Artivels Undescribable Perfection

Fluentiama Perfect cast and a good story

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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.

jvance-566-20403 It has been said that humans are little more than omnivorous, bipedal, African apes afflicted by wanderlust and vivid imaginations. This movie goes a long way to support the idea. The manner in which the species we've crowned with "sapiens" rapidly degenerates towards primal behavior in this film is disturbingly enlightening. Disturbing because of the cold brutality demonstrated, enlightening because the behavior isn't completely irrational. The movie is certainly not for everyone. It reeks of man-stink. There are several different male characterizations and I suspect most men like myself would identify with one or the other of them. There is only one female character, however, and though her decisions probably make sense to most men, I suspect there would be a widely varying view among women. Running through the other comments, I saw only 2 that appeared to be from women and one of them obviously thought it just plain creepy. In any case, it's worth a look if you can find it - and that's not easy. Mostly some low-quality pirated VHS tapes.

Chase_Witherspoon Running virtually parallel with "Flight of the Phoenix", "Sands of the Kalahari" rates ahead by a propeller in my opinion thanks mainly to the superb ensemble cast ably led by Stuart Whitman and Stanley Baker. The plot is uncomplicated concerning the survivors of a plane crash deep in the isolated Kalahari who must survive the ravages of the desert, its occupants, and themselves.Davenport is a particularly nasty thug, the ubiquitous 'Mr Negativity' of a crisis situation, York desperately trying to deflect unwanted attentions, and Bikel offers the calming influence as the man who might be capable of engineering an improbable escape. Not too sure whether it's Whitman or Baker's picture per se, nevertheless, neither seems overshadowed despite Baker's producer credit and regular helmsman Cy Raker Endfield in the director's seat.Searing heat and parched throats translates to the viewer, it's often tense despite the two hour run-time, and Endfield builds modest suspense out of limited material. Worth a look if you're intrigued by the "stranded" stories watching various personalities disintegrate, or galvanise, under survival stress.

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.