User reviews

Bogart does well as an American tank commander early in WW II coming across some retreating British infantry. They later make a dramatic last stand against the attacking Germans.

Two actors make this movie a standout. J. Carroll Naish was of Irish descent, and he never played an Irishman in his long and great career as an actor. Check his movies and look for his great performances. Here he is magnificent as a tormented and disillusioned Italian prisoner (a German ally) who has to fianlly decide if he'll fight with the Germans or stand with the Allies, who could have let him die in the desert.

Rex Ingram was a fine black actor who here plays a Sudanese soldier in British colonial service. The depiction of a heroic black soldier was rare during World War Two (see my review of "Bataan"). He too was memorable. It's a fine film and worth catching whenever you can find it.

"Sahara" is a 1943 film starring Humphrey Bogart, directed by Zoltan Korda, and intended as a propaganda film during World War II. It succeeds.

Bogart is a Sgt. Joe Gunn, and after Tobruk falls in North Africa, he leads a tank unit into the desert. He's joined by French, South African, British, and Sudanese soldiers. They come up against a group of Germans that want the water well where the tanks are stationed.

Besides Bogart, the great cast includes Bruce Bennett. Lloyd Bridges, Dan Duryea and J. Carrol Naish, and they all do an exemplary job. What I like best about this film is the atmosphere - the sun beating down, the dryness, the filth - you're thirsty just watching it.

It was films like this that probably kept people in the U.S. going during the war, I imagine. World War II has been highly romanticized, but despite the pretty songs, there wasn't anything romantic about it. Since there are no women in this film, there's nothing romantic about "Sahara" either. Very good work.

The great thing when Sahara opens is Bogart's relationship with his tank. Maybe he's been in the desert too long! But he's fairly explicit in his attitude, and can't talk about his tank without likening it to a girlfriend. He says that that the sound it makes is sweeter than anything any woman can say. Five minutes later he runs into an uppity British officer in the dunes, who disparages his tank - and Bogart gets quite upset. In one of his few displays of aggression in the film Bogart defends his tank's honour. The others fight for their causes – yes – but the only bait Bogart will rise to is another man disrespecting his Lady Tank.

Meanwhile there is a play of nations going on around Bogart. The Nazi is arrogant and won't be touched by the Sudanese. There is a vengeful little Frenchman and a comic Italian for pathos (his name is even Guiseppe). The British display constant pluck. Now the tank is carrying so many men, that it has become a mother figure, and 45 minutes in it's already "old girl".

It's a greatly entertaining film, and it's fun watching Bogart negotiate, strong arm and wisecrack his way to glory. I think Bogart served the Allies just fine by shooting not overly propagandist movies like this. The ghostly German army, struggling forward for thirst, is a great image to finish on.

"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.

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.

I guess this is what you'd call a "man's movie," a tough war story with no female characters in the cast. Humphrey Bogart is an effective tough-guy American sergeant leading an international group of Allies in a tank across the Sahara desert.

Eventually they battle huge odds against an onrushing German forces. intent on getting water from a well that was being tapped by Bogart's crew. There are a few lulls when characterizations are made, and the anti-German fervor in here is a little overdone. However, since it made right in the middle of World War II, that's understandable.

There is some good photography in here with nice shadows form the sand dunes. Overall, a pretty solid war film that has decent action without overdoing it. Complementing Bogart in he cast are the likes of Bruce Bennett. Lloyd Bridges, Dan Duryea and J. Carrol Naish

Sahara although not usually contained in the compendium of Bogey's best movies is a rousing WWII action movie. The plot involving a rag tag group of allied soldiers,along with Bogey's M-3 Grant Tank "Lulu Belle" holding a North African well against a motorized battalion of the Afrika Korps is enough to set the tone of this movie. I will not go into the plot any further but state that it was filmed in 1943 and it was a morale booster. The acting is first rate and the fact that an African-American actor, Rex Ingram was treated as an equal, as Sergeant-Major Tambul, Fourth Sudanese Battalion was far ahead of his time. A movie I see every time it plays. It was remade for TV with James Belushi playing the Bogart role as Master Sergeant Joe Gunn, USA and was a good movie in its own right. However, the Bogart version sets the standard. A must see movie for Bogey fans and WWII film buffs.

Michael Wolkow, Colonel, Infantry, Retired

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.

