bill-dearmond
I recently re-read the original book and the only character altered was Jefferson Smith who became the Doctor in the movie. Could this alteration be because Smith in the book is black? I can only assume that is the case because in the early 60s giving a black a prominent role was not done. Producers wouldn't think of doing that now.
mark.waltz
And the donkey, the antelope, the zebra, not to mention the scorpion. It's all the locust's fault for getting in the way of the plane that leaves a group of people stranded in the African wilderness. Typically, the men go wild, killing more of God's creatures than they can either eat or wear. While that aspect of the story makes you angry, it also makes you think. Unfortunately, the promise of an entertaining message film quickly turns into a predictable rip-off of "And Then There Were None" where members of the group start to disappear as two of the men begin to fight predictably over the only woman. Colorful photography cannot overcome the tedious and unlikable characters. Some funny moments, particularly the cute donkey, but continuous animal cruelty gets to be too much. As "Planet of the Baboons", the over-all effect of the film is quite a let-down.
Rick Koenig
I'm basing this review on recollection, but I was elated to find recently that it can be ordered, and on DVD no less. Long-time fans of this mostly-overlooked if not forgotten film will be eager to get their hands on a copy. If you like a ripping good adventure story with enough social dynamics for three movies, this is well worth considering.You can find plot outlines here or elsewhere, so I won't rehash that. Suffice it to say that having seen this film in its theatrical release many decades ago, it still is pretty vivid in my memory. As others have noted, this film deserves much more attention than it got. You might think you've seen movies like this before, but this one steps outside the usual caricatures and gives you some meaty, real people you can identify with and mostly care about. The acting by Stuart Whitman is exceptional, as his character reacts to the predicament and he becomes what he feels he must become to survive. He is changed inexorably and ultimately. The others are not just window-dressing and they all turn in fine performances. As others have noted, this does have a rather surprising conclusion you won't soon forget. And I agree with the reviewer who commends the filmmaker for not doing the usual Hollywood "cop out". Life doesn't go as we plan, and neither does this movie. Nothing trite here!"Sands of the Kalahari" hearkens back to an era where films didn't rely on special effects or cheap emotional appeals to win an audience. How many films like that do you see today? This is one movie you can really sink your teeth into. Tense, unforgettable, even haunting. Seriously. It's that good.
gbeauch
I saw this movie when I was a young man and loved it. I have long been a big fan of survival movies and books. Nordof and Hall's book "Men Against the Sea" in the Bounty Trilogy hooked me on this genre. Kalahari is populated with accomplished actors but Whitman's villainous and selfish Character stands out. My brother and I always discuss the movie and its' campy side, in particular Whitman's bare chest and the callous treatment by diamond mine security police when an almost dead survivor makes it to the sea and help. The last scene is notable as Whitman, now a killer, is left behind to the mercy of baboons whom he hated and killed in the movie. This is shown in a retreating aerial shot and is haunting and effective. This is not a "great" movie but is very entertaining, well acted, and suspenseful.
AD
