Was that film really that bad??? Sahara (2005)

After the really, really bad experience from the filming of Raise the Titanic, it took over twenty five years before another attempt was made to adapt a Clive Cussler novel for the silver screen. Sahara, published in 1992, was the book chosen and it was given a fairly hefty budget of $160 million ($211m in 2020). It ended up being one of the biggest box-office bombs of all time. I loved it when I first saw it and despite its reputation of being a stinker, wanted to give it a re-watch to see if my opinion then still holds today.

The poster does not lack for confidence.

As a big-budget action adventure comedy movie, there is a suitably starry cast, with Matthew McConaughey playing Dirk Pitt, Steve Zahn as Al Giordino (already, this film is much closer to Cussler’s novel than Raise the Titanic ever was), Penelope Cruz as World Health Organisation Dr Eva Rojas, William H. Macy as Admiral James Sandecker and Rainn Wilson as Rudy Gunn. The bad guys are played by Lambert Wilson, as corrupt businessman Yves Massarde, and Lennie James as General Zateb Kazim. We also get the ever great Delroy Lindo as US government agent, Carl.

This is not a comment on actors and film production...

The plot is pretty straight forward. NUMA are in Mali recovering sunken treasures for museum display whilst Rojas is there investigating a new disease that is threatening the population. When Pitt saves Rojas from an attack whilst at the same time learning of tales of a missing Confederate ironclad, he and Giordino agree to transport Rojas and her colleague so that they can investigate the source of the disease and the two adventurers can look for the legendary ship. Along the way, they discover that Massarde is using a solar tower to burn toxic waste which is causing the disease and is in cahoots with General Kazim, who is running his own little civil war against the Taureg. Along the way, Pitt and Giordino discover the Confederate ironclad which they use in a rather silly way to kill Kazim, thus ending the civil war. Massarde gets his comeuppance and Pitt, Giordino and NUMA carry on with hints that there are more adventures to come. Except there won’t be, but I’ll get to that.

At heart, Sahara is a big dumb action movie that wants you to like it. Starting off with a breezy credits scene set to “Right Place, Wrong Time” by Dr John that details the pair’s previous adventures, you know straight away that it’s going to be ever so slightly goofy, and indeed, that is what it is. Despite the peril set up by the world threatening pollution caused by Massarde’s industrial plant, you never get the feeling our heroes are really in any danger – and yes, that includes the land yacht scene. Even typing that brings a smile to my face as I really do love this film. So why did it bomb and why so hard?

Making the best of a plane crash - again, no comment on movie production...

$160m was a lot of money back then (it’s not exactly small change now!) and it would have taken a breakout box office performance to justify a sequel. Truth is, they spent a lot of money making this film when they could, and perhaps should, have spent an awful lot less. There was money spent on scenes that were not included in the finished run time, as well as money wasted on numerous scriptwriters (each one adding about half a mil to the production budget) as Cussler, who had been promised final say on script, actors etc, becoming more aggravated at the direction of the film. In the end, he disowned it for not getting his own way - but in my humble opinion, he'd been paid well, had the promise of future films getting him $10m per movie and should have just left it at that. But hey ho... 

After gaining the whiff of failure from its first weekend's box office, Sahara couldn’t cover its budget or its distribution costs, leading to a loss of about $73m (although some sources go up to $105m). That’s when the lawsuits started, with Cussler and the production company spending the next seven (yes, seven!) years accusing each other of bad faith and each side claiming damages. Needless to say, neither side came out smelling of roses. 

So, the re-watch. Yes, I still love this film. It’s a goofy, silly, funny two hours of action. However, I did notice the flaws a bit more this time. Let’s start with the casting.

McConaughey is great as Pitt, confident and self-assured, quick with a quip and handy with the physicality the role requires. Unlike the previous occupant in the role, McConaughey’s enthusiasm for the role shines on the screen. Zahn is good as Giordino, that can’t be denied, and he nails the comedy sidekick vibe throughout the film whilst also appearing serious when he needs to be. He’s further away from his literary counterpart than Pitt is, but that makes no difference on-screen. The pair gel well and are a hoot together.

Macy as Sandecker is further away from the original book character but the film moves him from a desk job and into actual command of NUMA’s sole ship, so the change in character does work as far as the film goes. Wilson is also good as Gunn, though to be honest, he’s not given that much to do. Cruz gives it her best, but has little chemistry with McConaughey and is basically there to be rescued, whereas Lindo’s screen time is limited but what he does get, he serves it up with a twinkle in his eye.

It is the antagonists that are the most poorly drawn. If you’re going to have an action comedy then you need the foils to your heroes to be lively and able to spark off against them. Instead, two great actors are left in the lurch, Lambert being suitably slimy and sleazy as Massarde but also extremely two dimensional, whereas James is frankly wasted as Kazim, being more pantomime than military psychopath. For this, I am placing the blame on Breck Eisner, the director. This was only his second film gig (outside of his thesis) and his follow up film work has been suitably lacklustre. This film has its moments, to be sure, but there is a lack of spirit and style. I never really noticed it before - McConaughey's sheer presence does hide most of it - but when Pitt is not on screen, there is an almost visible sag in the film. This continues with the action scenes, lacking as they are a certain pzazz and that is the fault of the director. To the film’s credit, there is a lack of CGI that is a refreshing change, but also bumped up the cost.

See, some people were happy with the movie...

Overall, I still think Sahara is a great film and you’d do far worse than to give it two hours of your time. It’s not ground breaking, or part of a cinematic franchise that the producers so wanted to create (there was even a third person action video game that I remember being featured in Edge magazine 137 but alas, the failure of the film put paid to it ever being finished), but that shouldn’t take away from the fact that it’s entertaining and just plain fun. Where it fell down was in spending far too much money for this kind of movie, and it lacks a lot of spectacle that $160m should buy. Then again, even if the film had cost a more reasonable (for the period) $100m, it would still have turned a loss, though nowhere near as big as it actually did. As it stands, it’s both an example of profligate spending scuppering box office success and a fantastic popcorn movie.