User reviews

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.

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/

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

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

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.

Sgt. James Belushi takes command in American macho-fashion alongside an effeminate British captain (Jerome Ehlers). It's nice to have the roles clearly established. The event is the Battle of El Alamein, Egypt during WWII. The story is a remake of 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 makes no fuss about the job; this is straightforward storytelling with a strong emphasis on characters, although not necessarily multifaceted ones.

Belushi is the story here, making the most out of almost nothing here. Give this one a shot, its worth the time

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.

The original storyline of this movie first came out in 1943 WW2 war movie, starring Humphrey Bogart, Bruce Bennett, and J. Carrol Naish, with same movie title Sahara.

Ten years latter in 1953 the same story comes out again, but this time as a western movie titled Last Of The Comanches, starring Broderick Crawford, Barbara Hale, Johnny Stewart.

And now for the third time we have this version of the original WW2 war movie starring James Balushi, Alan David Lee, and Simon Westaway holding once again its original 1943 title Sahara where a tank commander and his men along with a group of assorted stragglers they picked up along the way try to keep a limited supply of water away from the Nazis.

The 1995 rendition of Sahara stands as a compelling testament to the enduring spirit of camaraderie amidst the brutal backdrop of World War II's North African campaign. This film masterfully evokes the essence of classic war movies, delivering a narrative that is both heartwarming in its depiction of unlikely alliances and unflinching in its portrayal of the harsh and unforgiving nature of desert warfare.

At its core, Sahara is a story about survival and the bonds forged in the crucible of conflict. Sergeant Joe Gunn, portrayed with rugged determination, finds his isolated M3 Lee tank becoming a sanctuary for a diverse group of Allied soldiers and refugees, each stranded and vulnerable in the vast, hostile desert. What unfolds is a powerful exploration of human connection, as these disparate individuals - an American sergeant, British medical personnel, a Free French pilot, and Sudanese soldiers - are forced to rely on each other for survival against a common enemy: Rommel's advancing Afrika Korps and the unforgiving environment itself.

The film beautifully captures the heartwarming development of trust and brotherhood amongst this unlikely band of allies. Despite their different backgrounds and initial prejudices, they unite under the shared banner of survival, their interactions marked by moments of genuine compassion, humor, and mutual respect. These moments of human connection serve as a poignant reminder of the resilience of the human spirit even in the face of unimaginable adversity.

However, Sahara does not shy away from depicting the grim realities of desert warfare. The film vividly portrays the relentless heat, the scarcity of water, the constant threat of enemy attack, and the psychological toll of isolation and prolonged conflict. The stark beauty of the desert landscape serves as a constant reminder of the vulnerability of the characters and the unforgiving nature of their circumstances. The battle sequences are gritty and realistic, effectively conveying the chaos and brutality of combat.

What makes Sahara particularly compelling is its ability to balance these heartwarming moments of human connection with the stark portrayal of war's dark side. It reminds us that even in the most dehumanizing environments, the capacity for empathy and solidarity can endure. The film doesn't glorify war but rather celebrates the strength found in unity and the small victories of the human spirit against overwhelming odds.

In a cinematic landscape often dominated by large-scale epics, Sahara shines as a more intimate and character-driven war story. It's a film that stays with you long after the credits roll, prompting reflection on the profound impact of war and the enduring power of human connection in the face of adversity. For those who appreciate classic war films that blend heartwarming camaraderie with the stark realities of conflict, Sahara (1995) remains a compelling and rewarding watch.

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