Although I am generally against remaking classic movies, I must admit that this TV-movie starring Jim Belushi was very well done and was far better than I expected. And Belushi's fine acting was a delightful surprise, too. I recommend that you see the original with Humphrey Bogart and compare. You'll enjoy both.
44 Reviews
This is a remake of a 1943 Bogart movie of the same title.
HeatherFL6 July 2005
This is a remake of a 1943 Bogart movie of the same title. I was pleased to see they followed the original story almost to a T. Very well acted for a TV movie & Belushi was great as Joe Gunn. And the other actors were good as well. On the whole an enjoyable remake, which doesn't happen very often. I guess what I am saying is that as a very big Bogey fan I was expecting to be let down by this movie, but surprise surprise, I wasn't. It was reasonably well acted, interesting story this time around as well, followed the original movie very closely, surprisingly well directed & well photographed for a TV movie and once again Belushi does a crack job. I'll be buying the DVD.
A Dry Desert Oasis
bkoganbing8 November 2016
One of the classic war films that was made during World War II gets a 90s remake. Sahara starred Humphrey Bogart as the tank commander who joins up with an assortment of soldiers from various allied countries defending a dry desert oasis that a company of Rommel's Afrika Korps doesn't know is dry. It's nearly an annihilation, but a certain divine providence spares two of the defenders.
Stepping into Bogart's very big shoes is Jim Belushi and while nobody is a Humphrey Bogart, Belushi admirably fills the part in his own way.
A lot of very familiar character players in the original Sahara made that one enjoyable. Other than Belushi there are no familiar faces in this film. That's a pity because that roster of actors could never be assembled again.
Sahara itself is not an original, it was a remake of the John Ford classic The Lost Patrol. Later on the plot was shifted to the American west for Last Of The Comanches which starred Broderick Crawford.
There are no Bogeys out there so enjoy this remake of Sahara, it's practically a word for word copy.
Stepping into Bogart's very big shoes is Jim Belushi and while nobody is a Humphrey Bogart, Belushi admirably fills the part in his own way.
A lot of very familiar character players in the original Sahara made that one enjoyable. Other than Belushi there are no familiar faces in this film. That's a pity because that roster of actors could never be assembled again.
Sahara itself is not an original, it was a remake of the John Ford classic The Lost Patrol. Later on the plot was shifted to the American west for Last Of The Comanches which starred Broderick Crawford.
There are no Bogeys out there so enjoy this remake of Sahara, it's practically a word for word copy.
Interesting remake
jadortmunder15 October 2004
This remake is better than I expected. It sticks pretty close to the original but does change a few details here and there. Belushi is surprisingly effective in the Bogart role. The rest of the cast perform well. It's no substitute for the original but it is an interesting alternative take on the story.
I don't see this as anywhere near the debacle described by the other reviewer, who was obviously put off by elements of the story that were repeated from the 1943 original. Those were different times. And this film chose to honor those conventions rather than trying to rewrite history to kowtow to current thinking. Whether that was the right move or not is, I suppose, debatable. But I was expecting to hate this film, yet I found myself pleasantly surprised.
I don't see this as anywhere near the debacle described by the other reviewer, who was obviously put off by elements of the story that were repeated from the 1943 original. Those were different times. And this film chose to honor those conventions rather than trying to rewrite history to kowtow to current thinking. Whether that was the right move or not is, I suppose, debatable. But I was expecting to hate this film, yet I found myself pleasantly surprised.
Good remake of a good movie
mcgrew8 August 2004
Sometimes 'remakes' aren't; they take liberties with the original. This movie didn't do that, they stuck with a good, simple story of men in war. The original started out as a "allied microcosm" propaganda flick, but turned out to be a good solid war movie. The makers of this version don't mess with what works. Jim Belushi provides a good solid focus as the Humphrey Bogart character ("Joe Gunn"), and is ably assisted by the rest of the cast. Not a grand war movie, to be sure, but a good one.
