Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

Armand it reminds Casablanca and a lot of other films about same theme. it has the virtue to be a kind of crossroad of genres. and , the great thing, it is a film with Humphrey Bogart. the same. nothing new or original or seductive. at the first view. but... . each film with Bogart is a form of revelation about him. because it is really the best American actor but that title has a profound source. not only the art or the dialogs, the script or the gestures but something who becomes magic, a spectacular mixture of force and vulnerability who has as result a hero out of each ordinary definition. a war film and a love film. and, more important, a magnificent actor. that is all. Sirocco is not a surprise. maybe not a delight. but a very useful lesson. and that is a serious great stuff.

charlytully Imagine, if actors became unstuck in time, that Charles Laughton had decided to follow up MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY's Bligh with Captain Queeg in THE CAINE MUTINY. Imagine Laurence Olivier had decided to top HAMLET with Travis Bickle in TAXI DRIVER. Imagine Marlon Brando had decided to follow his GODFATHER role with the title character in SCARFACE. Imagine Edward G. Robinson had taken the lead role in LITTLE NICKY to follow up LITTLE CAESAR. Imagine Robert de Niro trying to encore RAGING BULL with TIN CUP's Kevin Costner role. If you can picture any of these career missteps, you will get a good idea of how Humphrey Bogart soiled his portrayal of high-class slime-ball Rick in 1942's best picture, CASABLANCA, with his one-note unintentional spoof as "Harry Smith" that he phoned in on SIROCCO nine years later. Since Martha Toren as lone love interest Violette can't hold a candle to Ingrid Bergman's portrayal of Ilsa Lund in the earlier film, about the only redeeming grace in this 1951 misfire is the complex portrayal of relatively humane if fatalistic French Col. Feroud by Lee J. Cobb.

danielj_old999 (Marta Toren to Bogie)....what a great line! I'm surprised it hasn't gone down in the lexicon of great movie quips...and it captures perfectly the paradoxical mystery of Bogie's eternal charm, as well as the mystery of how an essentially mediocre film can be redeemed by its own dry, sardonic charm (due largely to help from fine supporting players as much as from Bogie), some great B/W photography, and a persistently downbeat refusal to push any sort of patriotic agenda.(adding greatly to that charm quotient.) The postwar noir influence is in fine fettle here. So Bogie doesn't exactly have a great motivation for his final decision? He just changed his mind, that's all. Take it or leave it. "I've taken long chances before. Okay." What could be better than that? It's the way people act every day. Every good critical eye without a mote in it knows that this film is safely and securely within the universe of the best product Hollywood ever put out, a great, mordant, counterweight universe to the unwatchable sap they themselves were producing right alongside it. "Sirocco" is not even really that minor a star in that universe. Good, good, good.

ecapital46 Just finished watching this movie after seeing the 2003 PBS documentary "Lawrence of Arabia: Battle for the Arab World," which adroitly lays out how in 1916 the French and British brokered a back room deal (known historically as the 'Sykes-Picot Agreement')during World War I which secretly 'decided' how ownership of the vast and varied Middle Eastern Arab ancestral homelands would be controlled by the European powers after the war. This deal was made by the British while they were simultaneously promising, thru its trusted Military Officer in Arabia, T.E. Lawrence, independence to the Arab freedom fighters after the war. The Brits promise was as reliable as those made by the US in American Indian Treaties. After the Arabs defeated the Ottoman Army and won their freedom in the Middle East, the British and French moved in and took control of Arab lands at the close of WWI. France was given "ownership'of Syria among other Arab territories at the post-WWI peace conference, setting the stage for the period of this movie in 1925, when the Syrian freedom fighters are fighting the invading French terrorists for control of its homeland and Bogart plays a Halliburton-like character (a young Dick Cheney maybe?) engaged in profiteering from the conflict.There are two major flaws in the script that have been alluded to in some of the reviews included herein. One reviewer writes that he is "impressed by the way 'Sirocco' refused to overtly side with either the French or the Syrians." Nonsense. In the film, it is the Syrians who do not honor their word and in a coy double-cross, kill our cinema hero Bogart in the end. In a previous scene, the French are portrayed as honoring their word by giving Bogart the travel Visa he was promised despite him admitting to brokering a secret and dangerous meeting between the Syrians and the head French Intelligence Officer (Lee J Cobb). This is a coy way of the movie siding with the French since the subliminal (and not so subliminal) takeaway is that the Arabs word can't be trusted. You are expected, of course, to disregard who's in whose fruggin' country anyway causing the problem.Several other reviewers here have made reference to how at the end of the film the opportunist Bogart still manages to "do the right thing" or support "the right cause." This is more nonsense. What they are referring to is Bogart's decision to lead the French to Syrian headquarters to attempt to negotiate the 'release' of the French intelligence officer who had voluntarily traveled to Syria to attempt to initiate some kinda undefined "peace talks." The question to ask yourself is how is anything Bogart's character does to support the French in this movie considered "noble" or the "right thing?" It is 1925, and the French have invaded an innocent and non-threatening foreign people and their homeland. Supporting the invader isn't "nobel," its criminal. Supporting Syria is what would be nobel. The Syrians are not at fault in this conflict for defending their homeland from invasion. Another reviewer writes "Yes, its the Syrian's home, but their 'tactics' are sickening." That's an odd statement, since they use pretty much the same 'tactics' our Revolutionary 'founding fathers' used in America, and America wasn't even the founding fathers' ancestral homeland! Besides, I'd like to see what 'tactics' that reviewer would use if a foreign terrorist group burst in his home, killed several family members, and took ownership of his assets. I doubt that his 'tactics' would consist of cordial discussions over a cup of tea.