Sands of the Kalahari (1965) User Reviews

Exciting and frequently savage adventure set in the African interior.

[barnabyrudge · 7/10 · 31 January 2003]

Sands of the Kalahari sounds as if it is based on a book by Wilbur Smith, but actually it isn't. It features a top-drawer cast, some blazing African location photography, and a genuinely exciting storyline about survival in the wilderness.

The story deals with a plane crash. The survivors find themselves in the middle of the Kalahari desert, close to a barren, rocky outcrop inhabited by baboons. They manage to make a shelter in the rocks and await rescue, but after a while it becomes clear that no-one is coming to look for them. Tensions begin to rise, and various characters react in various ways: Stuart Whitman's character becomes more and more like the savage, primitive monkeys; Nigel Davenport finds himself sexually craving for one of the ladies in the party; Susannah York becomes increasingly flirtatious; Harry Andrews scientifically toils away trying to come up with a rational escape plan; Stanley Baker just deals with the situation in a quietly courageous way.

The film is very exciting. You get to know the characters quite well, and you find yourself considering their plight very seriously and pondering on how you would cope in similar circumstances. The unpredictable nature of Whitman's character and Davenport's character means that you are always on your guard, expecting the unexpected. This is a really good little film, generally forgotten now but well worth seeking out. If you get the chance to view it... do!

Before the Phoenix flew, blew the Sands

[Chase_Witherspoon · 7/10 · 16 October 2012]

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.

Entertaining And Exciting Examination Of Human Nature

[Theo Robertson · 8/10 · 30 October 2004]

There's some common ground with both ZULU and THE SANDS OF THE KALAHARI . Both were financed by Hollywood executive Joseph Levine , both were co-produced by Stanley Baker and Cy Endfield and Enfield scripted and directed both films which were distributed by Paramount pictures and both have South African locations . ZULU is rightly regarded as one of the greatest movies Britain has ever made ( For the sake of argument ZULU is a British movie regardless of its Hollywood involvement ) and airs on British network TV at least once a year . However SANDS is almost totally unknown . I saw it one afternoon about 15 years ago and until today that was certainly the last time it was broadcast . A pity because although I had very vague memories of it being good I hadn't realized how great it was until today . I was actually speechless after " THE END " caption came up on screen . This is every bit as exciting and entertaining as ZULU

I would describe this movie as THE NAKED PREY meets 28 DAYS LATER . A strange combination I know but where as Alex Garland's script tried rather unsuccessfully to mix twin themes involving human nature and survival here Endfield's script explores how far human beings can go in order to survive . Monkeys are also important to the plot believe it or not ! Seeing as the script for THE NAKED PREY was Oscar nominated I can't help feeling that Cy Endfield was short changed at award ceremonies . THE NAKED PREY deserved its accolades but the script here is slightly more dramatic since there's more characterisation involved and there little digs at the human condition if you look closely enough you'll see lust , greed , ignorance and even the old excuse of " I was only following orders " come in for criticism . I would love to discuss the script in more detail but that would involve spoilers and I wouldn't want to spoil this movie for anyone who hasn't seen it . All I will say is ....

WATCH THIS MOVIE IF YOU GET THE CHANCE . It's intelligent , exciting , very well paced and criminally underrated . The fact that this page and its related message board is composed mainly of people crying " Please release this on DVD " should tell you what a great movie this is

Lord of the Baboons.

[hitchcockthelegend · 7/10 · 21 December 2013]

Sands of the Kalahari is directed by Cy Endfield who also adapts the screenplay from the novel of the same name written by William Mulvihill. It stars Stuart Whitman, Stanley Baker, Susannah York, Harry Andrews, Theodore Bikel and Nigel Davenport. Music is by John Dankworth and cinematography by Erwin Hillier.

A raw survivalist thriller that finds a disparate group of people crash land in the deserts of Africa and promptly start to come apart as a group. Cue arguments, attempted rape, killings, animal slaughter, alpha male posturing and Adam and Eve complexes. The allegory is obvious but handled with skill by Endfield, and it all builds with great intensity towards a truly bleak, yet delightfully ambiguous finale. There's some over acting going on and the dialogue can stretch credibility at times, but yes this is a worthy entry in the survivalist hall of fame. 7/10

Great News!

