June 16, 2008
Sahara (2005)
Should I see it?
Absolutely not.
Absolutely not.
Short Review: They’ve started showing this film crashing planes so the passengers can look forward to the impact.
This film is based on Clive Cussler’s, one step above a pop-up-book, Dirk Pitt series. That connection to a book is the only literate element found in this film. I will be plain. This film is bad. It is horrid. It stinks to holy high-heaven and is a scourge against all sentient life on Earth.
Phew, it is foul.
This horrible flick is proof positive of nepotism and it makes me dry heave. It is good ol’ boy network crap like this that is killing the art form. This abomination is directed by Brett Eisner – Michael Eisner’s son. Yeah, that Michael Eisner - the Walt Disney Michael Eisner. Does anyone seriously believe Brett Eisner would be working if Michael wasn’t his pop? This is why I hate Hollywood. It is products like this that makes me consider wanting the good people of Earth to invade that den of morons and burn the industry to the ground. There are literally thousands of talented directors who would kill for a chance to prove themselves, and this son of privilege gets moved to the front of the line. It would be one thing if Brett were a talented man. They dropped millions to show he doesn’t know what he’s doing. Was all of this done to curry favor with his powerful daddy? Maybe he made this movie to get back at his father. I know I’d be ashamed if my kin belched out this putrid effort to the public.
I know that nepotism exists in all industries and the more powerful and wealthy the industry, the worse it becomes. It pains me to see it in the arts. The arts, even goofy arts like film, should try to remain committed to excellence…or at least try to give the appearance of it. Brett Eisner directing film - next thing you’ll tell me is that we’ll be asked to worship gangly hotel heiresses as sex goddesses…oh wait.
This production is cultural sludge and you should avoid it at all costs. It may look intriguing, but it will only make you dumber. You have been warned.
Related Reviews:
Penelope Cruz movies
Vanilla Sky (2001)
Gothika (2004)
Other Critic's Reviews:
FilmThreat
Ain't it Cool News
Labels: Delroy Lindo, film, Matthew McConaughey, movie review, Penelope Cruz, Steve Zahn, William H Macy
posted by Michelle Obama's Left Nut at 9:00 AM
Share
Previous Posts
Friends & Reads
Christian & Culture
Film Resources
Christian Sites
Faithcom
Featured On
Good News Film Reviews LLC 2004-2010 - used with permission
Images, video and titles are the property of their respective copyright holders. Good News Film Reviews LLC claims no ownership or connection to them.
The views expressed on this site are not the opinion of any advertiser or external entity.
While we take care to only link to responsible entities, Good News Film Reviews LLC takes no responsibility for the content linked from this site. There are sharks in the waters. Surf at your own risk.
The Template is generated via PsycHo and is Licensed.
8 Comments:
There is absolutely no basis for this uneducated review. SAHARA is a fine film adaptation of Clive Cussler's work. If you enjoy his books,you will enjoy this movie. If you are unfamiliar with Cussler,it is a good family fun adventure. There are so many bad films out there that deserve an asinine review like you have just read. SAHARA is FAR from being one of them.Besides, this guy isn't reviewing the film,he's reviewing families. A stupid review written by a clown. Somebody send him a dollar so he can buy a clue. And he hasn't the nerve,dignity or class to approve this response. And if he does, I would be surprised.
Now YOU have be warned.
"If you enjoy his books,you will enjoy this movie."
Very true. Then again if you enjoy this movie you will probably also enjoy Bob the Builder, Thomas the Train Engine and Sponge Bob.
This film is a slapped together, hack McMovie. The plot is lazy, and the direction is flat. I may be a clown and perhaps I don't even have a clue, but I know crap when I see it. Even a child can see this is junk.
Impressive you posted this. But that impression is soon diluted by your somewhat self righteous attitude about Eisner's family. OK,old news,you're a bitter grapes kind of guy.
The film is hardly "slapped' together. It was a streamlining of an over plotted and bloated novel by an author who doesn't understand the word "edit." If you are familiar with the novel, you would understand that the novel was "slapped together". The film finally made some sense of the
plot. A plot,which, in the book,had Abe Lincoln as a mummy !! The film brought the characters to life and are the perfect personification of Cussler's characters and a more then respectful treatment of Cussler's world,such as it is. And a great adventure,despite your pitiful opinion.
"Bob The Builder","Thomas the
Train",and "Sponge Bob". Gee, that's so witty,Scott.
You're right.You ARE a clown with no clue. But if you want real crap,you should be taking your-ahem-brilliant reviews to the latest Indiana Jones flick.
Now THAT"S crap !! Crap made by guys who know better. Aim your ill conceived poison pen at guys who really deserve it. Lucas,Spielberg and Ford. Those guys should all be ashamed of themselves. And so should you.
