery play an Arab Sultan but he has great charisma & screen presence although it's rather inevitable that Pedecaris will fall for his roguish behaviour, sense of honour & conviction in his beliefs while it's also just as inevitable that Raisuli will fall for her strength, independence & good looks in the obligatory romance subplot. The film has an uneven pace & tone, it flips between Raisuli, Roosevelt in America, lots of political wrangling & some good old fashioned fighting without a totally clear direction. It's a good film but I just wish it didn't last quite as long & it didn't come to a grinding halt every five minutes for a speech of some sort, whether it's Roosevelt in America talking about Grizzly Bears or Raisuli in Morocco spouting another cryptic proverb. I mean I just think it might have flowed a bit better had it not been so bogged down in politics & philosophising. The Wind and the Lion is good film but I did get bored by it by the end, it is a little predictable & the story could have been a little bit more focused.

Director Milius does a fine job here, the film looks wonderful from start to finish with exemplary production design, costumes & locations. A lot of time is spent during The Wind and the Lion setting the scene & really making the viewer feel they are watching something that did indeed take place at the start of the last century. The film can also be quite violent at times, there's plenty of death, shootings, a severed tongue, a couple of executions & some nicely choreographed action scenes. Some people seem to think the horse were abused during the making of The Wind of the Lion, the film has never been released on any home video format here in the UK because the BBFC demanded cuts to several horse falls to which director Milius reacted angrily to & stopped the planned release since all who were involved with the making of it say no animals were hurt at all. To be honest I didn't see anything that concerned me at all.

With a supposed budget of about $4,000,000 The Wind and the Lion looks great throughout with top class production values & meticulous attention to detail. Set in Morocco but filmed largely in Spain. The acting is good especially Sean Connery.

The Wind and the Lion is a visual treat for anyone who likes their films set in the past, it looks great throughout & there are some nice action scenes but the story doesn't hold up that well & it's far too long for my liking. Good but not great & I doubt I would want to see it again anytime soon.

An exciting and enjoyable tale that is often just fiction.

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 31 January 2021]

In 1904, a Greek-American named Perdicaris was taken hostage along with his step-son. His captor was a Moroccan chieftan named Raisuli and eventually the United States was able to secure the release of the men.

The film "The Wind and the Lion" is HEAVILY fictionalized version of the Perdicaris Affair. I say heavily because in order to 'sex it up', the film features a pretty woman (Candice Bergen) as Perdicaris and instead of a step-son, she's taken hostage with her two young children. What also is heavily fictionalized is the climactic battle at the end of the film.

So is it any good? Well, despite casting a Scottish actor as Raisuli and the writing for Mrs. Perdicaris being terrible, yes, it is very enjoyable. But as I just said, Mrs. Perdicaris was ridiculous. Imagine what you'd do if you were in this situation...would you yell and be a thorn in your captor' side?? No way...it would result in a quick trip to the afterlife! But the action is good and Brian Keiths flamboyant portrayal of Teddy Roosevelt is quite captivating. Well worth seeing....though it left me really wanting to see a film actually based on the Perdicaris kidnapping.

Another film where I almost can't seem to find enough nice things to say about it

[Gatorman9 · 14 September 2003]

After reviewing others' comments I have to say that I agree with most of them, even to some degree with some of the seemingly disparaging ones. In that regard, however, I would have to say to those disappointed with the film because of the considerable liberties it takes with the historical facts that they should bear in mind that this film is clearly intended as a pure adventure story with only enough depth to get the audience emotionally involved (which may explain its undercurrent of political satire so suggestive of the immediate post-Vietnam era in which it was made and released), and could never have been intended as a theatrical representation of historical fact. I'm inclined to doubt you can do both successfully in the same film, at least not without losing a lot of the breezy, lighthearted simplicity that makes the adventure movie what it is in the first place. I think adventure movies deliberately ignore deeper issues raised by the events they treat that could be expected to lead to emotional conflict in the minds of the audience. Thus, in the typical adventure movie there are well-defined good guys and bad guys and motivations and justifications are crystal-clear. On the other hand, real history is full of ambiguities and complexities which raise deeper issues and conflicting feelings in the audience's consciousness, leading to an essentially heavier, more deeply dramatic treatment. Thus, if the producer had tried to make the plot of this film completely accurate he would have wound up with more of a drama than an adventure film, and you would have had a completely different kind of movie all together. Consequently, criticizing this film for not dealing with the deeper issues behind the Morocco crisis of 1904 is like criticizing *Raiders of the Lost Ark* for not treating the evils of Nazism more seriously than it did. *The Wind & the Lion* is like *Raiders*, not *Schindler's List*.

Moreover, even apart from the numerous variances from actual history found in the plot (they even moved the date of the event several months to bring it closer to the presidential election), I have to wonder how accurately it portrays Berber culture or even Theodore Roosevelt (whose portrait hangs on the wall directly above my computer monitor while I write this and about and even by whom I have many books including a complete set of his papers, as edited), however entertaining and appealing they may appear in the film. Nevertheless, because of their interesting and sympathetic treatment, this remains one of my favorite movies. So, if these matters still trouble you when you watch the movie, do what I find comes more or less automatically to me and try thinking of it as basically pure fiction and you should like it just fine.

Having said that, though, one of the best things about this film is that irrespective of what the writers or director did with it to make a lighthearted adventure story, other departments seemingly spared no pains in making it every bit as believable, if not actually accurate, as possible. First, I would bet money that the extras in the scene where the Marines land and storm the palace were real Unites States Marines specifically recruited for the part - note the haircuts, the prolonged double-timing in heavy uniforms, the fact that everybody stays in step, the shouted close-order drill commands, and just their general bearing or attitude (if you've ever spent time with Marines or seen one of their little public relations demonstrations at a Marine Corps base you'll know what I mean). Second, Steve Kanally got into his part in a serious way, portraying a practically flawless Marine Corps "recruiting poster" company commander - this is exactly the way the Marine Corps wants its people to come across when they are showing off for the public. Third, in the scene in the U.S. consul's office Steve Kanally historically accurately relates that he has "two 'reinforced' rifle companies" with which to seize the palace, and his statement is realized in deed when the Marines land on the wharf, as well as when they finally reach the palace, because you will see that not only are Marines present but also U.S. Navy sailors backing them up - i.e., two rifle companies reinforced with sailors from whatever ships that landed them.