Thrilling and exciting war yarn in which a small Allied detachment is surrounded by a German army
ma-cortes1 October 2012
Acceptable adventure drama set in Libyan desert during WWII dealing with an Allied lost patrol battling Germans . Wartime film with powerful direction including scenarios set in Lybia desert but filmed in Outback desert , being based upon an incident in the Soviet film ¨The Thirteen¨ directed by Mikhail Romm and made about six years prior to this movie . "In June, 1942, a small detachment of American tanks with American crews, joined the British Eighth Army in North Africa to get experience in desert warfare under actual battle conditions. History as proved that they learned their lesson well" . While the WWII raged in Europe American/British troops were fighting in a far part of the world , North Africa . Small solitary patrols from all nations moved over the vast Libyan desert that seemed on fire with the sun . The molten sky gloated over them . The endless desert wore the blank look of death . Yet these men marched on without a murmur , fighting an unseen German enemy who always struck in the dark . Sergeant Joe Gunn (James Belushi , while classic version played by Humphrey Bogart) and his tank (called Lulubelle" ) , crew pick up five British soldiers . The group of Allied stragglers (all of them played by Alan David Lee as Bates , Simon Westaway as Williams , Mark Lee as Doyle , Jerome Ehlers as Halliday), a Frenchman (Michael Massae, an American actor, who was born in Kansas City to French parents, Masse convinced director at the audition) and a Sudanese man (Robert Wisdom , formerly played by Rex Ingram) with an Italian prisoner (D'Angelo) crossing the Libyan Desert to rejoin their army after the fall of Tobruk . A brave group of American and British soldiers rides a tank (it is an M3 Lee, but has features of the variety used by the Australian Army during WW2 , the standard US commander's cupola was deleted from the 37mm turret and a pintle mounted) across the Sahara in search of water and lost in the desert , being shot by Germans , one by one and some battered fighting men battle it out to the finish . They find it among desert ruins , only to realise that 500 Nazi troopers converging on them need it even more . Dead the official commander they are ruled by the sergeant , then arise boiling passions in the burning sands . The bunch works together to vanquish a much larger Nazi army that wishes the same water well that they have .
This dusty-looking remake of the Bogart classic gets brief psychological remarks about diverse characters , and although is completely developed on the wide desert , the tale results to be a little claustrophobic . The flick displays fierce action , drama , dominating performances , excitement , contrived heroic deaths and the most entertainment and thrilling scenes come fast in the last reel . Philip MCDonald (story's author being based the movie) had been recruited in the British cavalry during WWI (1917) and he ulteriorly wrote an intrigue and suspense tale , adding his war memories and taking an incident based on the Soviet Photoplay "The Thirteen" . The film contains a powerful and moving musical score . Glimmer and sunny cinematography from Port Stephens , New South Wales, Australia . Nearly all the extras in this film were from the Royal Australian Air Force and The Royal Australian Army. For authenticity, the director made them shave off their mustaches which apparently weren't allowed in the German army in WW2.
Good direction by the Australian Brian Tenchard Smith who transfers the action of the story with great effect and fine interpretations make this an entertaining film . This particular story was former and subsequently remade and reworked several times , being originally seen as a Russian movie titled ¨The thirteen¨ . Subsequently by John Ford in ¨The lost patrol¨ with Victor McLagen and Boris Karloff ¨ set in Mesopotamia ; ¨Bataan¨ by Tay Garnett with Robert Taylor in Philippines jungle ; ¨Last of Comanches¨ made by the same studio about a decade later , was loosely based on this movie , realized by Andre De Toth with Broderick Crawford in Califonia desert ; and even part of ¨Flight of Phoenix¨ by Robert Aldrich in Sahara desert . Britain also made a variation on the story titled ¨Nine men¨ . Rating : 6'5/10 . The motion picture will appeal to warfare moviegoers .
This dusty-looking remake of the Bogart classic gets brief psychological remarks about diverse characters , and although is completely developed on the wide desert , the tale results to be a little claustrophobic . The flick displays fierce action , drama , dominating performances , excitement , contrived heroic deaths and the most entertainment and thrilling scenes come fast in the last reel . Philip MCDonald (story's author being based the movie) had been recruited in the British cavalry during WWI (1917) and he ulteriorly wrote an intrigue and suspense tale , adding his war memories and taking an incident based on the Soviet Photoplay "The Thirteen" . The film contains a powerful and moving musical score . Glimmer and sunny cinematography from Port Stephens , New South Wales, Australia . Nearly all the extras in this film were from the Royal Australian Air Force and The Royal Australian Army. For authenticity, the director made them shave off their mustaches which apparently weren't allowed in the German army in WW2.