[rbruner-1 · 9 April 2006]

I have read most of the comments about Sands of the Kalahari, and like most of you have been looking for several years for the tape or DVD of this movie. Well, great news movie lovers, I found a site that offers the DVD of this movie and ships free. Price as advertised is 11.99. I have already ordered my copy and thought you would be interested in getting yours. Here's the web site. http://store.thesmallscreen.org/index.html Check under the action section. I saw this movie in 1965 when it first came out and was struck by the realism the movie contained. I think any one that likes action type films will surely like this movie. Of course Susannah York is also a very good actress and gives this movie an added attraction for watching it.

Sucker for survival films

[gbeauch · 7/10 · 19 January 2012]

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.

Britain's answer to Flight of the Phoenix

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 27 September 2011]

Now forgotten aside from an occasional airing on daytime TV – where I was lucky enough to catch it – SANDS OF THE KALAHARI is a B-movie version of Hollywood's FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX. Like that film, it concerns a group of plane crash survivors attempting to adapt to live in an inhospitable desert climate, but there the similarities end. SANDS OF THE KALAHARI is very much smaller scale in scope, concentrating on group dynamics over big plotting and looking at what happens when disparate personalities are forced to work together.

The first half of the film is a little dull, I'll accept that. Spain stands in for Africa, and it works…I never questioned the bleakness of the surrounds for a second. But the characters are dry and dull and the film is saddled with an extremely lacklustre female lead, played by Susannah York. In the second half, the film throws us a decent twist and delivers an unexpected story which gets better and better as it goes on. By the end I had been thoroughly engrossed in and entertained by the story.

Stuart Whitman is no Jimmy Stewart, but he enjoys a multi-faceted role here and commands the screen like few leading men. Stanley Baker, here reteaming with director Cy Endfield a year after ZULU, is also excellent value for money. Believe me, this film is no ZULU, but it is a nice surprise for a B-movie. Add in a couple of distinguished Brit actors (Harry Andrews, Nigel Davenport), some killer baboons and plenty of in-fighting and you have an unfairly forgotten little effort.

Good adventure movie

[SalamanderGirl · 7/10 · 22 August 2006]

I had no idea this movie was from Stanley Baker and Cy Endfield, the producer/director team responsible for 1963's Zulu. It makes sense though, as both are above-average adventure movies with an emphasis on character as well as action. Slightly similar to Five Came Back perhaps, only with baboons instead of natives, but otherwise 100% original and entertaining.

The plot is simple enough. A plane crash lands in the desert, where survivors are forced not only to deal with hunger and the elements, but a pack of angry baboons who don't like trespassers. The Discovery Channel likes to remind us we're all just animals. Stuart Whitman confirms it in the performance of his life, playing a man determined to survive, at any cost, an almost psychotic Cornel Wilde from Naked Prey.

Great locations, good camera work, and some of the best primate performances ever put on screen. One look at the Kalahari baboons, and you'll remember Cujo was just a sick doggie.

Returning to the Primitive

[bkoganbing · 9/10 · 22 April 2006]

I'm really gratified to find so many other reviewers having good memories of Sands of the Kalahari and feeling as put out as I do that it is not on VHS or DVD. Nor apparently has it been seen in America at least for some time.

This is a tale of survival, but the characters sure don't come out of Swiss Family Robinson. A small plane crashes in the Kalahari desert in South Africa. One woman, Susannah York, and five men. Only one of them Stuart Whitman who is a big game hunter is really trained for the business of survival. The others are products of the ease and comfort of civilization. One of them, Stanley Baker, is badly injured and needs constant nursing by York.

There's a colony of baboons nearby and Whitman starts identifying with them in every sense of the world. He turns on the others, eliminating them one by one except York who he decides will be his savage Eve to his savage Adam.

The injured Baker gradually heals and in the end proves to be the savior for York. I'm not going to say any more, but hopefully TCM or AMC will run this film at some point for American audiences.

Susannah York is beautiful and talented and goes through a gamut of emotions regarding Whitman and their predicament. Stanley Baker is a favorite of mine among British players, he never gave a bad performance in any film I ever saw him in. But the real treat is Whitman. His devolution of character out in that desert was Oscar caliber material and why he wasn't nominated in 1965 is a mystery.