Such leads me to the detail that is my favorite because it is so subtle that it is hard to imagine much more than literally a handful of viewers among the thousands who would see this film ever being likely to appreciate it. In the book *American Naval History - An Illustrated Chronology* (published some years after the film was made) naval historian Jack Sweetman relates that in the actual event the Marines were landed from the cruiser USS BROOKLYN. When you see the Marines landing in the film you will note a very antique-looking steamship looming prominently in the background. This is obviously a matte painting inserted using special effects techniques because probably the only ship still existing in the world that looks anything like that is a stationary floating museum, the cruiser USS OLYMPIA of Spanish-American War fame, and it would not be available unless the producer was willing to shoot that scene in downtown Philadelphia. More to the point, consideration of the depiction by anyone with a relevant photograph or two and basic sensitization to ship identification issues reveals that the ship pictured isn't the OLYMPIA. There are not many books easy to find these days that would help you identify the ship (I know of only two), but if you were to make the effort you would be rewarded with an unmistakable solution. The raised fo'c's'l', three very tall stacks, turret locations, and sweep of the stern unambiguously identify this vessel as just one ship and one ship only, and by now I shouldn't have to tell you its name, but of course it is the BROOKLYN. My hat's still off to the Art Department for taking that much trouble to get something so easy to disregard so right.

Anyway, this film which has just about everything this writer could want in an adventure movie: not only Theodore Roosevelt and a lot of Marines at their most virile kick-butt best, but expansive Americanism at its optimistic best ("we have men who can do anything - we have men who can FLY"), Sean Connery as a highly appealing charismatic leader (who at one point very plausibly takes out about ten scum-bucket thug types with aplomb John Wayne could envy), a long cavalry sequence with seemingly hundreds of riders culminating in a good old-fashioned saber charge, a "kid" angle (which reminds you how to look at this thing, if you ask me), a certain amount of witty repartee, healthy doses of chivalry throughout, a romantic aspect that is not wholly gratuitous, and not the least, a very feminine and attractive heroine with enough Yankee grit and determination to satisfy Katharine Hepburn. Rent it, buy it, watch it!

This Is A True Story ...

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 25 October 2004]

... Except that the Eden Pedecaris character was in reality a man who didn't have any children with him and that the battle at the end with the United States Marine Corp defeating a German force never happened . So in truth it's not actually a true story plot wise

It's very arrogant of Hollywood in general and John Milius in particular to re-write history in this manner because the film is rather accurate in some other ways namely the portrayal of Theodore Roosevelt . Want to know about how the teddy bear came into being ? Watch this film . Roosevelt was a great lover of nature , he was both a hunter and an ecologist and decided that if America wanted to be a major world power then the nation would have to carry a big stick while speaking in a soft voice

Roosevelt more than any president in history made America the superpower it is today and it's a very topical film to watch in 2004 . America's resentment of Germany and France ! Arabs slaughtering infidels on the battlefield but taking a moral high ground about women and children being held as hostage ! American military leaders and diplomats not really caring if they start a bloody war ! The more things change the more they stay the same

It is interesting to see that Milius has painted the Arabs with very human faces . Mulay might be a brigand but he's a most likable anti hero and a cinema audience has the rare opportunity of seeing what Sean Connery is capable of when he's given a good role . I wonder though how this film would have the Arabs if it'd have been made a few years later after the Iranian revolution ? I've got a feeling it would never have been made at all in todays current climate

As it stands THE WIND AND THE LION is very poor history in most parts , fairly good history in some parts and stands as a sort of timepiece when Hollywood was far less xenophobic than it is today

Could have been great...

[discogoth · 6/10 · 5 December 2001]

Just watched The Wind And The Lion last night...decent adventure yarn, but I was annoyed by the huge unexplained holes in the plot that didn't make any sense, and while some actors did a great job, there were others who were terrible! At times the dialogue was kinda cheesy as well. I thought Connery was ok in the role, but it certainly wasn't his best performance...his Scottish/Arabic hybrid accent was laughable. The visuals were nice, and the music score had some great parts. All in all an ok movie, but I was disappointed that its full potential was not realized.

*SPOILER ALERT*

Maybe part of my problem is that I'm a history major and I have to say that they took rather large liberalities with the plot...the movie is definitely fiction based on real events, rather than an accurate historical portrayal. There's nothing really wrong with that, but when they put certain scenes in the movie that make no political sense in context of the time and setting, then I get kind of annoyed, but bah, maybe I'm reading too much into it...it is just entertainment after all. I guess I'm referring to the tactless way the Americans invaded Morocco, despite the presence of all the great European powers (which is ridiculous), or the scene near the end where an all out battle occurs between the American and German factions over the prisoner, which is silly and never explained, and just what did the Germans want with Connery's Raisouli? To me it just looks like they were added into the plot at the very end just as a cheap excuse to stage action scenes with the usual stereotypical Hollywood villains (Germans).

I also feel that there was too much inappropriate humour, such as scenes where Connery's character helplessly sulks and complains when laughed at by the kidnapped children and by his own men over his lack of control over Candice Bergen...believe me, a truly ruthless, brutal leader would not act in such a manner. I think the film would have worked much better had the tone been much more serious, rather than trying to work subtle elements of romantic comedy into the story. The smirks you see on Connery's face and his men really sap the necessary feeling of danger and suspense that the film should have...I never felt like any of the characters were particularly dangerous, especially whenever Connery would spout off so-called "deep-meaning" proverbs that came across as completely cheesy, and had my friend and I rolling our eyes and laughing when we weren't supposed to.