Good direction by the Australian Brian Tenchard Smith who transfers the action of the story with great effect and fine interpretations make this an entertaining film . This particular story was former and subsequently remade and reworked several times , being originally seen as a Russian movie titled ¨The thirteen¨ . Subsequently by John Ford in ¨The lost patrol¨ with Victor McLagen and Boris Karloff ¨ set in Mesopotamia ; ¨Bataan¨ by Tay Garnett with Robert Taylor in Philippines jungle ; ¨Last of Comanches¨ made by the same studio about a decade later , was loosely based on this movie , realized by Andre De Toth with Broderick Crawford in Califonia desert ; and even part of ¨Flight of Phoenix¨ by Robert Aldrich in Sahara desert . Britain also made a variation on the story titled ¨Nine men¨ . Rating : 6'5/10 . The motion picture will appeal to warfare moviegoers .
A good unknown action movie.
Boba_Fett113828 October 2009
Too bad that this movie isn't any better known and appreciated. Perhaps it has to do that never hit cinemas or because that it's a remake of the 1943 Humphrey Bogart movie but fact still simply remains that this a good and entertaining little action flick.
The movie benefits from its great story. It didn't changed must in regard to the 1943 original but still it changed a couple of sequences and left out the more propaganda like aspects of the original but still leaving in the exaggerated heroism and toughness of the characters, which aren't all very likely but help to make the movie an entertaining one nevertheless. The concept of 9 men standing their ground against an army of 500 is always something that should get your testosterone running.
In terms of its acting and visual look it isn't a too impressive looking movie. You feel that with a much bigger budget the movie could had truly turned into a fantastic one, without now calling the movie bad or a disappointment.
Its action is simply good. The second halve of the movie gets action filled when the Germans start to attack the ruins that hold the only well within the wide vicinity in it. They don't know however that the well has dried up and the Allies are using it as a decoy so that the Germans can't march on to El Alamien and flank the British stronghold there.
It's nothing too impressive, it's simply just a good and entertaining unknown little WW II action flick.
7/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
The movie benefits from its great story. It didn't changed must in regard to the 1943 original but still it changed a couple of sequences and left out the more propaganda like aspects of the original but still leaving in the exaggerated heroism and toughness of the characters, which aren't all very likely but help to make the movie an entertaining one nevertheless. The concept of 9 men standing their ground against an army of 500 is always something that should get your testosterone running.
In terms of its acting and visual look it isn't a too impressive looking movie. You feel that with a much bigger budget the movie could had truly turned into a fantastic one, without now calling the movie bad or a disappointment.
Its action is simply good. The second halve of the movie gets action filled when the Germans start to attack the ruins that hold the only well within the wide vicinity in it. They don't know however that the well has dried up and the Allies are using it as a decoy so that the Germans can't march on to El Alamien and flank the British stronghold there.
It's nothing too impressive, it's simply just a good and entertaining unknown little WW II action flick.
7/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
I really got a kick outta it
esticki19751 August 2006
This was a pretty entertaining view in my opinion. I guess this was a remake and I never have seen the orig, so I will only comment on the version on saw. The movie was well done and it had a lot of action. Its your basic Mexican stand off between the Allies and the Germans. The Americans are held up within these ruins in the desert and have to make a live or die last stand. BlaH blah nothing new. What I enjoyed the most had been that all the the Allie countries fighting the war had a single representative in the bunker. Each with their countries own fighting weapon. I gotta a kick outta that part. The movie is just something to look at if you bored and you wont be disappointed if you come across it on HBO one night or find it in a DVD bargain bin.
piEce
piEce
A cinematic pleasure...
ChuckScholl13 April 2002
Sahara is a cinematic pleasure. For fans of Bogart and of James Belushi, this film will excite you. The story may be a little hard to believe that a hand full of men hold off so many Germans, but Hollywood was part of the war effort 1943 and that is to be expected. Besides, whats wrong with wanting to kick a little Nazi butt every now and then? Anyway, the cinematography alone is worth the watching of this movie. Not unlike the desert scenes in Star Wars - Return of the Jedi and those of more recent films like the Mummy and the Mummy Returns, the richness of color and warmth and the brutal sun make for a heightened experience. If you have a chance to watch this film I highly recommend it so you might form your own opinion. After all, it's has to be better than most of the junk out there lately.
