MovieChat Forums > Sahara (1984) Discussion > Surprisingly not that bad

Surprisingly not that bad


Today i watched this movie for the very first time. Back in the 80's this movie never made it to my home town, I guess because of the poor critics, and that was a shame because i really wanted to watch it, I had such a big crush on Brooke Shields during the early 80's. I knew that the movie was probably just a lame excuse to expose her sex appeal and popularity, and there were probably little to none substance in the movie it self. After reading the reviews I thought that this was probably a horrible fiasco of a movie I still wanted to watch it, but like i said I was never able until today. What a surprise... the movie is indeed not a big deal at all, but by far boring, it was rather entertaining, I mean not every piece of cinema has to be a master piece, but as long it is entertaining it will be alright, and this one it is alright. The rating is 4 out of 10, my self out of watching it and enjoying it and being able to watch again young Brooke in her prime it is worth it. I would give it a 5 out of 10.

Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?

reply

I first saw it back in the 80s when I was like 10. I adored it. I had it on VHS and watched it over and over. I even grew up to learn Arabic and live in the Middle East. Though, only in part as an influence of this movie.

I saw it again for the first time yesterday. I still enjoyed it. It's like a live action romance novel.But it's incredibly cheesy and incredibly ridiculous in some ways.

If you can't walk and talk/text at the same time, do the rest of us a favor and get out of the way.

reply

[deleted]

I don't have the DVD. But it is on Netflix.

If you can't walk and talk/text at the same time, do the rest of us a favor and get out of the way.

reply

[deleted]

From what I remember, there isn't an explicit sex scene. They "make love" on their wedding night. It's all PG stuff. You don't see much of either body. You know he's shirtless, but the camera doesn't spend a whole lot of time on either body.

If you can't walk and talk/text at the same time, do the rest of us a favor and get out of the way.

reply

[deleted]

You can fully see through her shirt when she takes her jacket off and goes for a dip in the waterfall.

reply

I paid money to see this in 1983. The doctors say I should be OK soon. But seriously, this was one of the Go-Glo boys biggest clunkers. Set between the wars, they have someone driving a Saab. This Swedish aircraft maker didn't build it's first car until 1948, and it was a three cylinder two stroke economy car.

reply

Brooke Shields was the Jessica Alba of her day - great looks, horrible screen presence. It didn't help that she was front and center throughout the whole thing. The script didn't help much ("Eat them my devils!" Really?) Until the end it didn't really count as much of an action movie, and the best scene, the cats in the cave sequence, just highlighted her ineptitude. Lambert Wilson did make a better match than Christopher Atkins.

I'm not surprised the critics tore into it at the time. It's obviously a vehicle designed for Shields and was meant to sell her as an action heroine.

reply

I seem to recall it being kind of a ho-hum film. I also seem to recall the critics blasting it for its cost and some of the ridiculous anecdotes that came from the shoot (the Bedouin offering to buy Brooke by offering a half dozen camels or something like that). I saw it on HBO and shrugged at it. It wasn't good, but it wasn't terribly horrible.

reply