At least Connery and Bergen never got it on, because that would have been unrealistic and painful to watch...I was quite relieved that they left that cliche out, but Bergen's sudden Stockholm Syndrome turn at the end and the Americans' unflinching willingness to go along with her plan was pretty dumb I have to say.

That having been said, it isn't a downright *bad* film, it just could have been much better.

Bravado, Honour, and Charisma aplenty

[SMK-4 · 9/10 · 23 September 1998]

A glorious adventure film, from the time when men were real men, women were real women, and American presidents were still hunting bears in Alaska instead of the oval office.

John Milius makes here the kind of macho film he really likes: we have bravado, honour, and charisma aplenty. The performances are excellent, as are the cinematography and the music. No deep messages here, but excellent entertainment all around. Film academies tend to ignore pictures like this in their award ceremonies but it is the kind of film that will stand the test of time.

The Wind and the Lion

[jboothmillard · 6/10 · 25 February 2021]

I missed this film a few times when it kept showing on the Sony Movies channel, but I knew I couldn't miss it again when it was broadcast two months after the sad death of its leading actor, written and directed by John Milius (Conan the Barbarian). Basically, set in 1904, the powers of Germany, France, and the British Empire are in conflict in Morocco, each trying to establish influence in the country. Mulai Ahmed el Raisuli (Sir Sean Connery) is the leader of a band of Berber insurrectionists opposed to the young Sultan Abdelaziz (Marc Zuber) and his uncle, the Bashaw of Tangier (From Russia with Love's Vladek Sheybal), whom Raisuli considers corrupt and obligated to the Europeans. He kidnaps Eden Pedecaris (Candice Bergen) and her children, William (Simon Harrison) and Jennifer (Polly Gottesman), in a raid on their home, during which Eden's British friend Sir Joshua Smith (Billy Williams) is killed. Raisuli then issues an outrageous ransom demand, deliberately attempting to provoke an international incident to embarrass the Sultan and ignite a civil war. In the United States, President Theodore Roosevelt (Brian Keith) is seeking re-election. He decides to use the kidnapping as both political propaganda (coining the phrase "Pedecaris alive or Raisuli dead!") and, despite the protests of his cautious Secretary of State, John Hay (John Huston), as an effort to demonstrate America's military strength as a new great power. The American Consul to Tangier, Samuel Gummeré (Geoffrey Lewis), is unable to negotiate a peaceful return of the hostages. In response, Roosevelt sends the South Atlantic Squadron, under the command of Admiral French Ensor Chadwick (Roy Jenson), to Tangier, to either retrieve Pedecaris or to force the Sultan to agree to Raisuli's demands. Roosevelt finds himself gaining more and more respect for Raisuli, thinking him an honourable man who just happens to be his enemy. The Pedecarises are kept as hostages in the Rif, far from any potential rescuers. The children come to admire Raisuli, but Eden appals him and takes them with her to try and escape. During this failed attempt, a gang of desert brigands take the family, but Raisuli tracks them down and kills the kidnappers. He reveals that he does not have any intention of harming the Pedecarises and is merely bluffing. Eden and Raisuli develop a friendly relationship, as Raisuli tells his story that he was once taken captive by his brother, the Bashaw, and kept in a dungeon for several years. Gummeré, Chadwick, and his aide, Marine Captain Jerome (Dallas's Steve Kanaly), tire of the Sultan's treachery and the meddling of the European powers. They decide to engage in "military intervention" to force a negotiation by seizing the actual seat of power, the Bashaw's palace in Tangier. Jerome's company of Marines and a detachment of sailors surprise the European legations, marching the streets of Tangier. They overwhelm the Bashaw's palace guard, taking the Bashaw hostage and forcing him to negotiate. Under coercion, the Bashaw finally agrees to agree to the Raisuli's demands. But during a hostage exchange, Raisuli is betrayed and captured by German and Moroccan troops under the command of Von Roerkel (Antoine Saint-John), while Jerome and a small contingent of Marines are present to secure the Pedecarises. While Raisuli's friend, the Sherif of Wazan (Nadim Sawalha), organises the Berber tribe for an attack on the Europeans and Moroccans, Eden attacks Jerome. She convinces him and his men to rescue Raisuli to uphold the word of President Roosevelt that he will be unharmed if the Pedecaris family are returned safely. A three-way battle results, in which the Berbers and Americans team up to defeat the Germans and their Moroccan allies, rescuing Raisuli in the process. In the United States, Roosevelt is cheered for this great victory, and the Pedecarises arrive safely back in Tangier. Roosevelt receives a letter from Raisuli, comparing the two men. Raisuli compares himself to a lion, because he must remain in my place, while he compares Roosevelt to the wind, saying he will never know his place. Also starring Darrell Fetty as Dreighton, Deborah Baxter as Alice Roosevelt, Jack Cooley as Quentin Roosevelt, and Chris Aller as Kermit Roosevelt. Connery gives a charismatic performance as the Arab chief, Bergen (in a role intended for Katharine Hepburn) is good as the hostage who begins to sympathise with her captor's cause, and Keith is spot on with his look and performance as the bear-hunting, gung-ho president. I will be honest and say that all the political stuff went a little over my head, what got my attention was the performances, a good script, the exciting horseback fight and chase sequences, the funny moments, the wonderful sandy desert locations, and the great music score, a sweeping and enjoyable period adventure. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Sound, and Best Music, Original Dramatic Score for Jerry Goldsmith, and it was nominated the BAFTA for Film Music. Good!