Original or remake ???
warrenhudson9910 November 2019
I Watched both movies back to back and in my opinion the original in black and white starring Humphrey bogart is the better movie , that said the remake is very good also , there's some slight changes to original film in the remake but not that much That it effects story. The black and white filmography made it more real for me and the actors a bit more gritty and believable , but if you just watch the remake you won't be disappointed as a very respectable effort from cast and crew
Bring back Bogey...
pog5321 May 2013
Oh God, this is awful. This has just been inflicted yet again upon the unsuspecting British public by some obscure freeview channel trying to fill an empty slot between adverts. Please, please, please - make it stop. The acting is wooden and the stereotypes are appalling. The idea of a mouthy, overweight American NCO who joined the war fashionably late ordering around a multinational bunch of Allied privates led by a Commissioned officer is laughable enough, but the worst bit is the Sahara doesn't even look hot. It's more like a pleasant day trip to the beach. You could overlook the flaws of the original '43 version because of the quality of Bogart and the supporting cast, but not this mob.
If you want to see a classic set in the western desert then go for "Ice Cold in Alex" instead of this rubbish. I hope Belushi remembered to drive on the left when he eventually made it back to El Alamein. Never again, please!
If you want to see a classic set in the western desert then go for "Ice Cold in Alex" instead of this rubbish. I hope Belushi remembered to drive on the left when he eventually made it back to El Alamein. Never again, please!
They shall not grow old!!!
sjfsas22 July 2001
When I first purchased this movie I just got it because I'm into war films. But after I watched it I was really pleased.
James Belushi puts in one of his best performances of all time. Helped along by the rest of the cast including Alan David Lee and Jerome Ehlers.
The story is a little slow to start off. You get the impression its about a group of soldiers against the desert. But soon the Germans enter the picture and the true plot of the movie becomes apparent.
The best part of the film is the ending sequence. Sgt. Gunn (Belushi) is knelt praying over the graves of his fallen comrades. The poem and the tank driving away is just classic.
Top quality film and one of my favorites!!!!!
James Belushi puts in one of his best performances of all time. Helped along by the rest of the cast including Alan David Lee and Jerome Ehlers.
The story is a little slow to start off. You get the impression its about a group of soldiers against the desert. But soon the Germans enter the picture and the true plot of the movie becomes apparent.
The best part of the film is the ending sequence. Sgt. Gunn (Belushi) is knelt praying over the graves of his fallen comrades. The poem and the tank driving away is just classic.
Top quality film and one of my favorites!!!!!
OK!
Haplo-410 August 1999
This movie is like one of the classic 60'th and 70'th war movies, where a lot of guys go out to complete a tuff mission and in the end - only one survive, usually the leading character.
This is a well-used form of making an adventure movie, used in classics like: "The Magnificent Seven" and the following sequels, "Dirty Dozen" - and even "Saving Private Ryan". Like the first two this movie has excluded all sorts of realism and gains its viewers those that don't know the strength that the German army had - both in the infantry and on the panzer-side - and therefor enjoys this sort of German-army-humiliating-movies, (not that I think that Germany should have won the war).
BUT! This movie is OK. It's funny, contains a lot of action and tough it put down the German strength I'm glad to say that the good guys wins. But that was pretty obvious right. No one - especially in America would dare to make a movie where the Germans win. That would be to upgrade the Nazis - and we don't want to do that - do we?
This is a well-used form of making an adventure movie, used in classics like: "The Magnificent Seven" and the following sequels, "Dirty Dozen" - and even "Saving Private Ryan". Like the first two this movie has excluded all sorts of realism and gains its viewers those that don't know the strength that the German army had - both in the infantry and on the panzer-side - and therefor enjoys this sort of German-army-humiliating-movies, (not that I think that Germany should have won the war).
BUT! This movie is OK. It's funny, contains a lot of action and tough it put down the German strength I'm glad to say that the good guys wins. But that was pretty obvious right. No one - especially in America would dare to make a movie where the Germans win. That would be to upgrade the Nazis - and we don't want to do that - do we?
Dreadful
marcusw-35-28593323 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Whilst the film starts off quite well, the scenery is impressive, and Jimbo and the cast (sort of) hold their own initially , the whole film gradually and almost completely sinks into Rambo territory. Stereotypical characterisation doesn't quite cover it! The German commander is nasty, the Italian is a turncoat who doesn't want to fight, the captured pilot is surprise surprise...a fanatical Nazi and racist with an iron cross. The Italian is a turncoat, the Frenchman just wants to sacrifice his own life. A few soldiers would seem to be holding off a whole battalion who simply charge directly at them and get slaughtered - they are supposed to be elite Afrika Korps for ****'* sake! The doctor suddenly becomes an expert with a machine gun, and the stock characters do exactly what's expected of them, with the comic self-sacrificing black guy, arm aloft, holding up a captured medal as he dies - LOL. I won't even mention the laughable scene where the whole German battalion are "moaning".