If some American movie channel gets a hold of this film, do not miss it.

Stanley Baker Should Have Done Stuart Whitman's Role

[TheFearmakers · 7/10 · 30 January 2022]

Supposedly this was the movie that pushed Stanley Baker -- who'd just peaked with the same director Cy Endfield for ZULU -- into a career downturn, and not just because SANDS OF THE KALAHARI is a deliberately strange and uncomfortable survival tale initially involving seven passengers of a crashed plane stranded in the vast titular desert...

As producer, Baker didn't only give the best role to Stuart Whitman, but his own character's injured and therefore basically useless for most of the picture: one that features a somewhat convenient ensemble...

Also including veteran wildlife expert Harry Andrews, passive doctor Theodore Bikel, ingenue Susannah York and then Nigel Davenport, who initially attempts raping York before -- after the group finds refuge in a canyon/cavern area also inhabited by baboons -- wandering off for help, becoming a sporadic standalone comic relief...

And overall he's hardly even necessary... In fact, despite otherwise talented actors Andrews and Bikel, the only people who matter are the great looking would-be love triangle despite all the passion belonging to Stuart Whitman's O'Brien and the wistfully one-dimensional York... and who can blame her?

O'Brien's able to walk, run, has a gun, does the hunting, and isn't a bad sort until predictably deciding to put Darwin's Theory to human use...

Meanwhile first-billed Baker (who basically played Whitman's violently polarizing type in YESTERDAY'S ENEMY the previous decade), a consistent Cy Endfield collaborator since 1957's HELL DRIVERS, has the same amount of brawn, brains and good looks to potentially progress into a slow-burn hero against the sociopath alpha male -- yet he merely blends into the cavemannish landscape, visually reminiscent of ZULU where he also portrayed a bridge-builder...

Unfortunately, there's not much for an injured pacifist to do, making Whitman... who's never looked or acted better... the film's only real purpose, and who the audience might not be rooting for, but with such a long, often plodding run-time, they'll surely appreciate his determination and energy, nefarious or otherwise.

I can just hear the baboon saying "There goes the neighborhood."

[mark.waltz · 5/10 · 24 October 2012]

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.

One of my favorite all-time movies

[gronj · 10/10 · 26 May 2005]

What a great flick. It's hard to believe that it never received the recognition it fully deserved. Acting is first-rate, the scenery magnificent and the plot hooked you in immediately. The ULTIMATE survival movie!

Stuart Whitman played his role as ultimate survivor to the hilt in probably the most effective role ever in his career.

I would hope that some day Paramount comes to it's senses and releases this on DVD. All fans of this movie should in fact demand no less- let's start lobbying Paramount. Until then, it is an all too rarely seen item on cable movie channels like A&E or AMC.

Lord Of The Baboons.

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 28 January 2014]

A diverse handful of people charter a plan to fly them to Johannesburg and the airplane crashes and burns in the middle of the desert. The six survivors must work out the dynamics between them. (Cf., "Hombre," "Five Came Back", "Flight of the Phoenix", inter alia.) They discover a water hole, around which grow some improbable green melons. This is also the territory of a group of baboons -- notoriously nasty creatures that live in a clearly defined dominance hierarchy. The baboons don't particularly like the intrusion of what they probably see as unusually tall and white baboons.

Among the humans, there is a recovering drunk with a game leg (Baker), a robust American hunter with a rifle but no shirt (Whitman), a lovely and delicate blond (York), a savvy old man (Andrews), a nervous, overacting pilot (Davenport), and one of those disposable humanists (Bikel).

It turns into a story about the survival of the tannest.

York comes close. She's pretty tanned. But the bare-torsoed Whitman takes the prize. He sees the situation in Darwinian terms. And why not? He's the biggest, strongest, tannest, and he's the guy with the gun. He sends the pilot and the philosopher off into the desert, one by one, to seek help. He does it at gunpoint. He kills the older man.

That leaves him, Baker, and the succulent leggy blond in the tattered dress. York puts moves on Whitman and they're soon hooked up. Whitman kind of likes the deal so far. He not only gets to lord it over Baker and play doctor with York but the beast in him comes out and he begins slaughtering the baboons and setting them on fire.

