Rope of Sand (1949)

the audience applauded

Great Film overall

Did you people see the same film I saw?

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

A man (Burt Lancaster) abused by a sadistic mining company cop (Paul Henreid) before he could tell where on their desert property he had found diamonds decides to steal them instead.Glenn Erickson reflected on the background of the film and how it was received when first released, "Although William Dieterle's direction is capable, the script works too hard to introduce an overly familiar collection of stock thriller types ... Critics generally liked Lancaster's performance, even if they slighted the work of Claude Rains and Peter Lorre and saved the bulk of their praise for Paul Henried's nasty villain." Indeed, those who watch the film for Lorre may be disappointed on little screen time he receives.Reflecting decades later, Burt Lancaster singled this out as his least favorite film. That was due to personal reasons, however, so may not necessarily reflect whether this was (in his opinion) his worst performance.

Burt Lancaster returns to Angola after a two year absence. It seems he had previously wandered onto property owned by a diamond mining concern and when the boss (Paul Henreid) learns that Lancaster found diamonds, he beats him within an inch of his life--but learns nothing. Now Lancaster is back....and there is a lot of talking and posturing before much of anything happens.A bunch of the reviewers seemed to like this film, but I couldn't help thinking it could have been a lot better. After all, with Burt Lancaster, Claude Rains, Peter Lorre and Paul Henreid, I expected a lot. In addition, while the story had a lot of action and violence, it seemed amazingly uninvolving. I attribute much of this to the character played by Lancaster. He was full of needless macho posturing--and none of it really made any sense. Think about it---after nearly getting killed two years earlier for wandering into an Angolan diamond company's property, he now returns and makes sure EVERYONE sees him--especially the guy responsible for maiming him! What idiot would just waltz back in such a hostile and dangerous place?!?! Later, when he and the baddie have their big showdown, Lancaster holds a loaded .45 on Henreid--and empties the gun so they can fistfight like real men! And, oops...Henreid is able to get away!! Talk about great planning and needless macho heroics! Plus, it seemed weird seeing Henreid playing a guy who can beat up Lancaster in a fight!! As a result, the film has some mildly interesting scenes but it never makes a lot of sense.By the way, if you wonder why Lorre is in the film, I have no idea either--and I saw this film! It's the case of a good actor with nothing particular to do and no apparent motivation just aimlessly bouncing about in a movie.

Rope of Sand, an adventure thriller supposedly set in post-WW II South Africa, certainly receives the vote of "classic" in my book. Far away places, a romance triangle, suspense, even a bit of humor at times...it's all there in a neatly executed, well-acted plot that makes you wish YOU could have been there and tried just what Burt Lancaster did. I have watched this movie more than half a dozen times over the years and still get that sense of intrigue and mystery and fascination with the setting and story that I got on the first occasion, as a child. The film noir era was coming to a close when this movie was created in 1949 but most of the crucial elements are there including use of the black and white, music score, contrasting dialog and action scenes, and so on, right up to the final scene. Perhaps the screenplay might have gotten a little more mileage out of Corrine Calvet and Burt but we need to remember that we're judging films of this era against a different yardstick. I seriously don't think that this movie would have come together at all using actors working today because they would all be hungering for a bigger piece of the movie than anyone got here or typically does get in film noir. This is not to mention what current directors typically do as a substitute for what film noir did with the camera and timing of scene combinations. So I disagree with the previous reviewer. Watch this if you can and enjoy!

Slow-moving adventures yarn,with a shaky script ,sometimes looking towards "Casablanca".I do not think,like the precedent user that Henreid 's character is in love with Lancaster's,but if one can go as far as to say that ,it's because of the lack of a strong female counterpart:Corinne Calvet is not Ingrid Bergman ,by a long shot.This story,which revolves around diamonds which Lancaster hid somewhere -And Henreid lets his sadism flow to get these "girl's best friend" as Marylin would say".Peter Lorre and Claude Rains are almost wasted in predictable parts,and the plot meanders in the implausibilities (Calvet charged with murder,for instance).The best scene remains the fight Lancaster/Henreid in the desert:the desolate landscape is almost lunar ,and the violence very intense for the time.It's not one of the best Dieterle I've seen though.