My husband left so I was going to change the channel, but started watching it and I was surprised that I actually enjoyed watching it. Got on Internet to see cast listing and was surprised again at the bad reviews. It isn't the best movie, but I liked it and it kept my attention. I'm not a big fan of Matthew M., but he was okay and didn't act like God's gift so much in this movie. Unexpected enjoyable movie for a Saturday afternoon.

"Sahara" directed by Breck Eisner's dream of a Hollywood Movie of his own coming true, getting all the goods from Producer Mace Neufeld, a closer friend of his father's Michael Eisner, former Walt Disney CEO (1984-2005), engaging quite a cast from Matthew McConaughey to Penélope Cruz over Steve Zahn to William H. Macy and Delroy Lindo to follow anticipating times of another "Indiana Jones" movie to be released in Spring 2005 to an extent of throwing the script overboard and enjoy the ride over eye-popping action, slapstick ingredients and a romance between the two leads that could not fool the U.S. audience to let the movie become a smash hit with an 130 Million U.S. Dollar production budget and 65 Million U.S. Dollars in domestic revenue; too loose have been tight all the knots of the screenplay together by the end of it that I am surprised that even after a review 12 and a 1/2 year later, we still can have such an entertaining "Sahara" time with so much non-sense at once on our hands.© 2017 Felix Alexander Dausend (Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC)

The opening Civil War battle scene alone is worth the price of admission. Then you sprinkle the movie with the irrepressible Matthew McConaughey, the smoldering and incredibly sexy Penélope Cruz, and the always entertaining Steve Zahn and you've the makings of something that could turn out quite well. Add an exciting and fun screenplay and you've got yourself a winner. I enjoyed this film immensely and have over the years put the CD (now Blu-ray disc) into the ole player sat back and had a bit of relaxed fun and even after the first and second watch excitement as well. This film is highly underrated and I hope with CD and Blu-ray sales it made some money because it simply deserved it. I wonder why the production budget was so high and am quite interested in trying to glean that bit of a puzzle out when the time presents itself. I loved the film and I think you might as well! I just performed some cursory research on why it cost over 200 million to produce and distribute Sahara. Here are just two I found and for the most part are just a cut and paste:1) About 1,000 cast and crew members worked on "Sahara." The highest- paid was McConaughey, who received an $8-million fee, or $615,385 for each week of filming, not including bonuses and other compensation. Lovely Penelope Cruz earned $1.6 million (deserved every penny of it). Whereas Rainn Wilson, who since has raised his profile through roles in "Six Feet Under" and "The Office," was paid $45,000 for 10 weeks of work.2) Ten screenwriters were paid almost $4 million in fees and bonuses — highlighting the increasingly common practice of hiring and firing numerous writers on big-budget features.Clearly these two items were not the cause for 160 million in production costs (and we're not even counting distribution costs, about another 90 million) so what did happen? It's almost like the organized crime produced this movie! I refuse to give a 10 to a movie that produced a huge loss for no apparent reason!

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).