Sahara is a good enough movie. Very clichéd. A little too symbolic with the good guys being just too varied a mixture of nationalities. But the story holds your interest. The question though, is who needs it? It's a remake of the classic Humphrey Bogert "Sahara" of 1943. Bogart had a mesmerizing screen presence whenever he was on film. There's no explanation for it, but he did indeed have it. Maybe it was that voice. Or that cool "I'll kick your butt if I need to" attitude he always seemed to convey. But Bogart was impossible to ignore. And he made Sahara in the midst of WWII. No one knew how the war would turn out in 1943. So it was essentially a propaganda film, encouraging the audience with the bravery and never-say-die attitude of the Americans and their allies (hence the convenient mixture of nationalities in Bogart's little group of fighting men). The film served a purpose in 1943 to entertain as well as to give hope to a country involved in a world war.<br /><br />If the movie was to be remade, it should have been with an all-star cast or at least with a major star in the Bogart role. Or maybe to enhance the film with modern film-making techniques. Instead, what we got was practically a carbon copy of the original with a "B" movie actor (James Belushi) in the Bogart role. America needed this movie in 1943. But not in 1991. And for those who still like to watch it, the remake did nothing more than colorize it and substitute a decidedly less gifted actor in the lead role. The rest of the parts were all played by unknowns (at least to this reviewer). At least the original had quality costars in Bruce Bennett, Dan Duryea, Lloyd Bridges and J. Carrol Naish.<br /><br />So if Belushi's Sahara was the one and only version, it would be a decent enough movie. But since it is a cheap, lower quality version of the original classic, why bother?