Sirocco

The important "background story" to "Sirocco" is the screenwriter, A.I. " Buzz" Bezzerides, (August 9, 1908-January 1, 2007), an American novelist and screenwriter, best known for writing Film Noir and Action motion pictures, especially several of Warners' "social conscience" films of the 1940s. He wrote such action feature movies as "They Drive by Night" (1940) - which was based on his novel, The Long Haul (1938), "Desert Fury" (1947), "Thieves' Highway" (1949), "On Dangerous Ground" (1952), "Track of the Cat" (1954), and "Kiss Me Deadly" (1955)."Sirocco" is also a "social conscience" film. Many of the key actors in the film were highly involved in the "social conscience" issues of the day in the late 1940's and early 1950's. The key aspect within this film's screenplay is when characters name names, "rat" on one another, and everything changes after that. In short, the storyline was an allegory for the period the film was made.All of A.I. Bezzerides film noir movies (noted above) have a very cynical outlook on life. If you thought Bogart's character was a cynic in "Casablanca" wait until you see Bogart in "Sirocco" -- he is a totally cynical character who seems to believe in nothing at all.Another important element in this film is the locale and time frame of the screenplay. The story takes place in Syria in the 1920's during the French occupation. There are terrorist bomb attacks, hostage takings, fighting in the streets, insurgents, etc. The environment is much like today in the Middle East, nothing has changed but the names of the characters."Sirocco" is a "social conscience" Film Noir that depicts a very depressing world. It is a sad story to watch.

Another very good Bogart film. This is a very interesting film to watch given the geo-political perspective between now and then. I don't think the acting is Oscar level stuff, but it is competent. Bogart, a gun runner in the turmoil of 1925 Syria, is caught between a rock and a hard place and is trying to get out of Damascus before he killed or arrested. Lee J. Cobb plays a French military intelligence officer has a mistress that also wants to get out of Damascus and away from her paramour. Of course, Bogart and the femme fatale find each other and the complications for both mount quickly. I highly recommend this film particularly because of the resemblance between the Mid-East almost 100 years ago and the current situation in Syria.

I love Bogart but this is one of the worst movies he made.

Very good movie

Mystery and suspense, Humphrey Bogart does it best. His actions will keep you guessing up to the end. Will he change his character and become the good guy?

Another good Bogart movie !

1925 and the situation has not changed but deteriorated , testament to western BS. stubborn for centuries the reason god put this human s***e on the planet. The movie shows the reason humanity needs exterminating.

I love Humphrey Bogart movies and this was a good choice I would definitely recommend watching.

Master extrêmement propre sans aucune rayure et très bon contraste qui met à l’honneur le travail sur l’éclairage. Un film qui rappelle un peu l’atmosphere de « Casablanca » ou l’histoire se passe en Syrie avec la confrontation avec occupant français

Film bien décevant : on ne peut jouer deux fois avec succès le trafiquant désabusé au grand coeurLes personnages sont caricaturaux ; on est loin de casblanca : l'héroïne est vulgaire, Bogart semble bien fatigué !

It we not one of the best Huphrey Bogart's films.

Apparently, Bogart referred to this 1952 film as "a stinker". Well, I don't think it's that bad - it's not one of his or anyone else's best films by any means, but I've seen far worse.Basically, the film, set in Damascus in 1925 (at a time when the Syrians were, in real life, engaged in a ferocious anti-French imsurrection) has Bogart playing Harry Smith, an apparently stateless American making a shadey living by uncertain means, treading a thin line between running guns to the Syrian nationalists and staying in the good books of the French authorities by any means possible. In other words, he is Rick Blaine pre-"Casablanca". The French authorities are personified by the severe Gen. LaSalle (Everett Sloane), who basically wants to shoot all the Syrians until they stop being naughty, and Col. Feroud (Lee J. Cobb), who sees things from the Syrian point of view and wants to try negotiating with them. Harry meets and tries it on with Feroud's mistress Violetta (Marta Toren), who is bored and wants out of both Feroud and Syria, but just as they are preparing to leave for Egypt, Smith gets into hot water when his gun-running activities are exposed...There are two main problems with this film. Firstly, none of the characters, apart from Feroud, is even remotely likeable. Bogart's Smith has none of the redeeming facets of Bogart's Blaine; he lacks Blaine's embittered nobility, and has nothing to commend him to the audience's sympathy; he is a s**t, pure and simple. Violetta is as venal as they come and, I suspect, was only introduced to the plot to give it a bit of sex appeal and female interest. She is good-looking, but I can't imagine anyone wanting to spend any time with her for the pleasure of her company (unlike the playfully attractive Ilsa Lund). Only Feroud (perfectly played by Cobb) has any integrity or likeability; tormented by Violetta's faithlessness and by his fruitless efforts to handle a terrible situation in a humane way, he is a well-rounded, sympathetic character but, because of this, seems out of place in a film where he is surrounded by entities that offer nothing for the audience to identify with, to like, or to find interesting (even the villains in "Casablanca" were likeable, interesting, or both).Secondly, the film was simply made at the wrong time. It tries to recapture the wartime zeitgeist that gave birth to films like "Casablanca" and, ultimately, to a whole host of other films (such as, inter alia, "Journey into Fear", "The Mask of Dimitrios" and "Notorious") that have become immortal because of how they faithfully reflected the feelings, thoughts and hopes of their times. From a technical point of view, the film is beautifully made; the sets, lighting and atmosphere are faultless - it is a quality production. But by 1952 the times it dealt with had passed; the attempt to give the film its pre-war flavour by dealing with a far-off conflict that few had heard of and fewer cared about, especially after the cataclysm of World War 2, fell flat as a pancake.Which is a shame, as it had the potential to be a great film - I saw a part of it when I was in my early teens, was intrigued by its off-beat subject matter and smokey, elusive atmosphere, and have wanted to see it properly ever since, which is why I bought it. Unfortunately, the whole is, in this case, less than the sum of its parts. It's not a stinker - I still think it's worth seeing, if only to see how studios can, with the best will in the world, get things so very wrong - but it is a disappointment. Worth seeing - once - as a curiosity.

cd only no case so no packaging , fine if you just want to watch the film but its like buying an Lp without thesleeve, no info at all god bless the seller for their cheek but its fine