disinterested_spectator 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.

JohnHowardReid 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.

jain_daugh Although I haven't seen the movie in years, I will NEVER forget it. I do have the book, which is also an excellent read, but so want to see the movie again.This movie has impact in spades. It isn't a scary movie as such, but some scenes will raise the hairs on the back of your neck. The scenery enhances the isolation and challenge of returning to a world the stranded people know. Stuart Whitman IS O'Brien and a hunk to boot. Susannah York plays her part deliciously and the only muff up was casting Theodore Bikel as the 'doctor' (PhD. not MD). Not that he didn't play a good role, its more because the story would have been even richer if an American black had been used per the book.Here's hoping that this will be released soon! With Susannah York's recent passing, I can't think of a better tribute to her than that.

Candice Boyle (SalamanderGirl) 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.