For the Whole Family - A Wonderful "American" Adventure Yarn

[jacksflicks · 10/10 · 24 June 2003]

We usually think of the British as the experts at rendering great adventure from the Imperial age, with the likes of The Four Feathers (1939) and Zulu, simply because the Imperial age was, for the most part, British. Here, in The Wind and the Lion, we see a wonderful rendering of America's own Imperial age.

America's projection of power under Teddy Roosevelt is the backdrop for this conventional tale of the kidnapped damsel who, despite her gentility, is smitten by the rough, manly nobility of her captor, who in turn is disarmed by her beauty and scorn. (Politically correct prigs eager to see some slight of "native" peoples or cultures can rest assured, that the way Arabs and Muslims are depicted here is far more flattering than the way their modern counterparts depict themselves on the current world stage.) What makes this story different are the terrific production values - faultless photography, composition and editing - the terrific casting - the underappreciated Brian Keith playing a bully Teddy - and vivid history.

Though The Wind and the Lion is told largely through the eyes of the son, every member of the family can identify with one of the characters, whether it be Sean Connery's noble brigand, Candace Bergen's feisty heroine, John Huston's wily John Hay or Steve Kanaly's spiffy, radiant, ruthless can-do lieutenant, Roosevelt's "Big Stick". There is a transcendent scene at the end, when the little boy is symbolically swept away by the dashing Moor on his white steed. This is high adventure at its best.

Unlikely story set in gorgeous landscapes

[CUDIU · 6/10 · 3 December 2011]

An affluent American family of three (a woman, played by Bergen, and her two kids) living in Morocco is kidnapped by the chief of the Berbers (Connery), who will ask the Americans for an important ransom. Connery and the kidnapped become closer and closer, especially when he singlehandedly rescues them from a dangerous situation. Meanwhile the Americans plan to overcome the Berbers with their military, pushed by president Teddy Roosevelt who is campaigning for reelection back in the States. The military succeed, although they have to slaughter dozens of men, and at the last minute free the Berber chief, that had been treacherously captured by the Germans.

There are not many memorable things in The Wind and the Lion. Being it a Milius flick, what I mostly expected was epos. And on this level, the movie works just fine. We get all the battles and the monumental scenery. The Moroccan setting, recreated in Southern Spain, is good and credible. (Although after a while I got the trick, when I recognized Seville in one of the scenes). Another interesting aspect is the scenes involving Theodore Roosevelt, played by an excellent Brian Keith, back in the States. These overseas intermissions in the Moroccan tragedy are well crafted and show the game of politics behind the drama of the kidnapping set on the far Rift mountains of Morocco. Roosevelt is depicted as an all too fatuous character, in love with manly sports and self-assertion but ultimately weak in keeping promises. And so the American coup in Morocco, somehow backed by Roosevelt and carried out by the military and the diplomats (among the latter a good performance by Geoffrey Lewis), is openly made to look despicable for its surreptitious and illegitimate motives. There is an image at a certain moment of a waving American flag that occupies the full screen. This reminded me of one of the last scenes in Altman's Nashville, when another Stars and Stripes banner waves in the wind to signify the ambiguity of politics in the face of the people.

However, after having set a good pace, the movie fails to keep its promises. In an unlikely inversion of roles, the American turn out to be the good guys, as if all of a sudden the courage to hold the position kept in the first two thirds of the movie had left. So the American soldiers, held at gun point by Bergen (a quite doubtful event to say the least), admit that they must rescue the Berber, now held hostage by the real bad guys. Who, of course, are the Germans!! In this, the American are joined by the Berber warriors.

I am also disappointed by Connery, not quite credible as a Berber. He does a lot of tricks and the usual Connery grins that are full of charisma, but that just does not make it less British, or at least, Anglo-Saxon than he is. In another scene, Connery's character, who is otherwise full of "honor" and "respect", decapitates some of his people in cold blood for having stolen his fruit. Meanwhile Bergen's children look at him bewildered and admired. What absurdity. It is not clear whether we need to look at him in the same, admired awe. I hope not.

Bergen is beautiful and does a reasonable job, but her character is also flawed, as nobody would expect all that bravery in a rich blonde American widow violently subdued and kidnapped by what is depicted as an aggressive band of desert warriors. So she is driven to do illogical and impossible things like disarming an entire American brigade and convincing them to attack the Germans, that so far were like allies. Again, what a blotch in the script! Once the movie starts rolling downhill, there is nothing to stop it. To the point that the final battle looks boring and bogus (look for those fake looking gunshots in the ground). Bergen rescues the Berber in the most stupid way: he is hanging from a rope, which she severs so he can free fall head first on the ground! Connery's skull must be very strong because he gets up ready to fight the Germans.

All in all, this is a spectacular movie that is blessed by Milius' direction and some good locations, but flawed by a more than poor script that does not do justice to the good cast. Which, by the way, includes a useless but likable cameo by John Huston, playing an adviser to the President.

Action -- Adventure -- An Epic Romance As Dry And Endless As the Desert Sands!!!

[Dan1863Sickles · 3/10 · 14 April 2007]

Luscious Candace Bergen as a prim Victorian beauty, kidnapped by Sean Connery as a devilish desert Sheikh! How can you go wrong? How? Oh, let me count the ways!!! Earthy, primitive Sean Connery, exactly the right man to tame a brittle, classy beauty like Candace, is . . . well, underwhelming in the role. That's because, instead of having dialog about the real issues ("you are a woman . . . I am a man!") he has to babble nonsense about "the will of Allah" and "the wind blows destiny across the desert sands." John Milius, a director known more for the worship of naked male bodies and brute military force than any insight (or interest) in conventional human relationships, has a maddening way of cutting away from his desert lovers every time it looks like Candace might get kissed. Instead of watching nature take its course with two fabulously attractive people in a picturesque landscape, we are treated to endless, (and I do mean ENDLESS) shots of Brian Keith flashing his walrus sized choppers and delivering gritty sermons on the joys of being Teddy Roosevelt. I have nothing against Teddy Roosevelt, but watching him test out his new rifle or make speeches about the heroic death of a big bear just doesn't excite me the way the love story between Candace Bergen and Sean Connery would have . . . if it had ever actually gotten underway! The weird thing is, Milius spends most of his time building up characters and story lines that have no resolution. Candace's two little children in the story both get more screen time than she does. There's no humor, no chemistry, no sizzle, in any of the things that happen to her in the desert. Unless you think it's funny that after weeks of galloping around on horseback her hair is still perfect.

