This is the first time I have ever taken the time to write a review for a movie, and I'm doing it with good reason...
In the mid 70's Clive Cussler began writing a series of adventure books cast with a hero of a slightly different mold. Thus was born Dirk Pitt, a man who is equally at home with the exotic locals and socialite women of a James Bond adventure as he is downing some beers with his Joe-six pack friends. The number of Dirk Pitt novels I've read over the years is short of the 18 the author has published thus far, I'm a casual fan--not a fanatic. If you've never read them, take a look at the early novels as they are all truly great fiction. Later in Cussler's career he was let loose on his creation, and editing was thrown out the window. The recent books suffer from it, a fate many other popular authors share these days. In 1992 Cussler published Sahara, the novel upon which Paramount Pictures has based their new film.
Coming in at just over two hours, Sahara is a well paced, well directed adventure film. It takes its time to tell the story and doesn't over-bloat with too many action scenes. And the action it has is always fun and believable. It doesn't have much in common with Indiana Jones as some would have you believe (Spielberg didn't invent the treasure hunt), and that's a good thing as Sahara is its own movie. And it ignores the James Bond overtones of the books, also a good decision. For Cussler fans it is more faithful than 90% of other book-to-film adaptations, and certainly more faithful than the novel has any right to be. The title sequence shows the sign of a shrewd director, carefully acknowledging the books for fans while establishing our characters in seconds for new audiences. The chemestry between McConaughey and Zahn is some of the best in recent film history. Cruze is far more believable as a beautiful scientist than say, Denise Richards. And the supporting cast all carry their weight (especially Macy, an actor who is usually cast in undefined roles that could be played by anyone, but here he is spot on).
The story is more realistic than some reviewers give credit. I've read complaints that the solar plant in the film couldn't have been there unnoticed. While I could believe that almost anything can be hidden in the middle of the Sahara, the fact is they never claimed it was hidden. Maybe some reviewers should pay attention to a film before making idiotic remarks.
The film isn't perfect, it could use a greater sense of peril, and early on I noticed a few awkward cuts--probably made to help the pace. There is one aspect of the book I wish had been kept in the film regarding our nations president, but it was hardly vital to the story and one of the more outraegous aspects of the novel. The biggest problem I have is the soundtrack, there is way to much rock in the film. What score it has is good, but I would have prefered that it fill the movie. The rock that is there is also wholly inappropriate (Sweet Home Alabama while cruising the Niger River?), and hurts the movie by altering the tone it should have.
But when all is said and done Sahara is still better than National Treasure, The Mummy movies, the tomb raider movies, or any of the last three james bond movies. The best way to view it is as a "Dr. No", a good movie that could be the start of some great ones. To date, the production company that made Sahara has optioned two other Cussler books. Inca Gold, which would make a great treasure hunt movie. And Night Probe!, a good political thriller/adventure and features one of the greatest character cameos of all time...
. I can only hope that movie goers will ignore the stupid advertising that tries to make the movie look like some Divinci Code clone, or the reviews which largely ignore the intent of the movie. If you see a movie thats a comedy but you wanted a romance, don't fault it for being funny. Sahara succeeds on nearly every level it was intended to, and became a pretty good film in the process.
***1/2