I post all negative comments as long as the commenter attaches a name to their missive. Its one thing to call me a jackass, its another to call me a jackass and remain anonymous.
There is a difference between a book and a film adapted from it. They are two separate mediums. The film is slapped together, heck you can see the paste and tape. The script may rework the narrative of the source material but it still doesn't sell. When its not predictable its simply irrational and silly. You're free to think as you please, but crap is crap. Now is it a sin to like crap? Nope. I have a number of films I enjoy that I know are utter trash.
You're 100% right about Indiana Jones, it is a cynical cash grab made by at least one genuine talent (Spielberg - not Lucas, Lucas is a horrible hack). They do indeed know better, but they also know enough to realize that the audience is so submissive that they'll cheer on any piece of trash they put out there. This film is of the same vein and is exactly the kind of film that is fouling our culture. It serves no function, and it promotes the laziest brand of film making. Its obviously does not intend to rise above its pulp roots and wastes the time of the audience.
In your first comment you say "If you enjoy his books,you will enjoy this movie." and in the second comment you explain how lousy the source material is. So is this to say that if someone is gullible enough to like a "over plotted and bloated novel by an author who doesn't understand the word "edit."" they're tastes are so thin they'd like this movie. Again, for the second time, I think we agree.
Now, where did I put those over sized shoes and my red nose? I know they're around here someplace.
"In your first comment you say "If you enjoy his books,you will enjoy this movie." and in the second comment you explain how lousy the source material is."
That's right. The film was an adaptation of the book which always needed editing. The film provided that and made the story more enjoyable.
"So is this to say that if someone is gullible enough to like a "over plotted and bloated novel by an author who doesn't understand the word "edit."" they're tastes are so thin they'd like this movie."
Oh come,Scott,that's a reach. Cussler was always an acquired taste.His earlier work was much better then his later stuff which,unfortunately,SAHARA is.
My statement stands. If you like Cussler's improbable novels,you will love the trimmed down,edited, and highly entertaining version of the story Cussler SHOULD have written.
" Again, for the second time, I think we agree."
I don't think so,Scott.
'Now, where did I put those over sized shoes and my red nose? I know they're around here someplace.'
Good, put them on and take a good long look in the mirror.
Remind yourself where your asinine reviews come from.
Welcome back.
I guess you're right, if you like pap nonsensical writing you'll love pap, nonsensical filmmaking.
You've already put in more thought defending this horrible movie than the filmmakers did in making it.
Your life is short, why would you ever waste any precious second with this stumbing, childish mess? It's a goofy, empty movie that offers nothing - including entertainment. Even as a thoughtless amusement ride it fails.
You're welcome to your opinion of the film. Just know you're standing in front of a dung heap and exclaiming the beauty of the scenery.
"Welcome back."
Yes, someone's got to liven up this crappy blog.
"I guess you're right, if you like pap nonsensical writing you'll love pap, nonsensical filmmaking."
Well, I must. I read your bad reviews.
"You've already put in more thought defending this horrible movie than the filmmakers did in making it."
That's a real knee slapper,Scott,think of it all by yourself ??
"Your life is short, why would you ever waste any precious second with this stumbing, childish mess?"
Movie review though Christian dogma.How quaint,banal AND droll.
"It's a goofy, empty movie that offers nothing - including entertainment."
Sez you.
But since you have no REAL idea what entertainment is,then your opinion means nothing. Actually, less.
"Even as a thoughtless amusement ride it fails."
Much like your wit.
"You're welcome to your opinion of the film."
Yes, I know. And it's a damn sight better then your uneducated one.
"Just know you're standing in front of a dung heap and exclaiming the beauty of the scenery."
Like you must every morning in the mirror.
Hey, what a treat! My favorite troll. Welcome back Nick.
First things first, you can't be "quaint" and "banal" at the same time. I don't think you can be "droll" and "banal" at the same time either. I think what you meant to say was that reviewing films through a Christian point-of-view is "simplistic, boring and unoriginal." I could be wrong, but before you respond please consult a dictionary or ask your daddy which words you should use. This, of course, assumes you know who the fellow is and that he can indeed read.
As to the rest of your comment, I like the last jab you tossed in. The rest is pedestrian stuff, but that last one gave me a smile. I guess I'm left wondering why you're here. Not here, as in my site. I know why you've come to my site, its a fantastic place to be and dang funny to boot. I've seen your site ComingSoon.net, not all that funny - basically a depository of rehashed publicity releases. I'm not knocking your site, it serves its purpose and seems to be doing well. But for something with a little more flavor, I understand why you stop in here. What I am wondering is why you came back to this post. You know we strongly disagree. You know insulting me over the disagreement doesn't change my mind, in fact it amuses me. Did you come back to see if I changed my opinion? What were you expecting to find?
Well, come back with any insults you'd like. I look forward to your next volley, I assume it will come in June or July of this year.
Post a Comment
<< Home