Good remake and highly under-rated.
kaninz31 August 2004
This was, IMO, one of Belushi's better portrayals. The subject is a part of history seldom touched upon by American movies (the American participation in the African theater against Rommel)and includes the Grant medium tank...a forgotten piece of equipment that shows just how unprepared America was to fight WW2.
The movie is well acted. The scenery is excellent and the action flows nicely. The soldiers don't come across as cartoon superheroes or Rambo clones. The rift between the Italian and German forces is portrayed rather nicely too.
The equipment is portrayed nicely and the tactics are sound.
The movie is well acted. The scenery is excellent and the action flows nicely. The soldiers don't come across as cartoon superheroes or Rambo clones. The rift between the Italian and German forces is portrayed rather nicely too.
The equipment is portrayed nicely and the tactics are sound.
A Decent Patriotic Movie
botrytis11 November 2011
It's a normal B categorized movie with normal: Actors, historical environment, technical solutions. It processes a lead moral matter indeed, which is quite a big condition for bigger intonational operations. Problems comes, goes, but get solved. Thousands of people get killed, die for nothing by the orders given by their leaders, even though there is no other distinction than national differences between these "opponents" and afterwards the battle is completely goes for something different, which influences all that mess. It's really an easy purpose, but really hard to reach in there... in Sahara.
despite of mark 6 which was given by this reductive IMDb rating system, this film deserves more than that of course, 'coz it's a good, pleasing dusk-evening movie, and really experiencable from the view of the value of human manners, and of story of war.
despite of mark 6 which was given by this reductive IMDb rating system, this film deserves more than that of course, 'coz it's a good, pleasing dusk-evening movie, and really experiencable from the view of the value of human manners, and of story of war.
A Good Remake of the 1943 Film
Uriah4313 December 2020
This remake of the 1943 film begins in North Africa with an American M3 tank crew commanded by "Sergeant Joe Gunn" (James Belushi) having been cut off from their headquarters after a ferocious battle with the enemy. Since they are the only tank crew to survive the battle they decide to rejoin the British Eighth Army which has retreated several hundred miles to the south. Along the way they come across some British soldiers who have also been stranded and together they continue on their way with the hope of finding some water to replenish their dwindling supply. Not long afterward they encounter an allied Sudanese soldier named ""Sergeant Major Tambul" (Robert Wisdom) and his Italian prisoner "Giuseppe" (Angelo D'Angelo) who are allowed to ride with them. It's during this time that Sergeant Major Tambul tells them of a well a certain distance away and based on that information Staff Sergeant Gunn makes a detour for it. However, they soon encounter a German airplane which strafes them and even though one of the Americans is killed in the process they manage to shoot it down and take the German pilot "Captain von Schletow" (Julian Garner) prisoner. What they soon realize, however, is that the German army is close by and they are just as desperate for water. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this remake followed the previous version quite well with James Belushi putting in as good of a performance as Humphrey Bogart did in the original film. Along with that, I also thought that Robert Wisdom was slightly better than Rex Ingram in the previous film as well. And while it may have lacked originality the fact that it was in color certainly didn't hurt either. Be that as it may, I thought that this was a pretty good movie for the most part and have rated it accordingly. Above average.
Fine production values and a good narrative drive
fredrikgunerius11 August 2023
Sgt. James Belushi takes command in American macho-fashion alongside an effeminate British captain (the late Jerome Ehlers). It's nice to have the roles down. The event is the Battle of El Alamein, Egypt during World War II. And the story is remade from the 1943 film with the same name, starring Humphrey Bogart. This 1995 TV version has fine production values and a good narrative drive. Director Brian Trenchard-Smith (The Man from Hong Kong, BMX Bandits), makes no fuss about the job; this is straight-forward storytelling with strong emphasis on characters, although not necessarily multifaceted ones.
A unknown little gem
tomly-26 February 2007
I am ashamed to say as an ardent film fan I have not seen the original starring Humphrey Bogart. I do however have the luxury of being able to judge this film with an unbiased view. I didn't even realise it was a TV film until I saw the details on the IMDb site. Belushi gives a creditable performance but I think all the characters gel together well and the film carries a certain aura of the old British 40's and 50's war films such as Ice cold in Alex though obviously not in the same league. The characters are doomed and yet you feel for them. At the end as the camera pans across the line of makeshift rifle tombstones and Belushi recites the fourth paragraph of Laurence Binyon's 'The Fallen' you realise that you are not only at the end of a quite good film but also you owe a great debt to the fallen heroes of yesteryear.
