After the fall of Tobruk in June 1942, U.S. Army sergeant Joe Gunn leads his tank into the Sahara desert, in order to evade advancing Rommel's forces and reach Allied lines. Along the way he picks up few Allied soldiers, but soon they are running out of water. They find water at the ancient well, but the well is a goal of an entire German battalion. Despite the impossible odds, Sergeant Gunn decides to defend the well.

After the fall of Tobruk in June 1942, U.S. Army sergeant Joe Gunn leads his tank into the Sahara desert, in order to evade advancing Rommel's forces and reach Allied lines. Along the way ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Sahara torrent reviews

Dean M (kr) wrote: Finally got around to watching this. Great doco, not much sentiment that's particularly new, but certainly reinforces a bunch of ideas that I definitely agree with. We are living in amazing times..,

Janine Y (ru) wrote: Seriously could I fall more in love with James Nesbitt???!!! The answer is YES YES YES. I love this movie but by golly did I was a snot and all movie for me. If there were more stars to give it, I WOULD.

Nader H (mx) wrote: When the tagline for a movie is 'It's gonna be a bear', it's over before you even began watching...

MacDara C (it) wrote: (Watched Tue 18 Nov 2008)

Alexandra G (jp) wrote: 5 stars aside from visual editing (180 line broken, etc)

Javier V (ca) wrote: It happens? :SA crude vision of czech society, very crude. :S

Brita L (it) wrote: christian bale enough said

Scott R (de) wrote: Gere as a bad cop. not bad. But Garcia as a good cop that's messed up just makes things interesting. A good thriller for the 90s, and a good cast. Not much action, but I do not think there is a need.

Rob S (ag) wrote: A nomination (and a lot of the time the win) for the Oscar for best picture is often bestowed on a film which touches on the subject of prejudice and overcoming it somehow, or at least the hope for surpassing prejudice. The Academy has given the award to films that touch on racial prejudice, such as this film and the disappointing web-life film Crash (which won against a much more brilliant film, Brokeback Mountain, which touches on prejudice of sexual orientation) most likely because it is a "safe pick." This film is one of those "safe picks" which does not do much visually, but manages to depict the great heartwarming story of the play on which it is based.Driving Miss Daisy may not be the most exciting film, but it has a story that is easy to follow as well as a very short duration regarding the typical feature film, keeping anybody engaged as long as the audience cares about characters and their growth within stories. Daisy is depicted as a prejudiced person in denial early in the film, and it is actually quite humorous how she interacts with Hoke (Morgan Freeman) before he becomes her driver. She is a selfish elderly woman who doesn't realize what she is saying at times, and stubborn as a mule, not taking Hoke's help (paid for by her son, played by Dan Aykroyd) until 6 days pass.As Hoke and Daisy spend time with each other they come to learn from each other with great benefit. When it is revealed that Hoke can't read, instead of being uptight with him about it Daisy explains it in a clever way only a previous school teacher like her can do it. Just a few minutes later, a lot of time has passed and it is revealed she is now giving him a book to help him write, so Hoke is overcoming some pretty important struggles with Daisy's help.Hoke warms up to Daisy through the second act of the film, but it takes Aykroyd's character suggesting she let Hoke come to a meeting about Martin Luther King Jr. to get her to understand Hoke's feelings. Daisy gets into a mini-quarrel with Hoke about this, and you can see it in her eyes she regrets that she didn't invite him to such an important event in the eyes of an African American like Hoke. Towards the finale of the film, it is heartbreaking to hear Daisy admit that Hoke is her best friend while she is suffering from what appears to be dementia, and though Hoke says she is only saying that, she assures him it is true.Time goes by quickly in this movie, and in order to keep up with the time you have to pay attention to the years of the various cars, the graying of Dan Aykroyd's hair, or the change in abilities of Hoke and/or Daisy. This is much more interesting than the annoying titles often used in films to remind people that time has passed - this way it does not make the audience feel like a group of idiots. The only thing I found visually interesting about the film is a scene between Daisy and her son in which mirrors are employed to show what is happening in the room for a lengthy take, and the rest of the cinematography in the movie makes it feel simple, with more focus on the characters than the technique as in a play.Still a great story with two great leads.

Chris W (de) wrote: Based on a novel by Richard Price, who co-wrote the script with director Spike Lee, this is a grim and gritty look at how a police procedural affects the residents of an inner city neighborhood during the aftermath of a murder and the subsequent investigation. There are many players here, but the film predominately follows Strike (Mekhi Phifer)- a "clocker" or street-level drug dealer who works for businessman/supplier Rodney Little (Delroy Lindo). Though Rodney had illegal business dealings, he is also shown to be a mentor to the local youth, and he does give them guidance and opportunities, even if they aren't necessarily the most positive of things. Strike finds himself in deep when he gets involved in the investigation of the murder of one of Rodney's rivals- a man Strike was told to get rid off. While the film does eventually reveal the truth, the bulk of the story probes whether or not Strike actually committed the murder. Besides pressure from Rodney, fellow clockers, and his own conscience, Strike also has to deal with the main cops on the case, played by Harvey Keitel and John Turturro.This seems like a nice, simple, intimate story, and I would have been thrilled had it just stuck to being that. Instead, this small story is blown up, and used as merely a driving force in a broader story about the trials and tribulations of inner city life, specifically the issue of black on black crime. I'm not as thrilled that this film was expanded into a lengthy epic, but I don't think that's a major issue. By having the film become so drawn out and broad, things tend to lose steam and focus from time to time, and the meandering leads to the grit and intensity losing their edge once in a while. But, when the film is on target, it's really on target, and makes for some compelling, well done, and entertaining cinema. It's a decently well shot film, and the art direction and set design are suitably grimy, gritty, and show the plight of people in the inner city. An issue that really gets to me though is the music. Sometimes it's fine, but at others, it really clashes and sticks out. I'm all for ironic uses of music, but it's not really done all that well here, and seems kinda corny. We do get some good performances though, and the themes and ideas are well established, but then again, I'd expect no less from Lee. The film does have its problems, but I don't think they're egregious enough to keep me from giving it the grade that I am. You have to be in the right frame of mind, but if you can tap into this film's groove, and are wanting a broad tale, then sure, give this a look.

Orlok W (ag) wrote: Tobe Hooper is Back, Baby--Hollywood Occult!!

Chad E (ru) wrote: Good but forgettable.

Shawn W (it) wrote: The Civil War extracts a heavy cost on a Virginian family when the youngest son is mistakenly taken prisoner as a Confederate soldier. More dated than its 1965 date indicates but a good second half. The Church reunion reminded me of Little House.

Jordan K (jp) wrote: an amazing ensemble to capture such a tricky rattigan play. I have not seen the original an want to for comparison. the use of music was additionally stunning!