There's really nothing great about this movie but I find it enjoyable in so many ways. First of all, how often do you get a chance to see a tank of that vintage. Bogart plays a tough sergeant but being Bogart, there's a human softer side to him. One of the best scenes is watching the German troops moving forward, the survivors at the oasis are sure they are going to be overwhelmed, but the Germans are surrendering, all because they are out of water. "Wasser, Wasser," you can hear them saying as they stumble forward. Good little ending. I enjoy it just for fun. A number of good supporting actors round it out. And like all war movies made during WW II, it's got every kind of character from the tough guy to the disillusioned Italian, to the French African hero, to the sneaky craft Nazi. And did I mention the proper Brit? See it for fun.

This Zoltan Korda-John Howard Lawson World War II curio is at times a superb war film, with fine pace, excellent location photography and some excellent, unflashy acting. It is a story in the tradition of The Lost Patrol, as experienced U.S. Sgt. Humphrey Bogart, in a tank, helps a motley crew of soldiers, mostly British, in search of either their unit, safety or water, whichever comes first. They wind up at a desert fort and are eventually attacked by a German regiment that is also desperate and thirsty, and some exciting action scenes of fighting and exhausted men are the result.

Bogart is his usual charismatic self in the lead, and the supporting cast is nearly as good, especially Bruce Bennett and J. Carrol Naish; the former is quiet and dignified, as was his custom, the latter typically flamboyant, but this time his florid acting is appropriate. Overall I like this movie a lot. Like all the best war films, it focuses on seemingly small things, such as well that has gone dry (or has it?), the glaring sun, the little stories of home life,--for once not corny. There is a black African solider who is treated as an equal, and well-acted by Rex Ingram. Now and again, though, the movie turns preachy, as a certain internationalist tendentiousness creeps in, which, even if one finds its agreeable, detracts somewhat from the exciting story and makes it at times feel like a tract on the need for cooperation among nations.

This is another of Humphrey Bogart's war movies, this one made for Columbia Pictures instead of his usual work for Warner Brothers. In some respects, it's a war movie with a difference, in that it focuses much more on the men than the fighting. Bogie's character is Sgt. Gunn, an American tank commander separated from his unit in North Africa, trying to get his tank and his men back to Allied lines. Along the way they pick up a few stranded British soldiers, and also take a few prisoners, most notably Italian Giuseppe (a role for which J. Carroll Naish was nominated for a supporting actor Oscar.)

The primary issue involved is not so much the battle against the Germans (although that comes in the last half hour or so) but is rather the battle with the desert. The men are running out of water, and are desperately searching for a well. There's a brief hint of some competition, as at first the British soldiers aren't clear that they want to be given orders by an American sergeant, but that gets resolved quickly. Naish did, in fact, do a great job as Giuseppe, portraying very believably the general contempt that many Italian soldiers had for the war. He was contrasted with a stereotypically gung-ho German soldier.

The climax comes with a battle against a German battalion that's also desperately searching for water. Hopelessly outnumbered, Gunn decides they should take a stand and delay the Germans as much as possible. The scenes of desert warfare were believably portrayed (and the desert landscape was totally believable.) The result of the "battle" was perhaps not believable enough, unfortunately. It's an interesting movie, less action-packed than many war movies and as a result a bit slow perhaps at the start as it builds toward that last battle.

After training in North Africa in 1942, a U.S. Army Battalion--led by Sgt. Humphrey Bogart and his tank the "LuluBelle"--come upon members of the British Royal Army following the retreat from Tobruk. Bogart gives all the soldiers a lift, as well as a black Sudanese leader and his Italian prisoner-of-war the next day. Soon, they also have a treacherous Nazi in captivity, but the question of survival comes up as water grows scarce across the windswept desert. Typical WWII-era product of Hollywood: hard-bitten, hot-headed, but occasionally jovial and crass. Zoltan Korda directed and had a hand in the screenplay, which originated from a portion of a Russian story entitled "The Thirteen". It certainly gets off to a good start, but as the disparate band of soldiers begins to multiply, interest in the characters becomes scattered (they're mostly one-dimensional anyway, with Bogart relying on his cemented salty persona). Excellent cinematography by Rudolph Maté, nice work from Rex Ingram, some fine sequences. ** from ****

Shot in the American desert instead of the real Sahara due to the war, this movie is one of the best war films ever made. The desert is so bleak and barren, and the sun so bright, you can almost feel the heat in your living room. Sahara shows us just how brutal the conditions were in North Africa during the war, and how nature brought suffering to both sides. The Allied soldiers are a mix of a lot of different nationalities (American, British, French, South African, Irish, Sudanese) and we see how these men from diverse backgrounds come together to survive against the elements and the Germans. The Germans themselves have the usual stereotyping of nastiness that is found in most films of the 1940s, but even they are shown to be individuals and not a faceless enemy. Get a cool drink and watch Sahara - it's a great movie.