Something to be watched and discussed with mature kids, so they'll know how it was done; an excellent DVD companion to the 1943 original.
Possumtrot27 December 2004
I'll defer from the previous opinions that this was a shameless ripoff of Borgart's 1943 film. I see it as a labor of love, a tribute to the spirit that helped The Greatest Generation win the war. James Belushi could not hope to imitate Bogart, so I look to the blow-by-blow recreation of the script as the spark plug of the movie.
"Sahara" is a work of fiction, but that part of the war was a desperate action, fought by men under harsh and trying conditions. The desert war is overlooked by historians, and little mention is made of the struggle against nature as well as the implacable foe.
Like the films of Frank Capra, "Sahara" is optimistic and idealistic to the point of "corniness", but it works by capturing the simple-minded determination of men to fight for their comrades, and to hold their position in spite of the odds. The poetry at the end suggests the tribute: "...they shall not grow old...we shall not forget." With hindsight, we can find faults with the script and the tactical representation of the artificial situation, but not with the grit and determination of the real people who fought the actual war. This re-make of "Sahara" is an anachronism, but one to be respected.
"Sahara" is a work of fiction, but that part of the war was a desperate action, fought by men under harsh and trying conditions. The desert war is overlooked by historians, and little mention is made of the struggle against nature as well as the implacable foe.
Like the films of Frank Capra, "Sahara" is optimistic and idealistic to the point of "corniness", but it works by capturing the simple-minded determination of men to fight for their comrades, and to hold their position in spite of the odds. The poetry at the end suggests the tribute: "...they shall not grow old...we shall not forget." With hindsight, we can find faults with the script and the tactical representation of the artificial situation, but not with the grit and determination of the real people who fought the actual war. This re-make of "Sahara" is an anachronism, but one to be respected.
What a bad remake?
sazzwho13 August 2005
This is an awful remake. They follow the script almost line for line. But they have not an actor who can act. Belushi tries to be Humphrey Bogart and he doesn't even know how to be a soldier. His pot-belly sticking out, he really is bad. The British doctor is such a shell of a character. He is almost plastic. Skip this one and watch the original. As you watch you see the lack of knowledge of World War II. It doesn't seem that the director of this film understand the reason the original film was made. The reason for some many different nationalities was to show the strength in the United Nations. In this film it seems ludicrous.
sometimes its a good thing to remake a classic movie.
stevedesantis25 March 2002
I first watched this film on cable TV late one night. I stayed up (and awake) to watch the entire thing. After seeing the 1995 incarnation and hearing that it was actually a remake of a 1943 Bogart film I searched for the original(My rental stores are sadly lacking in variety from the classic era). I enjoyed the original even more. AMC and TCM need to air these less well known but excellent films more often.
not a Sherman
Tacklbery1118 August 2005
the tank was an m-3 grant. it was a basic m-e lee with the top cupola taken off. the British did not like the height of the lee so they removed the cupola and renamed it the grant. same tank, 75mm in hull, 37 mm in turret, but no .50 cal in the top. it was used in most of the desert battles of world war II then was replaced after the German defeat in north Africa. it saw limited action in some of the other British areas of the war, but not to the extent that it did in north Africa. the tank in the original movie was an m-3 lee, cause there was surplus of them at the time in 1944. this must have come from a museum somewhere in Britain. Jeff
A ghastly movie - don't bother watching it!
Arbustus3 July 2001
This film makes one wonder why the Americans hadn't made it to Berlin by the end of 1941. A loudmouthed NCO and a few other Allied soldiers fight off hundreds of German crack troops at a desert well. How on earth did Rommel get to El Alamein? The original, starring Humphrey Bogart, was bad enough, although considering that it was made during the war, it probably served its purpose as a propaganda piece. To do a re-make (and do it thus badly) is simply inexcusable. If Americans learn about the war by watching movies like this one they will fail to understand why it took so long to defeat Hitler. And why should an Australian captain take orders from an American sergeant? It just doesn't make sense. I can well picture a US NCO TRYING to bully a commissioned Australian (or British) officer around - what I can't imagine in my wildest dreams is the officer taking the orders. I suppose the only reason Napoleon lost the Battle of Waterloo was that he didn't have an American sergeant by his side who'd have given him the right orders. What a load of rubbish this film is!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