He likes it so much that when the rescue helicopter finally arrives, Whitman hides alone among the rock and refuses to come out. It leaves him alone with the baboons, who have now developed a positive dislike for him. It's man against baboon, although by this time it's hard to tell the difference.

The direction and acting are more or less pedestrian. I kept wondering what the "message" was, or if there were any at all. I guess it's something about civilization, no matter how rotten, being better than savagery. It was so inspiring I immediately wrote a check to the World Wildlife Fund. Every seventy-five cents counts, and those baboons? Their bite was worse than their bark.

Something For The Monkeys

[screenman · 4/10 · 18 September 2011]

'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.

One of those good desert movies

[haristas · 5 August 2002]

As you can read from others here, "Sands of the Kalahari" is one of those movies that if you saw it as a kid you're likely not to have forgotten it. It's also a good movie if you like to look at lots of shots of the desert (think: the beginning of "Planet of the Apes" [1968]) and people sweating. The plot concerns a small group of people that crash their plane in a remote area of South African desert. No one comes looking for them, so how are they going to get out? One is a woman, the rest all men. You can guess that things get tense and then mean. It make matters worse there's a nasty bunch of baboons living nearby and they look hungry. Why this has never come to video I don't know. The last place I saw it was on A&E some nine years ago. It was shot in Panavision, so it should be letterboxed. It was a Paramount film, so maybe if enough request to them are made it'll eventually come out on DVD.

O'Brian of the Baboons

[disinterested_spectator · 7/10 · 11 November 2017]

When I first saw "Sands of the Kalahari," I figured it was inspired by Robert Audrey's "African Genesis: A Personal Investigation into the Animal Origins and Nature of Man." Audrey made the case that man had evolved from Australopithecus africanus, a violent, murderous primate. His book soon became all the rage. However, "African Genesis" was published in 1961, whereas the novel, "The Sands of the Kalahari" by William Patrick Mulvihill, was published in 1960. On the other hand, the theory that man had evolved from killer apes had originally been proposed by Raymond Dart. Audrey interviewed Dart and wrote an article about Dart's theories in "The Reporter" in 1955, so perhaps that was Mulvihill's inspiration after all.

In the movie, a group of passengers are on a small airplane that crashes in the middle of the desert in southern Africa. They manage to find shelter, water, and food in a mountainous area, which also is inhabited by a troop of baboons. One of the characters, O'Brian (Stuart Whitman), who has a hunting rifle, decides that his chances of survival will improve if he wipes out the competition, which includes not only the baboons, but also the other survivors, except for Grace (Susannah York), who also functions as something worth competing for.

One of the men he runs off manages to cross the desert and make it to civilization. He returns in a helicopter to rescue those who have survived, but O'Brian refuses to go with them, presumably because he would be tried for murder. He eventually runs out of bullets. As the baboons become more menacing, he decides to fight their leader with only his bare hands, eventually killing the baboon with a rock he managed to grab. Earlier in the movie, the point had been made that the leader of the troop was the one that got first access to all the females. After he kills his foe, other baboons begin to approach in a manner suggesting that they recognize him as their new leader. In fact, we suspect the approaching baboons are females. Will O'Brian indulge? The second time I saw this movie was on the Late Show. As the female baboons closed in around O'Brian, some joker in the television studio played the Johnny Weissmuller's Tarzan yell. For that matter, before Tarzan met Jane, did he indulge?

The movie is a little dated now. When it first came out, the idea that man was a killer ape was new. As a result, the author of the screenplay probably felt it necessary to have several characters drive home the point that man is in many ways like the baboons. Today, when the expression "alpha male" has become commonplace, if not trite, such repetitive, explicit comparisons to the baboons now seem overdone. Also, since the group has plenty of water, food, and shelter, the idea that several of them, and not just O'Brian, would start thinking and acting like baboons after only two days is a stretch.

It looks good on TV anyway!

[JohnHowardReid · 6/10 · 2 October 2017]

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.

Been a long time..

[boomera · 7/10 · 15 October 2016]

We saw this on TV, twice, back in the mid 60's... around 67 or 68, I think it was a "Saturday, Sunday or Monday Night at the Movies"...