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!

No film has ever made me so thirsty before. I seriously began to feel dehydrated by the end.

"Sahara" was a very serviceable WWII film made during the war itself. Humphrey Bogart is excellent in his role as tank leader and brings both humour and bravado to the role. I expected just a by-the-numbers propaganda film. While it does have propaganda elements, it's a lot more than that.

The entire film felt quite ahead of its time. It wasn't afraid to tackle elements such as race head-on and did so in an effective way. "Sahara" is more a survival adventure tale than it is typical WWII film. Despite that, if I had been a young man seeing this in 1943, it would have inspired me to go out and bring down some Nazis.

The desert landscape is one of the strongest characters in this film. You also can't help but feel 2014's ""Fury barely possessed an original element after seeing this. There are a few cheesy elements scattered throughout, but they don't detract too much from the overall feel.

Recommend both for Bogey fans and those who enjoy WWII cinema.

Have the video and watch it about every other month. Great scene with "Frenchy" cutting bread and cheese and chasing with wine. First saw this movie about 1950 and have always enjoyed the acting. Not "hoaky" like some of the other movies of that period. Well worth watching. All of the characters have some depth. Too bad they had to use a P-51C as a German Fighter aircraft. That was the only point that could have used some work, but in 1943 it was hard to "get" a BF-109 unless you were in a P-51.

In the dunes and sands of Africa war wages, guns and artillery dispense shells the world rages, but in the embers a battle, there's a few men most bedraggled, who attempt to wade their way on once was plages. In a tank they plough the grains like caterpillars, looking for a well where they can be can fillers, but only dregs can be discovered, as the grit lays bare and covers, what would they give to find a place that contained chillers. Pursued by Jerry who is also rather parched, as they've been walking, hiking, stepping as they're marched, towards a battle for the source, a place where water finds its course, the whole shebang under the sun, Saharan scorched.

WW2 films set in North Africa were once a mainstay in Hollywood with literally dozens of similar efforts being put out over the years between the 1940s and the 1960s. They always appeal to me with their mix of camaraderie and the fight against both the enemy and a truly inhospitable terrain. SAHARA is one of the earliest of these films, shot while the war was still in full swing, with the Californian locations standing in for Africa and doing a very good job of it too.

The film is directed by the great Zoltan Korda and as such is full of the excitement and danger that you'd expect from the big man. I found it highly superior in that there's no romantic sub-plot to slow it down, no women to get in the way of the story. Instead we have an evolving storyline in which the heroes of the piece must use their wits, their brawn, and their sheer stubbornness to survive an extremely dangerous situation.

This film boasts crisp black and white direction and authentic battle sequences. The characters grow on you as the running time goes on so that the whole thing builds to a thrilling climax. Humphrey Bogart is naturally charming as the leader of the group, but it's in the character roles that this film really excels. J. Carrol Naish is fine as the captured Italian and Rex Ingram very good as the African soldier caught up in the events. Kurt Krueger captures the essence of the dangerous Nazi spirit very well. Lloyd Bridges has a minor role years before he himself would take the Bogart role in such pictures. Altogether, SAHARA is a fine war film and one of the best I've watched recently.

A quality movie with very good cast. A bit preachy in parts, but par for the course for such wartime movies. Score by Miklas Rosza very 'reminiscent' - or a precurser to - Ben Hur. His style well evident. It clearly delineated the difference between the Italian soldiers, many unwilling participants in Mussolini's bid for military glory; and the fanatical, arrogant Nazis, a reflection of reality. Production values good: the British and German uniforms correct, and yes the 'Me 109' was an early P51, with the similar 'glasshouse' cockpit canopy rather than the more familiar 'bubble' canopy of later marks.