In case you saw To the Shores of Tripoli, a 1942 military romance starring John Payne and Maureen O'Hara, you might assume Tripoli, a 1950 military romance starring John Payne and Maureen O'Hara, would be exactly the same movie. It's not. Neither one of them is very good, but they are quite different.Tripoli takes place in the early 1800s. Pirates in Libya fight against the Marines, and the subsequent march through the desert and battle show audiences why the first line of the USMC theme song starts the way it does. However, the movie is pretty boring, and without the forced romance between John and Maureen, it might have put me to sleep. She starts the movie involved with Phillip Reed, and it's clear she has no real feelings for him but is only after his money and his title. But, since Hollywood was pretty racist back then, it's beyond clear she won't end up with the non-white guy. There's really no suspense, and it's no surprise that she falls for the first white guy she meets.Unless this part of history or battle in particular really interests you, find yourself another war movie. There are thousands to choose from.

This is a classic 1940s/50s lightweight action adventure piece, with all the classic elements: a historical tie-in, small-unit military action, horses, an expedition through a wilderness, a leading man in a classic romanticized leadership mold (here, a U.S. Marine), and of course the love story of two people who get the hots for each other but can't figure out what to do about it except circle and maybe even hiss at each other until a sudden dramatic kiss seals their engagement in the last five seconds of the film. (There was also a certain amount of comic relief, centered in large part around a comic actor or two brought in just for that purpose, as Howard Da Silva, Connie Gilchrist, Grant Withers, and even Lowell Gilmore are here.) It's essentially a formula that was followed countless times during the period, and while the producers could move the setting to anywhere from Louisiana (see, e.g., THE FIGHTING KENTUCKIAN, John Wayne, 1949) to, well, the Shores of Tripoli, for variety, most of them were just westerns, usually set in the Southwestern United States. And for Hollywood in those days, any classic romanticized villain would do, whether it was the Barbary pirates, the staid British Empire in the Battle of New Orleans, or even crooked home-grown American land speculators ready to cheat whoever had money and was handy. This kind of thing was rerun ad infinitum on television when I was growing up and any true TV junkie of the 50's or 60's had seen probably what seemed like at least a couple hundred of these things by the time they finished high school. That's all this movie is or was ever intended to be, and it delivers right down the middle like a strike in bowling alley. As others have observed, the production values and especially the location shooting are excellent for the day, and if you like the late Maureen O'Hara (may she R.I.P.) and John Payne, so much the better. If you are in the mood for such old-fashioned mind candy it is just about perfect, and the only reason I gave it only a six is because by more challenging movie standards it lacks the "edge of the seat" quality needed to bump it up another star. What surprises me is how many of the reviewers on here seem to have no experience with this kind of thing and instead try to analyze it as if it were something made in a much more recent era.I might also add that until the modern (i.e., very modern) era of post-World-War-Two (that means, after 1945, less than 100 years ago) strife broke out in the middle east, there was no particular prejudice against or hatred for Moslems in America or Western Europe generally (at least not for several hundred years, at any rate), who were rather typically regarded as merely different, if not actually exotic or even fascinating. Indeed, as another, especially clever reviewer of this movie on the IMDb suggested, Europeans thought enough of Arabs to adopt their system of numerals (i.e., 1,2,3,4,5, etc., not mention the whole concept of "zero") from them, along with algebra, averages, algorithms (for you computer junkies out there), the name of every star in the sky you could see without a telescope that was worth naming (e.g., Aldebaran, Altair, Deneb, Fomalhaut, etc., etc.) along with any number of words (alcohol, alchemy, admiral, alcove, alfalfa, albatross, azure . . . ) and certainly, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962), an extravaganza about an Englishman who practically tried to turn himself into an Arab during World War One would never have been the immense hit that it was only about 50 years ago. The current trend among a truly ridiculous number of people today towards branding any Moslem as evil is less than 25 years old and is the result of a concerted propaganda campaign straight of of George Orwell's book *1984* -- to get people into line, you first give them a common enemy to hate. (Unfortunately for theses propagandists, too many of us live in a fact-based world, and know that the .001% of the world's 1+ billion Moslems that are terrorists are only a minority of a minority of a minority at best), but then there are always the gullible, the fearful, the paranoid, the hateful, the low, the trashy, and the stupid who will believe anything in order to indulge their appetite for enjoying getting angry.) That kind of mentality had nothing to do with this movie when it came out in 1950.

