|
Directed by: Breck Eisner Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Steve Zahn, Penélope Cruz Before you read my review, let it be known that this film was pulled off very well. If you're a Clive Cussler fan, you know how intense the books are. This movie did one hell of a job bringing his story to the big screen. Dirk Pitt, a skillful treasure hunter with the combat experience of a U.S. Marine, searches for the lost treasure of the Confederate Army. Along the way he picks up Eva Rojas, a doctor working for the United Nations who is investigating an outbreak of a mysterious plague-like virus in Mali. Soon Pitt and his sidekick, Al Giordino, find themselves in a world of trouble as they are distracted from their treasure hunt in order to aid the doctor in her mission. My friend and I sat closer to the front of the theater during this viewing, and I almost got motion sickness. This movie was very intense. There is a large suspension of disbelief, but that's a great thing for this film. I went in with low expectations. I thought I'd see something equally as lovely as Tomb Raider, but I was drat wrong. I'm very curious as to what the budget for this movie was. There were many, many, many action sequences. The catch is: your date will like this film as well, because it has an Adventure feel to it, even though it's technically more Action. Sahara only really has three things going against it. 1)It opened on the second weekend of Sin City. 2)Many people see the previews and think, "Oh poo poo.. another National Treasure movie." 3)McConaughey tries very hard to be Dirk Pitt, and he does well, but not as well as the book calls for. If any of those reasons are holding you back from seeing it.. then don't let them. Sahara was worth my eight dollars, and I highly recommend you see it, even when Sin City is also playing. RATING: 5 PROS: Exceeded my expectations, not a dull moment, well above average adventure flick CONS: McConaughey didn't portray Pitt the best, minor plot holes ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://imdb.com/title/tt0318649/
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2005 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 03:25 |
|
|
Shockingly, I enjoyed this movie as well. It's fun, doesn't take itself seriously, and does a nice job of capturing the tone of Cussler's books. It's nothing terribly special, but gets a solid 3.5/5.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2005 23:58
|
|
|
I liked it enough. Though I'm still unsure about most of the plot, which, frankly, makes very little sense compared to the book, and the soundtrack and music cues were very...odd for a film set in Africa, it was pretty entertaining, and you can spend time with your friends after seeing how many glaring plot holes their were. 3/5.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2005 15:49
|
|
|
Having read every one of Cussler's Dirk Pitt novels, I went into this movie with the worst expectations possible. Thankfully, I was pleasantly surprised. The movie was a pretty good adaptation of the book. It included most of the major scenes (no Lincoln), but there were a few holes that the movie couldn't really explain. The movie was fast-paced and fun, and the action scenes were very much as I imagined them from the book. The complaints I had about the movie were that (a) it was geared a little too much toward kids, and (b) the director did a PISS-POOR job of adapting the characters. Dirk Pitt wasn't bad, but he didn't have his witty sarcasm from the books. Zahn (I think that's his name) as Al Giordino was TERRIBLE. He didn't do a bad job acting, but he wasn't at all like Al from the book. The movie played Al off as a childish buffoon, which really bothered me. Sendecker was a little better, but not much. Overall, I give this movie a 3.5/5 PROS Fun Decent adaptation of the book Above my expectations CONS TERRIBLE character adaptation from the book Geared toward kids
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2005 02:38
|
|
|
quote:2)Many people see the previews and think, "Oh poo poo.. another National Treasure movie." I actually liked National Treasure, so this was a plus for me, and I wasn't dissapointed; I never read the book though. It was pretty much another National Treasure to me, and was just slightly weaker, but still good. It was a fun and entertaining adventure movie with an intreguing and semi-believable plot that doesn't take its self overly seriously. The characters were likeable, the action was passable, and overall I liked the movie. It was just what I expected based on the previews, and it's just dandy for anyone who liked National Treasure and the Indiana Jones movies who can put their brain into idle for 2 hours. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2005 04:49
|
|
|