The only "real" moment in the story is when, late at night, Candace Bergen shakes her little daughter out of a sound sleep on soft cushions and says, "we must escape." The little girl turns over and, without missing a beat, replies, "but mother, I was sleeping!" That one line sums up what's really missing from the story. No danger, suspense, or sizzle in the basic story line, of a cultivated lady in captivity. She (and her children) are both so snug and well cared for that it's hard to believe anyone is worked up about their fate.

Mind you, if Candace herself had said the line it might have worked better. If the tension came from her enjoyment of her captivity, (or her delight at being in the arms of Sean Connery) and her guilt about all the trouble being caused by her abduction, then the story would have had some tension. But Milius makes the odd assumption that the audience is just as worked up as he is over whether Teddy Roosevelt will get the chance to prove his manhood three thousand miles away. In the end the pretty lady and her children don't seem to matter worth a damn to him . . . and since they're at the center of the story the whole thing seems rather dry and endless . . . like the burning desert sands.

brilliant

[sushifreak-1 · 10/10 · 16 August 2004]

A movie I've seen and enjoyed possibly more than any other movie. I first saw it as a kid and loved the drama and the great climactic battle. As I got older, I enjoyed it as much or more than before, but now due to all of the components that work together to make a true classic. The acting is great (especially Keith as T. Roosevelt), the cinematography spectacular, the script is full of gems, and the directing pulls it all together wonderfully. It's loosely based on an actual event, and it shows rush of Europe and a newly emergent America to carve up the 'Sick old Man' (the Ottoman Empire) as it collapses in a fashion unlike any other 'historical' movie I've seen. Humor, drama, action, love...it's got it all and deserves far more acclaim (much like 'The Great Waldo Pepper').

Brian Keith makes the movie

[rupie · 6/10 · 23 April 2003]

It is inevitable that this film will be compared with the other blockbuster about conflict between Western civilization and the culture of the middle East, i.e. Lawrence of Arabia, though no film maker in his right mind would knowingly put himself up against David Lean. In any case, The Wind and the Lion comes up short, though what film wouldn't? I feel its chief shortcoming is its lack of specificity in dealing with the political motivations of the Raisuli's actions, which cry out for more detailed explanation here. The movie spends far too much on the relationship between him and Mrs. Pericardis, a subject certainly more conducive to drawing in the crowds. Until I find some actual historical research to confirm it, I must remain skeptical of the growing affection of Mrs. Pericardis toward her captor portrayed here. Stockholm syndrome or no, I simply find it difficult to believe an American woman at the turn of the century would develop a quasi-Romantic attraction toward the man who kidnapped her and her two children.

We have also the cynical view of U.S. foreign policy and the projection of American strength portrayed here, which is perhaps not unexpected what with the memory of the U.S.'s recently ended Vietnam experience fresh in the national memory at the time of the picture's making. Doubtless the scenes of American troops marching in mideast capitals might elicit a different reaction in post-9/11 America than when this movie was first shown.

But the centerpiece of the movie, and the feature that makes the whole thing worthwhile is Brian Keith's altogether stunning and captivating performance as Teddy Roosevelt, one of the cinema's great performances, in my view. He absolutely monopolizes the screen in his scenes, which make the whole movie worth watching. The top-notch production values and gorgeous cinematography don't hurt, either.

In short, a mixed bag but worth watching just for the scenery and Keith as Teddy.

"The King & I" with desert bandits...

[moonspinner55 · 4/10 · 27 February 2007]

In 1904 Tangier, a wealthy American woman and her two children are kidnapped by Berbers, murderous desert pirates who scorn the Moroccan government and, by doing so, kidnap "American pestilence", which attracts the attention of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. Fictionalized real-life history, less a grand adventure than it is a peculiar, somewhat exhaustive throwback to the desert-sheik films of the 1940s (with a bit of "The King and I" interjected, besides). Portraying the cloaked, mustachioed, bloodthirsty leader and his snippy, haughty captive, Sean Connery and Candice Bergen could be acting in two entirely different movies (neither one seems to know how far to carry the camp-elements of their characters and dialogue, and both seem singularly without proper direction). The various (and anonymous) slashings and beheadings which occur are arbitrary: we don't know any of these victims, and the big action scenes become blurry, noisy montages of sand-swept violence on horseback. The pluses: a much-lauded music score by Jerry Goldsmith (Oscar-nominated, but a loser to John Williams' "Jaws"), fine location shooting and cinematography. *1/2 from ****

Connery Magnificent in Milius Masterpiece!

[cariart · 9 August 2003]

'The Wind and the Lion' is, simply put, one of the greatest adventure films ever made, a classic that helped break the 'James Bond' stereotype for Sean Connery, solidified Brian Keith's reputation as one of America's finest character actors, and gave action-oriented director John Milius his most 'audience-friendly' success. It is a sweeping epic in the tradition of 'Lawrence of Arabia', without the earlier film's subtexts of megalomania and sexual ambiguity. Here, the personalities are clearly defined; they start off on opposing sides, but through the nobility of their characters, their unspoken codes of honor, and a sense of old-fashioned chivalry in a modern world of betrayal and greed, by the film's climax, they become allies against a greater evil.

