Sahara

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.