Newsfeed
Printer-Friendly ModeMcConaughey disappoints again in expensive Sahara
April 25, 2005 —
How does Matthew McConaughey keep getting movies? The rugged Texan, anointed as the next major film star, has delivered underperforming performances in lackluster movies that often fail to break even. From Reign of Fire to EdTV, McConaughey has failed to catch moviegoers' attention for most of his career.
His newest film, Sahara, treads down the same path that many of his movies have walked down. Loosely adapted from a Clive Cussler novel of the same name, McConaughey plays Dirk Pitt, a cocksure former Navy SEAL turned adventurer. Pitt is the protagonist in over a dozen Cussler books, but McConaughey doesn't exhibit many classic heroic traits. His character seems so over-the-top that he's not believable whatsoever, and he consistently reminds you that a movie is taking place - the last thing a movie should do.
The $100 million plus flick has a storyline that teeters between the incomprehensible and the laughable. Shot in the sandy confines of Morocco, Sahara does capture the atmosphere of Africa, bringing to the screen a glimpse of the chaotic life of the region. I'm always fairly skeptical of big-screen adaptations of thriller novels, as a movie rarely does justice to the book. Having never read the novel, I can safely guess that Sahara would disappoint its literary cousin.
Without giving away much of the plot, Sahara revolves around a mysterious Confederate clipper that may have ended up in the Sahara Desert. Along with this alleged historical incident, a mysterious illness seems to be spreading across Western Africa. The plot never truly gets off the ground in terms of development, but to be fair, a gripping narrative is not the reason this film was made - this film was made for action.
Sadly, the film displays action scenes that are so overblown that they brought several members of the audience to laughter - although it was quite clear the occasion wasn't intended to be funny. The special effects are quite impressive - especially a fight scene high above the Sahara - but all these special effects amount to little more than lipstick on a pig.
Besides the storyline, Sahara also has some underlying themes to it. It serves as a criticism of using the developing world as a dumping ground for industrialized nations' problems, through a rather ingenious and insidious plot. This is probably the strongest portion of the movie, as it serves as a valid criticism of the exploitation of the developing world. Unfortunately, this is underutilized, and the movie devotes only a small portion of its two hours to this idea.
The most ridiculous part of the movie has got to be its soundtrack. Listening to the movie, you would think it was 1976, and Grand Funk Railroad was still chugging strongly. A movie soundtrack is meant to complement the scene, not serve as a distraction from the action, but Sahara's music selection is simply... wrong. The music itself isn't bad if you like classic rock, but somehow, I don't think Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Sweet Home Alabama" was meant to be played in the middle of the Sahara Desert.
Overall, even if you like popcorn flicks that don't require much thinking, stay away from Sahara. Flashy special effects and good cinematography do not manage to keep this movie's head above the sand.
Avoid this one unless you have a thing for the movie's co-star, Penelope Cruz, but remember that she doesn't have a very large role.