Sahara

One thing to know about this enduring minor classic is that it was never included in the Harvard University based eggheaded revival of Bogart films. The super-brains there only recognized Warner-Bogart movies, never those made by Columbia; even though several of Bogart's best were Columbia Pictures and African Queen and Barefoot Contessa were United Artists.

Columbia took a B-movie sized budget, a great story, excellent acting and made a classic which had a shelf-life in theaters and TV in excess of 40 years. The story was good enough to be remade as a western in 1953 called Last of the Comanchees. Two years ago, Hollywood used the same title (Sahara) to produce a huge budget color adventure movie (but with an altogether story). With unlimited resources and today's alleged high tech, Hollywood produced a mildly entertaining picture which had a shelf-life, not of 40 years, but way under 40 weeks.

The Bogart SAHARA isn't easy to find these days, but have a look on eBay or request it from Turner Classics. Timeless, it won't disappoint even after 63 years.

Excellent WW2 film about a small group of soldiers fighting off Nazis in the Sahara desert. Humphrey Bogart plays an American tank commander who, along with his crew, picks up several Allied soldiers and a couple of Axis prisoners. Eventually they find water in a well by the ruins of an old fort. When the Nazis come looking for the same well, the soldiers have to decide whether to run or fight.

Terrific cast backing up Bogie. Special mention for Rex Ingram, J. Carrol Naish, and Bruce Bennett. Solid script and direction. Nicely photographed by Rudolph Maté with a good Miklós Rózsa score. Humphrey Bogart starred in some great WW2 movies. Most of them were made for Warner Bros. but this one was made at Columbia. I think this is the best WW2 movie they put out and it's on par with anything made at the other studios. A strong dramatic film with great characters and exciting action. One Bogie fans won't want to pass up.

"Sahara" is a first-rate War film, well directed by Zoltan Korda, which qualitatively balanced its superb action sequences with penetrating character studies…

Bogart is seen as a tank commander who, when separated from his unit in the Libyan Desert, picks up a group of allied (and eventually several enemy) stragglers and heads out in search of badly needed water… Once they arrive at a nearly dry oasis, and after he learns that a motorized battalion of Germans is also after the water, Bogart decides to make a valiant stand…

Bogart's characterization is excellent as he gave what many considered to be the most realistic portrait of the truly "American" fighting man yet pictured on the screen…

Assisting in the overall success of "Sahara" was a masterful musical score by Miklos Rozsa, who did similar duty the same year in another "tank" picture, Billy Wilder's "Five Graves to Cairo."

"Sahara" is interesting from several standpoints. First, it is an excellent drama, well acted and directed, with good production values. Second, it raises an interesting moral question. Third, it has implications regarding the main actor and his future movie career.

"Sahara," the story of a rag-tag group of soldiers fleeing from Rommel's Afrika Korps in a US tank, is enjoyable throughout. The cast is fine, representing a number of nationalities and even races. I think this is one of Bogart's better acting jobs, and J. Carrol Naish, Lloyd Bridges, Rex Ingram, Dan Duryea, and the others are equally good.

While this may be a propaganda film, it is no "our hero wipes out an enemy division without a scratch" potboiler. On the contrary, the decision made by Sgt. Joe Gunn (Bogart) to stay and fight a German regiment rather than heading for British lines is a desperate gamble little better than a suicide mission. This brings up my second point; the ethical question.

St. Gunn gets the idea to stay at the oasis they have reached in order to fight and delay a German regiment in hopes that such a sacrifice may help the Allied cause. He must convince the others, and one or two do not go along without some persuading. "I don't mind fighting and dying," one says, "but this is pointless." Well, that's the issue. How easy it is to find reasons NOT to stay behind and fight! Makes me appreciate the plight of our soldiers on Bataan and Wake Island, who had no choice. But this little band does stay and fight, and the story hangs on their decision.

My third point is a bit arcane, and has to do with Hollywood business practices of the 1940s. Bogart was, when this movie started production, about the biggest star in Hollywood. Remember, he had already made High Sierra," "The Maltese Falcon," and "Casablanca." Why then, did Warner Brothers lend him out to Columbia to do this picture? Columbia was still barely a second rank studio. What did they have to trade in return? Rita Hayworth? I don't think she made any films for Warners, but I may be wrong.

Lastly, it's interesting to note that Bogart, when he started his own company (Santana Productions) in the late 40s, signed a releasing deal with Columbia. I guess he must have been impressed with Columbia while making this picture, as well as "Dead Reckoning" (1947).

I strongly recommend "Sahara" to anyone who has not seen it. It's exciting action combined with interesting characterizations.

The Good Guys are desperate for water. The Bad Guys are desperate for water. Everyone is obsessed with the impossibility of getting water. Water. Water. Water.

There just isn't any. It's central to the plot. Everyone is terrified of dying for lack of it. They're ready to kill for it. They're ready to die for it. They travel miles and miles out of their way to get to wells.

And yet... when they start seriously shooting at each other, both sides are laying down a practically non-stop withering fire with.... WATER-COOLED machine guns!!!!!!

I guess they must have had a whole bunch of water all along!