ROTTEN TOMATOES: Novelist and Producer Point Fingers in Court; Whose Fault Was "Sahara?" Comments

Novelist and Producer Point Fingers in Court; Whose Fault Was "Sahara?"

by Jen Yamato | February 05, 2007

Summary

Accusations are flying between author Clive Cussler and producer Philip Anschutz over who's to blame for the 2005 adventure stinker, "Sahara," which cost an estimated $130 million to produce and brought in under $70 million at the box office. Back to Article

(1-15 of 15 posts) | Reply

lonechicken writes:
on Feb 05 2007 11:39 AM

How about not releasing an expensive movie in April? Not that spring movies can't be huge hits. But aren't the odds better if a movie budgetted to be a blockbuster, regardless of reviews, be better served to be released in May through early August or November through December?

(Reply to this)

lrm8 writes:
on Feb 05 2007 11:58 AM

i completely agree. i remember watching this movie the day before i took my MCATs. i was looking for something to take my mind off of the big test i had the day after and Sahara succeeded in doing that because it made me think about how idiotic hollywood was to release a big budget crappy action movie in the beginning of april... i cant remember a single funny line or a memorable action shot or anything really from the movie. all i remember is some big shiny stuff at the end and some chemical company in africa.

who to blame? the screenwriters, director, and company that greenlighted this project. sometimes hollywood is so dumb it is mindboggling.

(Reply to this)

kenny356 writes:
on Feb 05 2007 02:39 PM

My problem is it is so different from the book that it isn't funny. The Giorodino character isn't the comedic sidekick, he is the muscle. And they left out the entire Abe Lincoln plotline.

(Reply to this)

GreenBastard writes:
on Feb 05 2007 04:10 PM

Yep I agree, the book is so different it's not even close. The movie was a joke and it missed about 80% of what was in the book and how do you go from a short ball of Italian mussle (Gorodino) to Steve Zahn. Obviously they were trying to make it funny but failed.
I was excited when the movie came out because the book was so huge but they shat all over the book with this gay-ass movie.
I hope Clive Cussler sues the ass off these complete tools!
It's the second time it's happened to the poor Bastard!

(Reply to this)

WileyMan writes:
on Feb 05 2007 07:31 PM

I actually liked this movie and thought the changes from the book made a lot of sense. Clive Cussler's books are fun to read but are pretty implausable. I felt the filmmakers' found a nice balance of adventure and comedy. Clive needs to stop whining and go back to writing another one of his enteraining but average adventure books. Leave the filmmaking to the filmmakers.

(Reply to this)

MC. writes:
on Feb 06 2007 12:20 AM

The poor choice of lead actor gave it no hope from the outset.

(Reply to this)

ArmyofJuan writes:
on Feb 06 2007 01:06 AM

In reply to this comment (#854832)
Of corse the stuff in his books are implausable! They're fictional books! They are ment to excite the reader with new impossible odds!

It's really not that hard to replicate it onto film.

(Reply to this)

fizzypulp writes:
on Feb 06 2007 01:47 AM

hell...the movie wasnt that bad!

(Reply to this)

karle writes:
on Feb 06 2007 07:15 AM

In reply to this comment (#854832)
I loved this movie. I know it didn't follow the book exactly, but that's to be expected. This was one of the few Dirk Pitt novels I hadn't read yet. When I saw the movie coming out, I deliberately didn't read the book in advance. So, when I saw it I didn't see it for what was cut out but for what it was. It looked and felt like your typical Dirk Pitt story, which is what I enjoyed. Afterwards I read the book and found all the major changes and basically got two good stories out of it.

(Reply to this)

Curt writes:
on Feb 06 2007 07:16 AM

[b]Not that bad?[/b]
Ummmmm...yeah it was.

I suppose it depends upon the metrics applied. Compared to the likes of Indiana Jones, it was lousy. Terrible dialogue. Terrible plot. Terrible bore. Bad casting. (Nothing against any of the cast members, but they were fish outta water...)

I'm glad I waited to rent this one.

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Feb 06 2007 08:09 AM

In reply to this comment (#854837)
Compared to Indiana Jones every movie is lousy. Never having read the books I'm not prone to picking apart the changes, but I thought this was a fun summer movie and the cast was enjoyable. Comparing action adventure movies against Indiana Jones is silly and unfair though. That's like saying compared to the Godfather the Departed was just OK of course if you're going to compare to the best of the Genre all movies are going to suck.

(Reply to this)

Praz writes:
on Feb 06 2007 09:10 AM

So what I take from this article is that Crusader Entertainment is stupid, and should've probably checked some numbers before taking Cussler at his word. Anyways, this movie was obviously released for the sole purpose of cashing in on the Dan Brown craze.

(Reply to this)

bubbaburnstine writes:
on Feb 06 2007 04:21 PM

It's my favorite Cussler book and they ruined it by getting rid of almost every important plotline

(Reply to this)

arcadefire325 writes:
on Feb 07 2007 11:38 AM

terrible movie. i hate these type of movies.

(Reply to this)

mic19671967 writes:
on Jun 14 2008 07:39 AM

I like this movie. I like the interaction between the characters Dirk and Al. As long as you take it as a fun adventure, but not a movie that blows you away.
I don't understand why it cost so much to make this movie.

(Reply to this)