Join host Ben Lyons for our live conversation with Mike Colter, star of "Jessica Jones," and Rachael Harris, star of "Lucifer," as we discuss their latest projects and history in Hollywood. Tune into Amazon.com/IMDbAsks on Wednesday at 7 p.m. ET/4 p.m. PT to watch, live chat, and even ask a question yourself! This livestream is best viewed on laptops, desktops, and tablets.
A small farmer and rancher is being harassed by his mighty and powerfull neighbour. When the neighbour even hires gunmen to intimidate him he has to defend himself and his property by means... See full summary »
American policeman Mike Brent (John Payne) arrives in Denmark to help clear his sister of a murder rap in which her partner/boyfriend has been killed, and all the evidence leads to her ... See full summary »
It's 1876 and all the Indians are at peace except the Comanches lead by Black Cloud. When Black Cloud wipes out a town, only six soldiers are left and they head for the nearest fort. In the desert they are reinforced by members of a stagecoach and find some water at a deserted mission. Pinned down by Black Cloud they send an Indian boy who was Black Cloud's prisoner on to the fort while they try to bargain with Black Cloud whom they learn is without water. Written by
Maurice VanAuken <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Seems weird though to already make a remake, only 10 years after the original This movie is being based on the 1943 movie "Sahara", which starred Humphrey Bogart in the main lead. That movie in return though was also a remake of the 1937 Soviet production "Trinadtsat". All that these three movies have in common are of course that they feature the same story and main premise but also feature different settings and groups of people. The 1937 version had Soviet soldiers, set in the Asian wastelands, the 1943 had American soldiers in the Sahara desert, during WW II and this version features a couple of American soldiers as well, only set in the late 19th century in the wild west.
It's funny that this movie also stars Lloyd Bridges again, who had also starred previously before in the 1943 movie "Sahara". This time he plays a more grateful role though. Also the Oscar winner Broderick Craword plays in this movie, as its main lead. Not that he impresses much though and nor does any of the other actors really. This has more to do with the script that is lacking in some good dialog. Also the characters just don't ever work out well in the movie. The movie obviously didn't cost a lot of money to make and it's also really a bit clumsily and cheap looking at times, especially when you compare it the black & white movie of 10 years earlier.
Still it's a fair enough and entertaining movie to watch. You can say that the movie serves it's purpose but you just feel that they just didn't do the best possible with its source material. Still its main concept remains what makes this movie a good and also quite entertaining one to watch.
The movie has plenty of action in it, though it also feels after a while that the movie starts repeating itself with its moments at times. Some of the moments also feel like they were put in just for the sake of having some action in the movie.
A good enough remake of a remake.
0 of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?