Lightdeossk Captivating movie !

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Ginger Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

clanciai For once Stuart Whitman is allowed to play the lead and not only second to guys like John Wayne and James Garner, and he does it here with a vengeance indeed. This is really an account of man's relationship with nature and how he deals with it under extreme circumstances. Stuart Whitman does it the hard way and has to face the consequences. Harry Andrews is the only one who understands what baboons are all about but is not allowed to get his aged wisdom through. Susannah York as the only woman among these wild guys has to suffer for that but manages by accepting it. Theodore Bikel is the philosopher who rather humbly takes on the hard lot that is assigned to him than tries to fight it, which is wise. Stanley Baker finally, the only one severely hurt from the beginning, makes the best of it and finds his way as an observer until it's time for him to act. While the baboons are the real commanders of this situation.It's a tremendous adventure film, and it's far better than both William Dieterle's "Rope of Sand" with Burt Lancaster 1949 and "Twist of Sand" 1968 with Richard Johnson, which also both deal with the hardships of the sands of Kalahari. They are all three arduous and interesting, but this is certainly the best one and catches well the sinister character of the famous novel by Richard Mulvihill, which I read 50 years ago and which is even more grim than this colour film with some lighter ingredients not to put the audience off completely.

gordonl56 SANDS OF THE KALAHARI – 1965A small aircraft crashes in the middle of the Kalahari Desert. The survivors, Stanley Baker, Theodore Bikel, Harry Andrews, Nigel Davenport, Stuart Whitman and Susannah York gather what supplies they can and head off. They manage to reach an outcropping of jagged rocks where they find a small spring. The spring is also home to a clan of baboons. Things soon turn to the primitive as the group worries about their long term survival. The chances of being found are on the slim to none side. Stuart Whitman soon establishes himself as the alpha male, and starts to eliminate anything that might hinder his survival. First he wages war on the baboon colony, as they are in competition for the same limited food resources.It is not long before he starts thinning out the human competition as well. This leads to violence and death for some of the other survivors.I am so happy I finally managed to get my hands on a DVD copy. I first saw this on television in the early 70's and loved it. It was the talk of the schoolyard the next week. All the males were quite taken with the violence, and seeing Miss York running around with less than a full garment. The distaff side, was not so amused with the said violence, or the killing of the "cute" baboons.Considering when this film was made, it is fairly nasty and violent. But it does hold up well, even today. If you are a fan of survival films, then I suggest that you give this one a look.

screenman 'Sands Of The Kalahari' appeared in the same year that brought us 'Flight Of The Phoenix'. Any who query why the former is less well known should simply listen to the scripts. 'Sands' is crap.The idea is interesting enough. Though it's hardly new. In 1954 'The Purple Plain' featuring Gregory Peck presented a similar scenario in the Burmese wilderness.This work has second-rate movie stamped all over it - despite having a character cast-list to die for. Stanley Baker heads (and directs) other British stalwarts Harry Andrews and Nigel Davenport. There's posh totty on offer in the form of Susanna York, International flavour is added by Theododore Bikel, whilst Hollywood fans are awarded the B-and-half-lister, Stuart Whitman. And - my - what a fine set of pects he's got.It's rather the oppostie scenario of the 'Phoenix'. A tatty plane crashes in the desert. But this time it burns-up. The survivors have little food and water, and no German genius to turn to. They soon find a spring so water's no problem. Now food remains the issue. One man wanders off in search of help. Whitman's character turns ruthless survivalist anti-hero, and begins whittling the others down. Ms York's character plays true to her gender and sells out to the highest bidder - ie, strongest, most ruthless and most cunning.This story had all the elements and characters of first-rate entertainment. However, it's completely let down by a lack of competent direction, poor character-realisation, sloppy editing and a script that fails to elicit any conflict or quotable dialogue worth hearing. There isn't a single one-liner in the whole show. The most believable exclamations come from baboons.Both 'The Purple Plain' & the first 'Flight of the Phoenix' knock this into a cocked hat. And there's plenty of other much better lost-in-the-desert movies as well - 'Ice Cold In Alex' for example. This belongs in the 'Ashanti' bran-tub.Not recommended.

Mike I saw this movie on American TV sometime in the mid 1970's. I was probably only about 14 or 15 and I haven't seen it since, however, there are scenes from this movie that are still in my head! My taste in movies then wasn't what it is now, and I can't remember the entire film, but I've been searching for it ever since. From what I can recall, it was fascinating and the ending was especially riveting. Being a survival story, it is very similar to Flight of the Phoenix. You couldn't really guess what would happen next or which character was going to blow the situation up. The photography and color as I can remember were quite vivid. An excellent study of character and nature. It's no wonder that Zulu is one my favorite movies, which I hadn't seen until my late 20's. I remember Stanley Baker's character in the film but didn't realize Cy Endfield was involved in it's production. Hopefully, I'll see it again soon, but not on TV I'm sure.