Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

I am ashamed to say as an ardent film fan I have not seen the original starring Humphrey Bogart. I do however have the luxury of being able to judge this film with an unbiased view. I didn't even realise it was a TV film until I saw the details on the IMDb site. Belushi gives a creditable performance but I think all the characters gel together well and the film carries a certain aura of the old British 40's and 50's war films such as Ice cold in Alex though obviously not in the same league. The characters are doomed and yet you feel for them. At the end as the camera pans across the line of makeshift rifle tombstones and Belushi recites the fourth paragraph of Laurence Binyon's 'The Fallen' you realise that you are not only at the end of a quite good film but also you owe a great debt to the fallen heroes of yesteryear.

This is an awful remake. They follow the script almost line for line. But they have not an actor who can act. Belushi tries to be Humphrey Bogart and he doesn't even know how to be a soldier. His pot-belly sticking out, he really is bad. The British doctor is such a shell of a character. He is almost plastic. Skip this one and watch the original. As you watch you see the lack of knowledge of World War II. It doesn't seem that the director of this film understand the reason the original film was made. The reason for some many different nationalities was to show the strength in the United Nations. In this film it seems ludicrous.

I'll defer from the previous opinions that this was a shameless ripoff of Borgart's 1943 film. I see it as a labor of love, a tribute to the spirit that helped The Greatest Generation win the war. James Belushi could not hope to imitate Bogart, so I look to the blow-by-blow recreation of the script as the spark plug of the movie."Sahara" is a work of fiction, but that part of the war was a desperate action, fought by men under harsh and trying conditions. The desert war is overlooked by historians, and little mention is made of the struggle against nature as well as the implacable foe.Like the films of Frank Capra, "Sahara" is optimistic and idealistic to the point of "corniness", but it works by capturing the simple-minded determination of men to fight for their comrades, and to hold their position in spite of the odds. The poetry at the end suggests the tribute: "...they shall not grow old...we shall not forget." With hindsight, we can find faults with the script and the tactical representation of the artificial situation, but not with the grit and determination of the real people who fought the actual war. This re-make of "Sahara" is an anachronism, but one to be respected.

Well, this movie is not even worth of seeing. The topic is copied from 1943' Sahara. All the characters act like as if they were idiots, they are "the tough men, who will fight for their land, for their families..." The only good scene in this movie is when the Australian guy is shot.....it is really good made and pretty sad. But rest of the movie is just a junk. We can see about 200 German soldiers, out of which some 500 die and another 150 are taken prisoners....well, I wasn't that bad at mathematics, Mr. Director! Of all those hundreds of Germans not a single one is wounded, they are all just dead...just fell down and that's it. Hm, if it was a Soviet movie from the 1932, ok, but an American movie from 1991?!! Shot a few years after Full Metal Jacket and Platoon?!!! All I want to say is: if you like good movies, please, do yourselves a favor and don't watch this! 1 out of 10 (for the scene I've said before)