I really enjoyed this movie; lots of fun and action. However, I could also see why fans, and even Clive Cussler himself, didn't like this movie. Now, don't get me wrong - I've read every single Dirk Pitt book(my fathers fault), and I did like them - but Clive Cussler takes everything he does far too seriously. From a 'Sahara is the word as put down by our Lord Clive Cussler' viewpoint, I can see why fans would dislike this movie. But in my opinion, most of the changes were for the better. The only real beef I have with it was the Al Giordino character, as previously discussed. Oh, and I would have liked to see the siege from the book as well. But on the whole, as far as adaptations of books into movies go, especially in this genre, I was very impressed. And it was MUCH, MUCH better than the movie of Raise The Titanic. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2005 16:48
|
|
|
Just watched this movie and while i cant comment on the book, the movie left a lot to be desired. It was just another formulaic action movie. Im surprised bruckheimer wasnt behind it at all. It was ok for popcorn type movie, I found National Treasure to be a bit more suspenseful than this. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2005 00:53
|
|
|
Eh, I got dragged to see this, and actually enjoyed it in a saturday morning cartoon kind of mode. I kind of hate what I have read of Clive Cussler, since it's all very straight-faced, yet completely loaded with utter bullshit. It's like a cheap pulp author with a tad more ego than he's entitled to. However, on film, it works a lot better. The books get pretty out there sometimes, but I would say that you could sit through this without a single WTF EVER if you like Indiana Jones and such. McConaughey is pretty watchable, and a bit more believable as a character than the Pitt from the books, who's a perpetual utter badass. And I actually prefer the comedic Al, and didn't find him buffoonish at all. He seemed very technically apt, and more sarcastic. I also didn't feel as though my $8 was wasted, and I was really expecting to. 4/5 Also, as a side note, this movie is, if I am remembering right, completely devoid of any profanity or sex whatsoever (AND IS STILL FUN... WTF?) Any violence is pretty lightweight, since it seems to focus more on chases and such. Definitely something you could take the younger set too and not have to feel prepared to cringe at any moment, if that's a concern for you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2005 03:46
|
|
|
Disappointing. A lot of plot holes and trailing loose ends that probably made sense in the book. Also, the depiction of Africa was baffling. Apparently the whole of Mali is empty, but you can find anyone just by walking through the desert for half an hour. Also, apparently Lagos is mostly mud huts (rather than the skyscraper-filled main city of West Africa). And the whole trapped in the desert and making a windsurfer out of a plane sequence would have worked a lot better if there had been any sense of Dirk and his buddy being either hot or thirsty. I love this kind of movie, but it just didn't convince. Too much Matthew McConnaughey sucking in his gut, not enough solid plotting. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2005 13:40
|
|
|
Sahara was a fun movie. It won't win any awards but it has a pretty girl, the Confederate Navy, and Steve Zahn as a badass  instead of a useless sidekick. The plot is formulaic and isn't flawless but its good for what it is: an action genre movie set in the desert. If you just want to enjoy the ride then its worth it. If you cannot suspend disbelief then pass it up. 3.0/5.0
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2005 02:12
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, This movie was either the worst action movie i've ever seen, or the best comedy i've ever seen, depending on the way you look at it. On the plot side, this movie is absolutely inconcievably ridiculous and predictable. Every major plot point was guessed correctly by my friends and I a good 10 minutes before they showed up on screen. This is where the comedy sets in. My friends and I guessed the plot points, but we guessed them to be deliberatly insane, and lo and behold, There it was! The acting by steve zahn and mccaughnahey was passable, and that ratty bitch's acting was off the wall bad. It was still watchable though. Go see this expecting an action movie? You'll end up demanding a refund. Go see this as a comedy? You'll leave with a smile on your face. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2005 02:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 03:25 |
|
|
i forget the books i read them so long ago. i wanted a mindless timekiller while i was waiting for my friend to get home from work. this fit the bill. as stated above, this movie does not explore the boundrys of the action/adventure genre. it does have attractive people being chased but villians, saving people, and having fun and falling in love while doing it. i laughed, i enjoyed things going boom, i enjoyed the bad guys. i wish there was more william h macy. penelope should shut her mouth and just look pretty, listening to her stumble over english is irritating. i'm almost mad at myself for liking this movie, but it was good fun. 3.75/5
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2005 18:05
|
|