Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

This is ultimately a movie about the very bad things that can happen when we don't address our unease, when we just try to brush it off, whether that's to fit in or to preserve our self-image.

A film made in 1965 with such great idea about the desert, the plane crash, the survivors, 5 men and 1 woman. It showed to us one funny but quite realistic possibility: No matter how the situation might be tough, a single woman, especially a pretty one, among a majority of men, lust would be an even tougher thing to be suppressed when hormone and testosterone were once fulfilled with some food; once your stomach was full, the next thing you thought about was sex. But there always got some exceptions, the older guys, for example in this film, finding food and trying to get help from outside, not wanting to die in the desert, seemed to be more important than sex. The funny thing this film showed to me was there's still some guys would like to have sex first when they were facing the uncertainty of survival. This is a very good film, well scripted, directed and performed by some A-list actors in that era. It's also a very tough film to shoot by the production crew and to play roles in the desert and under the blazing sun. I totally enjoyed watching this film.

Copyright 3 November 1965 by Pendennis Pictures. Released through Paramount. New York opening at neighborhood cinemas: 24 November 1965. U.S. release: 10 November 1965. U.K. release: 2 January 1966. Sydney opening at the Capitol (ran one week on a double bill). 10,738 feet. 119 minutes.SYNOPSIS: When their chartered plane crash-lands in the African desert, five passengers and the pilot fight for survival.NOTES: An IDA Films DVD (PAL). The American NTSC version is an Olive Films release. COMMENT: Part of a sub-cycle of films that includes Back from Eternity and Flight of the Phoenix, this one has little to offer except for fans of desert scenery, baboons and Stuart Whitman. Oh, the story moves along okay in its fairly predictable path, but it's over-acted and heavy-handedly directed. And whilst the desert scenery certainly looks convincing enough, the characters alas do not. Susannah York, for instance, is rarely seen without make-up, not even in the hotel shower and not ever how tattered her dress becomes!. Endfield's clumsy direction with its over-emphasis on close-ups is as much to blame as the too-earnest acting of the players and the trite banalities of the pseudo-philosophical script.In a generous but misguided gesture, co-producer Stanley Baker has given the lion's share of screen time to Stuart Whitman, whilst he himself plays a supporting role. Unfortunately, in my opinion anyway, Mr. Whitman is insufficiently charismatic and personable an actor to carry off a pivotal role. He's unpleasant enough certainly, but uninteresting. In my opinion, always reliable Harry Andrews contributes the best acting despite the triple handicaps of a German accent, a small part and some indifferent dialogue.Endfield's clumsy shooting has forced the film editor to use some jarring, mismatched and inappropriate shots.All told, a somewhat dreary trek through the Kalahari.OTHER VIEWS: Color of course is essential for the largely-filmed-on- location movie. But color is used here to emphasize some rather unpleasant violence as well as the rugged beauty of the desert locales. — JHR writing as Charles Freeman."Sands of the Kalahari" tells a tight, pacey story benefiting from its actual locations and solid performances from its players, which help to overcome some inconsistencies in characterization. Director Endfield ("Zulu") is an expert in this territory. Both the film and the make- up on the players look thoroughly authentic. Whitman and Susannah York dominate the film, but Baker, Andrews, Bikel and Davenport give solidly rounded characterizations. All in all, it's an expertly made, suspenseful thriller using the old Greek unities. That old formula still works. Despite its long running time and simple, concentrated plot, "Sands of the Kalahari" holds the interest well. — JHR writing as George Addison in a report of the movie's debut on TV.

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.

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.