So, I bought “Sahara” today, and after a nice dinner, me and my sister watched it. Frankly, my expectations were kinda low, because my only knowledge of this film came from a trailer I watched a month a go or so, and in my experience, these kinds of action-adventures often turns out to be disappointments the size of Uranus. Not this one.
Dirk and Al are buddies, and they’ve been together, like, forever — from kindergarden, through college, and the Navy. Today, they work with a gang of marine archaeologists, slavaging wrecks and other old stuff from under water. When the film begins, they are working off the coast of Nigeria, when Dirk gets a tip about an old Confederate ironclad he’s been searching for, and, after saving the life of Eva, he and his pal Al sets off up the Niger, into Mali. Eva, who is a doctor with the WHO, is investigating a potential plague outbreak in the region, and accompanies them into Mali, as all evidence points toward this country. But Mali’s despot, General Zatib Kazim, and his associate, the businessman Yves Massarde (played by the same guy who did “The Merovingian” of “The Matrix” movies), isn’t too interesting in the WHO team coming into his coutry, and sends out some patrols to stop them, and our heroes must run into the Sahara to escape. And in the Sahara, the hunt(s) continue
(Wow, my first attempt at a kind of plot introduction! :o)
“Sahara” is based on a novel by Clive Cussler, and I got the feeling it benefitted from it. The suspense of the movie is at times (most of the time, actually) extremely well created, and in spite of a couple of plot holes (which are minor), I found the plot to be amazing. It starts out kinda small and innocently, but as it goes on, it evolves, and it expands, until there are some three or four main plot threads. And unlike most films with so many, this one actually manages to keep focus, and solve them all. The summary-like ending was perhaps a little strained, but it idn’t bother me much; a long, winded closing after the spectacular action climax, could have been too much.
But it’s the characters that carry the film — and this is saying something, seeing as this plot would have carried a film with a hell of a lot weaker characters, all by itself. In particular, the chemistry between Dirk (McConaughey) and Al (Zahn) is astonishing to watch; they behave just as old friends do, bickering and sniping at each other in good humour, even in the most strained of situations. Eva (Cruz) pales somewhat in comparison (as does Dirk when compared to Al; Al might be one of the best comic sidekicks I’ve ever seen, and Zahn’s facial expressions are a thrill to watch). but she is none the less well portrayed. Not too dependent on the Heroes, but not too independent of them, either. But even the fact that she hardly even screams at all, and that she takes care of herself and shows initiative in face of danger, pleases me, seeing as the standard in these kinds of films is to have the women as helpless and passive as possible; they’re usually there to be rescued, kissed and fucked, and movies that break with that misogynist trope, always get standing ovations from me. ( “But “politics” in fiction is not just about using a backdrop of war or atrocity or city dynamics at the macro level to explore questions that affect us in a longer-term, broad way. It is also about understanding that all people are political in some way, even those who seem apathetic, because politics is about gender, society, and culture. Every aspect of our lives is in some way political. So if we don’t, at some point during our writing, think about this consciously — if we simply trust our instincts as writers — we may unintentionally preserve cliché, stereotype, and prejudice.” ~ Jeff VanderMeer.)
All in all, an amazingly entertaining action adventure, which I’ll rate as a 7.5/10. Absolutely worth the NOK 99,- I paid for it, even though I admit that my grading of it might be boosted somewhat by it not disappointing me.

Posts
All in all, an amazingly entertaining action adventure, which I’ll rate as a 7.5/10. Absolutely worth the NOK 99,- I paid for it, even though I admit that my grading of it might be boosted somewhat by it not disappointing me.
I’d give it a 5/10, even though I admit that my grading of itt might be lowered somewhat by it not disappointing me.
(EDIT by Terje: It’s annoying when one hits U or O instead of I, so I edited this one slightly.
)
24. November 2006 @ 10:56 ( Permalink )
Why?
24. November 2006 @ 12:53 ( Permalink )
“this plot would have carried a film with a hell of a lot weaker characters, all by itself”
Her er jeg totalt uenig: det er karakterenes samspill som gjør at ganske mange scener ikke blir alt for lange, spesielt forholdet mellom Dirk og Al når de krangler som et gammelt ektepar
Plottet er ikke SÅ bra på egenhånd… Jeg tror denne ville fått et preg av “hva-het-nå-den-dumme-og-kjedelige-filmen-med-andy-mc-etwas-i-hovedrollen-der-viggo-motensen-er-the-bad-guy-igjen??” (Du vet, den om mangebarnsmora som drar rundt for å finne sin “døde” make og finner ut at han er en skurk.) dersom skuespillerne hadde vært en nyanse verre.
Men jeg er enig i at det er utrolig hva lave forventninger kan gjøre for en filmopplevelse
(Det er utrolig hvor frustrerende dagen blir når det man gjør er å ramse opp en hel mengde konvensjoner som beskriver en gren av romansjangeren (the gothic novel), og forsøker å gi det et snev av vitenskapelig preg… Hvordan analyserer man egentlig verker fra 1700-tallet “med fokus på transtekstualitet og sjangerdannelse” på en god måte?? )
24. November 2006 @ 17:00 ( Permalink )
“Her er jeg totalt uenig: det er karakterenes samspill som gjør at ganske mange scener ikke blir alt for lange, spesielt forholdet mellom Dirk og Al når de krangler som et gammelt ektepar Plottet er ikke SÅ bra på egenhånd… Jeg tror denne ville fått et preg av “hva-het-nå-den-dumme-og-kjedelige-filmen-med-andy-mc-etwas-i-hovedrollen-der-viggo-motensen-er-the-bad-guy-igjen??” (Du vet, den om mangebarnsmora som drar rundt for å finne sin “døde” make og finner ut at han er en skurk.) dersom skuespillerne hadde vært en nyanse verre.”
And here it is my turn to disagree totally with you. The plot of “Ruby Cairo” was so narrowminded, and so boring, that there’s no way in hell “Sahara” could have descended to its level, even had the chemistry between Al and Dirk been less awesome. I mean, there the whole focus was on her emotions and her relationship with her husband, when it should have dealt with his ugly business in smuggling chemical and biological weapons to despotic governments. Here, on the other hand, the focus was on fun action, and a plot which had at least some substance, if not much. Sure, it had quite some holes in it, but those were minor — like how they knew where to go all the time, and how they got from one place to another — and can in no way be compared to the horrendous badness that is “Ruby Cairo”.
I mean, the way it started out as nothing but a treaure hunt, and then turned into a (weakly executed, I’ll admit) “The Fugitive” (although in Africa, with less drama, and more fun) or somesuch, with the faith of the world in the balance and stuff, I found to be so smoothly done, that I think it could have been at least a 5.0 even if the Dirk-Al chemistry was gone or had been less dominant. I also liked the way both of the male main characters shifted their prioritising the second they got to know about the poison in the river and the potential plague; the lack of any complaining about “the gold” Oh, but the gold!” was relieving.
But sure, it could have been done better, but it could also have been a hell of a lot worse. And I don’t think that a rating which is the approximate equivalent of a strong 4 on a die is unappropriate. It’s sure as hell more than a 3, which is what Lotta gave it…
24. November 2006 @ 17:44 ( Permalink )
Note: I reconsidered my rating of this, taking into consideration other films I’ve seen lately, how I’ve ranked those, and whether I liked them better or worse than this one, and while doing so realised that this isn’t more than a 6.0. Sure, if I were using dice, I’d probably given it a 4/6, but what’s the point in using this nice 0-10 scale if I’m not gonna use it to distinguish between the sixes and the sevens?
28. November 2006 @ 14:47 ( Permalink )