I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

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

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

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.

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.

In the last days of the American Civil War, Confederate ironclad CSS Texas escape from Richmond with a treasure of wealth. In the present, WHO Dr. Eva Rojas (Penélope Cruz) is investigating a mysterious disease in west Africa. She is attacked and rescued by Dirk Pitt (Matthew McConaughey). He's a diving expert on a treasure hunt with his wacky sidekick Al Giordino (Steve Zahn). Admiral Jim Sandecker (William H. Macy) is the boss. Pitt believes that CSS Texas made it to the Niger river and Sandecker gives him with Giordino and Rudi Gunn (Rainn Wilson) 72 hours to investigate. Rojas and Dr. Hopper hitch a ride to Mali to investigate a possible outbreak.The Confederate ironclad idea is preposterous. The story is impossible. The plot is silly and full of convenient coincidences. The action is beyond ridiculous. The super evil secret base is worthy of a 007 movie. Yet the movie kind of works. I really like McConaughey as the lead. Zahn is fun. They are a breezy duo. Cruz is lovely. They are a great cast even in this meaningless dumb action adventure.

First of all, let me say that I have never even heard of the book that 'Sahara' is based on. I have no idea how accurate the film is, or whether the actors portraying the characters are doing a good job. In fact, I've never even heard of the author of these - apparently famous - books (sometimes, I wonder whether I've actually read anything other than 'Mr Man' books).However, apparently I'm in a minority, because whatever books Sahara is based on are actually pretty famous. And that's where the problem lies. According to (almost) everyone who has read the book and then went on to see the film, the film bears no resemblance to the source material and it a total poke-in-the-eye of the book that so many love.Hence Sahara got one hell of a rough ride when it was released. The producers made no secret about the fact that they were hoping for a success to then go and green-light the many sequels. But that's never going to happen now.But, as I've already said, I haven't read the books, so I'm basing my judgement on the film through and through. And I rather liked it. Yes, it's not that complex. Goodies and baddies are easily defined and the hero saved the planet, gets the girl and finds some treasure for good measure. But it's a family film, so why shouldn't good come through in the end? Many people draw comparisons with the Indiana Jones movies. No, Sahara will never be as good as an 'Indy' outing, but it's in the same mould of rip-roaring adventures (think more 'The Mummy' but with no supernatural element).If you want deep narrative structure and excellent character developments then look elsewhere. However, if you want a fun popcorn movie to watch with the kids on a Saturday afternoon, then give Dirk Pitt a go (and never open one of the books it's based on... ever).