Sahara (2005)

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Plot; A doctor and an adventurer team up to try and save the world from being poisoned.Fun action sequences in a film like this are a bit like A1 sauce on your cheap steak; if there's enough of it, you won't notice how bad the meat is. Unfortunately the A1 sauce here doesn't arrive at the table until almost 40 minutes into the meal, and by then you've filled up on the day old dinner rolls.It doesn't help that the threat is undercooked to the point of being raw, and the generic villain is so stale you'll chip a tooth. A few more decent action scenes await, but by then you'll just be looking for your server so you can pay the check and go grab a pizza down the street.

I really don't like some of the negative reviews here. Words like "Literary work" and "Clive Cussler" really shouldn't be in the same sentence.Hey...chill...I love Clive Cussler, I honestly do. In fact I'll put him in the same league as Elmore Leonard and Louis L'Amour and I will put them in the same league as Dumas and Doyle.They all write pulp fiction, adventure, crime, mystery, horror, whatever, they all fall under the title "pulp" and I can admit that I eat them whole, without swallowing......and without the need to call them "Literary" in an effort to save face.I have the academic degrees somewhere in a box, the intellectual prowess, and a library with enough classics and heady works of history and philosophy to be able to openly display writers like Chris Claremont, Marv Wolfman, and Timothy Zane to not have to call his work "Literature." I will however call it "Adventure" I will call it "Fun" and what should be most important to any writer or film maker..."Entertaining." It doesn't have to follow the book. Jackie Brown was a far cry from Rum punch and they were both a lot of fun to watch and read.So Sahara isn't like the novel.It is an Action-Adventure-Comedy. That means it is everything that pulp should be, it is everything that movies should be...In fact it is the kind of film that the critics would have loved in the Golden Age of Hollywood.

Enjoyable for 10 to 16-y-olds? Yes. It has everything a modern American adventure should have. But the clichés! If someone likes that sort of thing, fine. However, armed helicopters that never shoot straight; multiple armed river gunboats that aren't worth a damn against the heroic antics of the supreme amateur heroes of the movie;bad guys in the desert that sound French (of course, I'm surprised they don't sound Serb...); Stupid Washington officials that never listen or care even when the info is devastating; Escapes that only work in Heaven and Hollywood over-budgeted extravaganzas; You name it, this piece of star-studded waste has it. Oh, and the film is about industrial waste...What a waste of good money...4 out of 10 because of the immature audiences out there. But, aren't they tired of the same fast-food again and again? Seems not...

Dumb. Initial plot was interesting, and there were one or two good action sequences, but that's it. Rest of the movie is incredibly crap. Random plot, far-fetched action, very stupid dialogue.The fact that Steve Zahn appears in this should be enough to tell you this is not going to be a good movie. He is clueless, and only gets crap movies. This is pretty much a standard role for Matthew McConaughey, before he started acting in serious movies.Penelope Cruz deserves better (though I didn't mind seeing her at all!). You feel sorry for her, having to recite incredibly dumb lines when you know she is capable of much better roles and performances.I enjoyed the Clive Cussler / Dirk Pitt books as a kid. This movie may have just put me off them.