I had recently thought of this movie, and thought it was part of "Flight of the Phoenix" with Jimmie Stewart... or another movie... I have not seen or thought about it for around 50 years. So, my muddled brain was not sure... I got it for a friend, and we might watch it tonight or soon.

My friend and I remember the part about the Baboons mostly.

It has some very intense scenes. I remember it as a "good" movie... we shall see how it holds up.

REVENGE OF THE BABOONS

[giuliodamicone · 6/10 · 14 January 2024]

Following a plane crash, a group of tourists remains isolated in the South African Kalahari desert. Initially they try to organize themselves in order to deal with the emergency, but little by little the situation degenerates, leading to crime. A helicopter will take the survivors to safety. This odyssey in the desert is too long! For almost two hours Stuart Whitman performs shirtless to show off his pecs (without even getting a sunburn), while Stanley Baker initially has a deep wound on his leg which heals completely in the second part. The plot is flavored by the presence, coincidentally, of a beautiful girl obviously threatened by males (except Harry Andrews, perhaps the most successful character). The villain of the group (Whitman in fact) will end up attacked by the same baboons he shot with pleasure. Emphatic music.

Why didn't it get the recognition it deserved?.....A masterpiece of rarely equaled epic proportions

[Freddy_Levit · 10/10 · 4 November 2004]

For those who believe that films no one remembers are without a doubt mediocre, look no further than the "Sands Of The Kalahari" - it may surprise you. It is beyond me how such a brilliantly crafted adventure masterpiece drama such as this was allowed to slip through people's fingers upon its release and escape to the forgotten dungeons of no return! For a film that hasn't been in print for 30 years, it is worthy of the title of greatest forgotten film of all time.

How could such a film, directed by the talented British director Cy Endfield (who brought you great monuments of cinema such as Zulu), with such breathtaking cinematography, famous British and American actors such as Stanley Baker, Stuart Whitman and Suzannah York, playing such complicated characters in a poignantly original story, filmed beautifully in Widescreen Technicolor of the 1960's have been treated in such an unjust manner is beyond our galaxy!!!

The "Flight Of The Phoenix" was a very similar film (equally as brilliant), yet received so much critical acclaim and box-office success upon its release. Geez it must have been James Stewart. Yet we have all noticed this: That if a film is not successful in America, then it isn't successful anywhere. Why? Because no other country in the world puts so much emphasis on advertising their films. It is why absolute garbage such as "Spiderman" robs people of their income and takes the throne as the biggest box-office draw of the year. But is this correct for such an 'explosive, action packed, predominantly CGI infested, plot less' mediocre effort in modern Hollywood film making? People have forgotten what a real film constitutes.

I have already forgotten Spiderman - except for its title! But "Sands Of The Kalahari" has lived in people's memories ever since it came out, due to it's brilliant execution and powerful story telling. Unfortunately not many have had the pleasure of seeing it, for it has been out of print for many years.

I am the proud owner of a copy of this survivalist killer of a film and every time I just want to sit back and escape our Predominant modern Hollywood world and watch a great achievement in the art of film making, I put in a film like "Sands Of the Kalahari" - a film that unlike most of the so called 'films' we see today, should have been embedded into our memories long ago as a 'classic'!

So much more than just a survival story.

[paulclaassen · 6/10 · 27 February 2024]

When a flight to Johannesburg is delayed, a private charter offers to fly some of the willing passengers for a nominal fee. Unfortunately, a giant swarm of locusts causes the plane to crash in the Kalahari. Fearing the day will be at its hottest soon, the survivors waste no time in trying to find shelter, battling thirst and the scorching heat.

When they do find shelter, they find they are surrounded by a menacing troop of baboons. O'Brien (Stuart Whitman) takes the lead in providing food. He has little respect for nature, though, and we soon discover just how arrogant and selfish he is. He also becomes the film's antagonist.

Grace (Susannah York) is the only female among the men and she has her hands full with some of them (erm, pardon the pun!). Hunky Stuart Whitman with his beefy body allows for plenty of eye candy, although his character is not a nice guy.

'Sands of the Kalahari' is so much more than just a tale of survival, and I really enjoyed it.

