Sahara (1995)

The men in this movie are threatened with death by dehydration. Hollywood is already algor mortis because of a dearth of ideas. They're remaking everything, in this case an emblematic movie of 1943 starring Humphrey Bogart. It was a nicely constructed flag waver full of comforting stereotypes.This remake is in color and has more impressive shots of the desert and the tank that is struggling across the dunes. Otherwise -- stay away.I don't know what happened to the industry, but I can take a guess. When the old studios were grinding away back in the 40s when the original appeared, they were run by men who had grown up with the business and could impose their personal values on the products. The Warner brothers cranked out tough message movies. If you wanted a "nice family" movie, Louie B. Mayer at MGM would be happy to accommodate you. A mogul could take a chance on a movie that might not earn its money back just because he LIKED the story.The entire economic structure has changed, and in the same way it's changed in publishing. Jack Warner is dead and so is Charles Scribner. The various production companies are now run by MBAs who think of nothing but the bottom line, preceded by a dollar sign.So we have unchallenging movies now based on cartoon characters, comic book heroes, and even video games like "Battleship." If there were an original idea in Hollywood now it would die of loneliness.The movie is an insult. Pfui.

I've only recently seen the original of this remake and both films are very good in my eyes. There are a few things that are done differently in the remake but it doesn't make it a bad movie just because Humphrey Bogart was a good actor doesn't make James Belushi a bad 1. At the end of the day its a good film and people should judge it how they see fit but i for 1 still think its a film against adversity in every respect.The acting for the most part is very good, and the way the soldiers behave is something to make u stand up and see what things might have actually been like in the middle of a desert with very little chance of survival.

Well, this movie is not even worth of seeing. The topic is copied from 1943' Sahara. All the characters act like as if they were idiots, they are "the tough men, who will fight for their land, for their families..." The only good scene in this movie is when the Australian guy is shot.....it is really good made and pretty sad. But rest of the movie is just a junk. We can see about 200 German soldiers, out of which some 500 die and another 150 are taken prisoners....well, I wasn't that bad at mathematics, Mr. Director! Of all those hundreds of Germans not a single one is wounded, they are all just dead...just fell down and that's it. Hm, if it was a Soviet movie from the 1932, ok, but an American movie from 1991?!! Shot a few years after Full Metal Jacket and Platoon?!!! All I want to say is: if you like good movies, please, do yourselves a favor and don't watch this! 1 out of 10 (for the scene I've said before)

This movie is the remake of the flick of 1943 "Sahara", and as the original the title is the same.The story is focalized on a group of men(various nationality)lost in the sahara desert during the second world war and their fightversus 500 german soldiers.At lead of the Allies we found James Belushi,and here is very slim and brawny respect his usual aspect.On his characterize of the Sgt Joe Gunn is very credible,sow we also the humorous side of the character,whitout forgive the hardness necessary.The rest of cast is totally unknown,but good,and each of them has a good character on that work.The action is good,as the desolate scenography.The only bad thing of the movie is that the second part start to cross on the unreal and unlikely,transformed the Allies in a group of simil-Rambo spoiling the good work that it's do until to now.My rate is 6.Recommended.