Some critics attempted to link Theodore Roosevelt's world view in the film to the eventual U.S. debacle in Vietnam. That is unfair to both the film, and to Milius, who, if anything, admires and respects the 'big stick' idealism and machismo of our only true 'cowboy' President. (This respect led the director to film the excellent 'The Rough Riders', twenty-four years later, for TNT). Rest assured, 'The Wind and the Lion' is NOT a boring political treatise!

The setting is Morocco in 1904, where an American woman (Candice Bergen, in perhaps her best screen performance), and her two children are kidnapped by 'the last of the Barbary Pirates' Sean Connery and his large band of followers, who are seeking restitution for a long political imprisonment by his family. In Washington, dynamic young President Teddy Roosevelt (brilliantly portrayed by Brian Keith) uses the incident to send in American marines, both to rescue the family, and influence the country's politics (much to the chagrin of Secretary of State John Huston!) Privately, Roosevelt admires the Arab's courage and honor, and wishes the two could face off in a duel to resolve matters.

As her captivity continues, Bergen learns that the real villain is not Connery, who is truly the 'Chosen' leader of his people, but those who imprisoned him. The Americans discover this, too, as they see alliances being forged between the usurpers and greedy European powers, particularly Germany. Ultimately, this leads to a rip-roaring battle between the two forces, full of unforgettable images (Connery on horseback, at full gallop, snatching up a rifle offered by Bergen's son, is one of the great moments in film history!), as the film reaches a VERY satisfying conclusion.

There are many wonderful aspects to this film, and Jerry Goldsmith's rousing score must be singled out; it is one of the finest of his long career, ranking with his soundtracks for 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture', and 'Patton'.

'The Wind and the Lion' is the kind of epic adventure "they don't make anymore". Happily, John Milius has proven that cliche wrong. This film is ABSOLUTELY essential in any Connery or action film collection. I HIGHLY recommend it!

A hotchpotch - and that appalling accent!

[gray4 · 6/10 · 20 January 2004]

For the most part a fairly ordinary adventure film, but with some oddities - good and bad - which occasionally raise it from the average. Brian Keith is the star. His impersonation of Teddy Roosevelt, warts and all, is masterful - and very relevant a hundred years on.

Candice Bergen has more meat to her role than women get in most romanticised Arab adventures, but Sean Connery is a disaster. His Scottish accent constantly intrudes, making his most serious moments comical. His motives are obscure, his actions out of character and his acting one-dimensional.

John Milius keeps the action moving sufficiently fast so that the anomalies don't stick out too badly until the end of the film, when the stereotypes - Prussian officer, American marine, wily Arab - become preposterous. A real hotchpotch!

The Young President and Young Superpower flexing muscles

[theowinthrop · 7/10 · 19 June 2010]

In 1904 Theodore Roosevelt was at a cross-road. The nation's youngest President, he had served over three years of the term of his predecessor, the assassinated William McKinley. McKinley had been a fine Chief Executive, but a fatherly old fashioned type. T.R was not like that - he kept breaking rules, and in doing so became the most controversial President since Andrew Johnson. T.R. had been fighting most notably in foreign affairs (against Germany's threats to Venezuela in 1902; in the creation of the new state of Panama from Columbia in 1903 to build his Canal), and in financial fields (against mine owners in the coal strike of 1902). He was also trying to start national conservation. The public was fascinated, but the leaders of the Republican Party were not. "Accidental Presidents" rarely got nominations on their own (Fillmore was the only one who did - as a Know Nothing in 1856). There was no reason that T.R. would be more successful getting nominated.

The nomination was something to be really sought after. The Republicans had been doing a pretty good job running the government since 1897. The Democrats were in disarray (Bryan had lost two previous elections, and was not sought as a candidate this time, and William Randolph Hearst, the powerful newspaper owner and Congressman,had a large number of supporters but was too controversial). The conservative and moderate Republicans hoped that the convention would nominate Senator Mark Hanna for the Presidency. but he died suddenly in February 1904.

Then all hell broke loose. A Greek-American merchant named Ion Perdicaris was kidnapped in Morocco by the notorious brigand and rebel leaded Raisuli. Raisuli was doing this to ransom the gentleman, but T.R. used the incident to look forceful and Presidential. Demanding action at the point of military intervention, he said. "I want Perdicaris alive, or Raisuli dead!"

Events played out so that Roosevelt was able to get his portly merchant away from Raisuli (who got his ransom). But the statement of forcefulness so captured the nation's imagination that Roosevelt got the 1904 Presidential nomination. As the Democrats decided to avoid Bryan or Hearst (both of whom are far more interesting people) for the then head of the New York State Court of Appeals, Justice Alton Brooks Parker, the Republicans had such a landslide election that they carried three of the solid southern states as well!

John Milius took this curious episode of American foreign policy and Presidential politics and built up this well made and well acted film. Milius changes a number of things - he makes Ion Perdicaris a woman, played by Candice Bergen, who is kidnapped with her son and daughter by Raisuli (Sean Connery). He also creates a non-existent U.S. invasion of Morocco by our Navy and Marines. But actually these changes don't weaken the film.

Perdicaris is shown gradually understanding that Raisuli is more of a leader (and a good one) for the Moroccans than the corrupt Sultan and his Bashaw (actually the relatives of Raisuli) running the show. She gradually mirrors a similar realization by Roosevelt (Brian Keith) that no matter what our arms accomplish abroad we have to respect that we cannot run all these countries as well as their own people.

In actuality T.R. would not have been as willing to admit that third world countries could rule themselves (Columbia was unable to rule itself and sell the Canal route to the U.S., so we had to push matters.). However he was capable of sensing changes in nations. If he had not been he would have not won the Nobel Peace Prize for settling the Russo-Japanese War in 1905.