For fans of wildlife slaughter only

[Ambak · 1/10 · 26 July 2013]

After the heights of Zulu, it is astonishing the depths that the producer, director and star of that film sank with this woebegone effort. A random bunch of uninteresting people jump on a small plane in the middle of the night for no rational reason and when it crashes start behaving in irrational ways. The acting is phoned in, the script is dire, the direction almost non-existent and the gratuitous slaughter of the local wildlife leaves a sour taste in the mouth. Nobody could be in the slightest bit interested in the fate of any of these "characters", some of whom just disappear from proceedings with no explanation of their fate. This movie deserves it's obscurity.

Top Adventure Film

[gordonl56 · 9/10 · 3 July 2014]

SANDS OF THE KALAHARI – 1965

A small aircraft crashes in the middle of the Kalahari Desert. The survivors, Stanley Baker, Theodore Bikel, Harry Andrews, Nigel Davenport, Stuart Whitman and Susannah York gather what supplies they can and head off.

They manage to reach an outcropping of jagged rocks where they find a small spring. The spring is also home to a clan of baboons. Things soon turn to the primitive as the group worries about their long term survival. The chances of being found are on the slim to none side.

Stuart Whitman soon establishes himself as the alpha male, and starts to eliminate anything that might hinder his survival. First he wages war on the baboon colony, as they are in competition for the same limited food resources.

It is not long before he starts thinning out the human competition as well. This leads to violence and death for some of the other survivors.

I am so happy I finally managed to get my hands on a DVD copy. I first saw this on television in the early 70's and loved it. It was the talk of the schoolyard the next week. All the males were quite taken with the violence, and seeing Miss York running around with less than a full garment. The distaff side, was not so amused with the said violence, or the killing of the "cute" baboons.

Considering when this film was made, it is fairly nasty and violent. But it does hold up well, even today. If you are a fan of survival films, then I suggest that you give this one a look.

Nigel Davenport steals the show

[HotToastyRag · 6/10 · 14 December 2022]

There were two movies released in 1965 that followed a group of plane crash survivors in the middle of the desert; I know, Hollywood isn't fair. Where The Flight of the Phoenix is inspiring and makes you stand up afterwards to applaud, Sands of the Kalahari is creepy and a total downer.

There's a key difference between the two films which might explain the two paths: a woman in the cast. With James Stewart at the helm, there wasn't a single woman in the film, so the men could just band together and try to fix their airplane. In the Stuart Whitman version, the other survivors are Stanley Baker, Nigel Davenport, and Susannah York. With a beautiful blonde in possession of a shapely figure, the men have an extra distraction and lose their camaraderie. Perhaps aided by a feeling of "it's now or never", all the men try their turn with Susannah. To be fair, Harry Andrews and Theodore Bikel are also survivors but they keep their hands to themselves.

I don't know why Stuart Whitman took this role. After an Academy Award nomination in 1961, he could have continued to headline heavy dramas. After this movie, however, he quickly became typecast in creepy, oddball films. Didn't he read the script? Didn't he know what his character would have to do in the later part of the movie - and why didn't he take a pass?

I really wouldn't recommend this movie, especially since there's another far, better choice with an extremely similar plot. This movie is downright disturbing, and there's no way anyone would stand up and cheer when the end credits roll. However, there is one reason to watch it: Nigel Davenport. My whole life, I'd only known him as George C. Scott's father in A Christmas Carol. The naïve child in me didn't even know he'd made other movies; I thought he was just hand-picked for the holiday classic. But twenty years earlier, he was young and able to pour his heart out on the screen. I can't talk about his character's path without spoiling plot points, but I had no idea he was such a talented actor. His tour-de-force scene is incredibly emotional, and it makes you want to watch other movies solely because he's in them. It was a very tough decision for Best Supporting Actor at the Hot Toasty Rag Awards of 1965, and even though Nigel didn't end up taking home the newspaper trophy, we were very proud to nominate him, which the Academy never did throughout his career.

Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to violence and upsetting scenes involving animals, I wouldn't let my kids watch it. Also, there may or may not be a rape scene.

Killed too Many animals

[QueenoftheGoons · 2/10 · 8 March 2021]

Too many animals are killed in this movie. Stuart is ruthless, but i give this movie 2 stars for the baboons. I'm a sucker for a Chakma baboon. I always like Stuart, but none so much on here. 2 stars for the baboons and their sweet smiles.