This film dramatizes a significant historical event for the still young United States, in which the US Navy and marines, along with a small army of Egyptian Arabs and Greeks banded together for a combined assault on the Libyan port of Derma, in 1805. This marked the virtual end of the first Barbary pirate war, in which North Africans were taking over American trade ships, taking the cargo and holding the crew as captives for ransom.Lt. O'Bannon(John Payne),"General" Eaton(Herbert Heyes) and exiled former pasha of Libya, Hamet Karamanly(Phillip Reed)retain their historic names. French countess Sheila D'Arneau(Maureen O'Hara)is purely fictional, if a welcomed complication.The land forces did march about 600 miles through Egyptian and Libyan desert, although historically, they began at Alexandria instead of farther up the Nile, as portrayed. During this trip, various hazards, such as sandstorms, unsure water sources, poisoned wells and bickering between the various ethnic groups are portrayed. Hamet is portrayed as accompanying the ragtag army, which provides an excuse for including dancing girls and the countess on the trip. Before beginning the trip, there is an agreement that the Americans will back the reestablishment of Hamet as pasha, if he helps recruit mercenary Arabs for the army. However, during the march, agents of his brother, Yusuf, the ruling pasha, infiltrate the army and bring an offer of sharing the rule of Libya 50-50,if Hamet will renege on the support of the Americans. He agrees to this change of plans(very risky), remarking that "Two allies are better than one, especially if they oppose each other" He learns the detailed plans of the combined army-navy assault, and passes this on to Yusuf's agents. In turn, the countess learns of Hamet's treachery, and rides to warn O'Bannon. Yusuf modifies his defenses to conform with the American's plans. In turn, O'Bannon warns the naval ships of Yusuf's move, by semaphore. Later, after he sees the success of the attack, Hamet changes his mind again, and supports the Americans, whom he hopes will win him the entire kingdom of Libya. Historically, although the Americans took Derma, Hamet never got reinstated. The countess supported Hamet's politics, until he turned traitor to the Americans. Then, she switched her allegiance to the Americans. Through most of the film, she hated O'Bannon, who had insulted her a number of times. Interestingly, when they were hiding behind a small sand dune, they alternatively fought verbally and physically,and kissed. Toward the end, she inexplicably changed her loyalty to O'Bannon, and stuck with it through the battle.During the land battle, O'Bannon led a small group of commandos over the city wall, creating havoc inside, especially in the royal palace. O'Bannon was nearly killed in the collapsing buildings during the naval bombardment. The way he beat off the interfering Arabs outside and inside the palace reminded me of John Wayne at the Alamo, or Errol Flynn as Robin Hood: cartoonish. Historically, it's reported that O'Bannon fought bravely.Incidentally, the Americans never did take Tripoli in this war, which is where Yusuf actually was. It was considered too well defended to take without considerably more investment in ships and army personnel. Yusuf actually sent reinforcements to Derma, that arrived too late to prevent its fall, but these troops nearly recaptured the city.All in all, not a bad viewing experience, with a mix of negotiating, action, humor, and flag waving, in a reasonably historically accurate portrayal. As expected, Maureen was a definite plus, both on her own, and in her confrontations with Payne.Available at YouTube.

I have to disagree with the other reviewers of this film, in that what they thought was a plus I found extremely negative. That of course I am talking about the incredibly annoying character Countess D'Arneau played by Maureen O'Hara. The character of the Countess D'Arneau seems like it was written for a different movie, or every other action was written for a different movie. The movie therefore cannot choose which way it wants to go, sweet romantic comedy or macho manly movie about solders racing across the desert. Unfortunately it tries to do both and fails miserably. It is very possible to re-cut the film and take out every scene with Maureen O'Hara. This would leave us with a dandy little historical war film (although short). Obviously this left me very disappointed because there are so few films about the time and subject and when one is as good as this it gets ruined by Hollywoods need to put a leading lady into every film.Bottom line... Unless you are willing to fast forward through the needless drivel avoid this one. If you are willing than the rest is a well acted and well staged piece of American history.