The best portions of the film are those showing the way the Sultan and his uncle run the country. Those scenes at the Sultan's palace where he watches a game of polo played on bicycles, or where he uses a machine gun set up as a toy, happen to be true (he also had a railroad track and train set up for his amusement - it was supposed to be for the public). The Sultan was a spend-thrift, and rapidly letting the country go to the dogs as long as he was amused. This would bear bad results in a couple of years. So did the rivalries we see between France and Germany (both with financial holdings in Morocco).

Raisuli, as played by Connery, is a fierce believer in Islam's inevitable re-emergence as the world's power. He even uses a trip to a well to illustrate that the modern powers drip away or waste power like the well bucket drips water, and the Islamic peoples await those drips and collect them. Thus they eventually get the power back. But this misses that in the past Islam was in control from roughly 750 A.D. through 1571 A.D., and it too dripped away the power - which went to Europe. In fact it happens to all centers of power, Western, Islamic, and Asian (Chinese/Japanese/Indian). No center of power has been permanent.

In the end, in 1906, Franco-German rivalries hit the roof and a conference of the great powers (including the U.S.) was held at Algeciras. They ruled that France was in the right, so ending the First Moroccan Crise. A second one ended in 1912 a bit more in favor of Germany due to an accommodating France. And two years later came World War I.

John Huston plays John Hay the Secretary of State. His personal distaste of his new chief is obvious. Probably it was due to Hay's memories of service under the only other great Republican President up to that time - Lincoln. Huston knew that one could get the same results quietly without T.R.'s fireworks. Still he worked well with Roosevelt.

Milius has a strong interest in TR, and this is an enjoyable adventure based loosely on a true incident during TR's presidency.

[kent-johnson · 10/10 · 30 March 2004]

Sean Connery is very good as the Great Raisuli, Lord of the Rif and Defender of the Faithful. This is an adventure movie with Arabs, Germans and the USMC all coming to grips at one point or another. There is also a lot of humor in the interplay among the main and supporting characters. The story is based on the true incident in which a wealthy Greek-American businessman was kidnapped by the Raisuli in the early 1900s. Milius has substituted Candace Bergen and her two children as the victims of the kidnapping, and this opens the story to a lot of literary license.

On the other hand, the movie gives Milius the opportunity to remind the viewer of two of the most famous (though mostly forgotten) political quotations of the TR era. Brian Keith (very good as TR) says, "Pedecaris alive or the Raisuli dead!"; and John Huston (also good as Sec of State John Hay)asks the Japanese Ambassador at a White House dinner, "You likee knifee, you likee forkee?"

wants to be both an epic and a farce

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 4 October 2014]

It's 1904 Tangiers, Morocco. The world powers are striving for influence in the country. Mulai Ahmed er Raisuli (Sean Connery) leads a Berber rebellion against the country's immature ruling sultan. He kidnaps Eden Pedecaris (Candice Bergen) and her children William and Jennifer to provoke an international incident and a civil war. President Theodore Roosevelt (Brian Keith) uses the incident as propaganda to win his first election as president over the objections of his Secretary of State John Hay (John Huston).

Firstly, the music by Jerry Goldsmith is great and reminiscent of the Golden Age of Hollywood. There is no denying that this is one of the best musical score of that year. Sean Connery works well as an Arab. Candice Bergen is playing the throughly modern self-confident western woman. This movie is epic in scale but it's a little too comedic to be taken that seriously. The two tones sometimes struggle against each other. Also the flipping back and forth between the kidnapped and the American politics do muddy the flow of the story. While the politics and Brian Keith's performance are fascinating, it does serve to distract from the A-plot which is more of an old fashion high adventure. I almost wish this is split into two movies; one high adventure, and the other a bio of Teddy. The final battle is quite impressive but I don't buy that the Germans and American would start a fight so easily.

Great Teddy Roosevelt scenes!

[kenandraf · 8/10 · 17 June 2002]

Average adventure movie that took a serious story and "Holywoodised" it.The watering down effect done particularly towards the average script snatched away this movie's place as a would be solid classic. Why water down such a great storyline?Probably because it deals with "sensitive" colonial subject matters and the producers do not want to create political heat,just quick profits thank you.The directing,cinematography and soundtrack and acting was good.The screenplay was average.The charm of Connery made up for his wrong Arabic accent and all the scenes with President T. Roosevelt were masterpiece takes.The costumes/sets here was very good.Too bad we did not get more of a serious historical drama since this is what the story demands.Only for big fans of the lead actors or fans of exotic Romance/Adventure Holywood movies.....

A Man's Film?

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 12 June 2014]

At the beginning of the 20th century, an American woman (Candice Bergen) is abducted in Morocco by Berbers. The attempts to free her range from diplomatic pressure to military intervention.

Some have called this the ultimate guy's film, and coming from writer-director John Milius that may not be an unfair way to characterize it. Milius is, after all, the living embodiment of all things manly.

Although not as well known as it should be, this is a pretty powerful film that is both historical (though not strictly) and exciting. Punches are not pulled, and Teddy Roosevelt is shown in a light rarely shown on film (he is probably best recalled from "Arsenic and Old Lace", which is hardly flattering).

In my opinion, a waste of a Netflix rental...

[malletkat_gomer · 5/10 · 26 September 2006]

I found the film to be typical of sixties and seventies "epics" that I've seen. Stilted dialog, unnecessary scenes in the name of "character development," and bad acting from the supporting cast and leading lady.

Sean Connery did well with what he was given, but most of his dialog is along the lines of "no laughs at me," and "you are a lot of trouble." I love Connery as an actor, but I think this is a black mark on his filmography.

While Brian Keith did a great job as Teddy Roosevelt, the way Roosevelt was written in to the struck me as a devil-may-care cowboy. Personally, I feel Teddy was too good a leader to be portrayed as such, in the film all that he did was shoot rifles, talk about a bear, and rattle about how much he wanted to blow a hole in the overseas leaders who annoyed him.

But what got me the most was their unrealistic portrayal of this weird socialite woman who goes from drinking tea under a gazebo to holding off ten bandits by poking at them with a spear. In this post-Lord of the Rings era, I just can't accept such unrealistic combat.

All in all, this is one film I would very much like to forget.

A Guy's Movie about What's Good About Guys

[msinabottle · 10/10 · 14 January 2004]

One of the best 'guy' movies I've ever seen has to be the Wind and the Lion. Gad, the scenes...

Raisouli's bandits swarm over the wall... A staid British gentleman calmly gets up from tea with Candice Bergen and drops three of them with a Webley revolver in his coat. A whisper from the ghost of Empire... Lest we forget! Lest we forget!

U.S. Marines coming ashore from the long, long gone _Brooklyn_. They were carrying Krags, it should have been Lees, but, oh wow. And the Winchester 97 blowing large holes in obstreperous natives and even more obstreperous and faithless Europeans...

Raisouli --Sean Connery, o, Wow!--wondering 'What kind of gun does Roosevelt use?"

Teddy Roosevelt--Brian Keith, o, Wow!--wondering "What kind of gun does Raisouli use?' and writing yet another angry letter to Winchester about the stock on his Winchester 95.

Raisouli, armed with but a sword... A Prussian cavalry officer, HOLSTERING his pistol and drawing HIS sword... Honor. That's something long dead, from a world long gone, but Raisouli would never have flown a plane full of children into a building...

Milious at Milious's magnificent best, and now out on DVD.

An only intermittently entertaining action-adventure film

[GusF · 6/10 · 21 February 2016]

Very loosely based on the Pedicaris Incident of 1904, this is an only intermittently entertaining action-adventure film. The writer- director John Milius has said that the film was inspired by "Boy's Own". This is certainly seen in the film but, unfortunately, more in the sense of the relentless, over the top imperialism and jingoism (albeit American as opposed to British) than in the sense of hugely entertaining derring-do. If the latter was the equal of the former in the film or surpassed it, the former would have been more tolerable. There are a few flashes of brilliance in the script but most of it is pretty banal and unconvincing with often perfunctory dialogue. The direction is mostly mediocre, particularly during the rather awkward and rather frequent battle scenes. The Spanish locations look great but a nice looking film which is generally badly written and directed is not worth much in my book.

The film stars Sean Connery in a very good performance as Mulai Ahmed er Raisuli, a Berber brigand and the so-called last of the Barbary pirates who kidnaps a young widow named Eden Pedicaris and her two children William and Jennifer in Morocco on October 15, 1904. The real Pedicaris was a 64-year-old man named Ion and his fellow kidnap victim was his adult stepson Cromwell Varley but Milius chose to make the story more cinematic which was one of his more sensible moves. Candice Bergen is an excellent actress but her performance as Eden falls far short of her usual standard. I think that she was miscast, frankly. The audience is supposed to believe that she is a strong woman and there are a few signs of that in the script but the role is a generally underwritten one. Her relationship with Raisuli failed to convince me, particularly the more romantic side of it in the latter half of the film. However, the scene in which they play chess is excellent as it gives us a great deal of insight into Raisuli's character. He is shown to have a warped sense of morality and believes that he is an instrument of the will of Allah. People who attempt to justify their crimes on the basis that it is what their god wanted them to do are very dangerous and I wish that the film had treated this in more than a very superficial way.

Brian Keith gives the best performance in the film as Teddy Roosevelt, who is accurately depicted as being a larger than life figure and an extremely intelligent man. Running for election to a term of his own after the assassination of his predecessor William McKinley in 1901, he sees the Pedicaris Incident as a chance to show the American people (and the international community) the strength of his resolve. As such, he orders the Marines to invade Morocco in order to rescue Mrs. Pedicaris in spite of the fact that the country is a hotbed of imperialist activity with France, Germany and Britain all attempting to gain control of it. My favourite scene in the entire film is the one in which Roosevelt gives an interview concerning a grizzly bear which he had killed in Yellowstone. He compares the grizzly bear to the American spirit: audacious but occasionally blind and reckless and destined to be alone, respected but not liked. If the rest of the film had taken a similarly intelligent and self-reflective tact to its expression of nationalism, I would have enjoyed it quite a bit more.

With a few exceptions such as John Huston as John Hay, Nadim Sawalha as the Sheriff of Wazan and Vladek Sheybal as the Bashaw of Tangier, the film has an unimpressive supporting cast. The worst performances come from Geoffrey Lewis as Samuel R. Gummere and Darrell Fetty as Richard Dreighton. Fetty seems incapable of delivering a line in a natural manner, meaning that his limited screen time felt about five times as long as actually was. Future "Dallas" star Steve Kanaly isn't great either as Captain Jerome but at least he seemed to be enjoying himself.

Overall, this is a disappointing film which could have been a lot more fun than it ended up being.

Cashing in on Lawrence of Arabia fame?

[jfbell-00790 · 1/10 · 6 February 2016]

Possibly the worst movie (in terms of "acting") I have ever seen. Or at least one of the two or three worst. Yes, that bad. The so-called acting is Literally cartoon-like. Grotesque posturing passing as acting. The performances ,other than Sean Connery's, are significantly below those of a mediocre high school drama club. Simply an awful undertaking as written and "acted". If it were not so sadly and grotesquely pandering to juvenile American ideas of patriotism , it would be achingly hilarious. Brian Keith's teddy Roosevelt is bad camp or a SNL audition perhaps. Relegate to the garbage bin. Shudderingly bad. Candice Bergen, God bless her, is beautiful but badly cast. Light comedy more her forte. WHHudson