He had a small part in a 1996 film, Lonestar, in which he convinced me he could really act. I also thought he did a good job in Tropic Thunder. This part seems to be cast in the mold of that character.

I actually thought he did an excellent job in "Sahara". He also was a producer and took that job seriously. It was a box office dud, due to a law suit and the author lying about how many copies of his book were sold and then trying to sabotage the release. I did a cinematography study on scenes from this movie and learned quite alot. Plus its just a fun movie. My dad and I watch it when ever we can get the chance. McConaughey can act, we know that; alot of it has just to due with the source material and filming experience. Thats why its a hidden jem, but is disregarded due to the public's tunnel vision view. Lawsuit +box-office numbers+ (critic) one man's opinion= dud. That equation doesn't factor: Passion, Filming Experience, Achievement, working relationships, and even viewer's enjoyment. Matthew was very much in love with this role and making a fun movie and think he pulled it off.

@Rick: The lawsuit had nothing to do with people not seeing Sahara. The movie was no good… that's the reason it didn't do well. The lawsuit was hardly talked about until it went to trial in 2007. The film was released in 2005.

I also find it so strange you argue for that film with such conviction. Did you really buy Cruz as a neurologist?

Of course Cruz wasn't believeable, but look at the kind of movie it is: an adventure. They're never believeable
And as an adventure it wasn't even all that bad. Quite entertaining I thought.
It's just the kind of thing where an actor can't really show of many acting skills.

And he can act. In Tropic Thunder he really put down the right character, it fitted perfectly and indeed in A Time to Kill he was really good as well. It wouldn't have been such a great movie if he had given a poor performance in such a key role.

@rattler76: An actor should NEVER show off acting skills. If you see them acting, you're seeing a poor performance. Good acting is believability and authenticity. It can be tragic, or funny, or absurd, or realistic, or over the top, it can even be almost still, but the question to ask is: Does it feel real?

Not being an actor myself, I can't begin to fathom how an actor plumbs his/her inner depths to bring emotional and physical life to his/her roles. But it has to be there, adventure story or not. "Raiders of the Lost Ark": Does Harrison Ford become Indiana Jones and make him seem like a real person? Yes.

@Brad Brevet: Not really, thats just the way I talk probably. No of course Cruz is not a neurologist. They also find the ship randomly. rattler is right. Its just a movie. And I like it because I have fond memories of watching it with my dad. To me its fun, witty, and I connected with the characters the whole time. I didn't drift midway and go "what do I have to do today?"

By lawsuit I was just summing it up kinda. They did advertise it as if you already heard of it. Or at least thats the impression I got.

Didn't one of you guys write an article about movies having a range rather than a rating. To one it could be a bad movie but another could really like it. But neither are wrong. The Ebert article kinda says the same thing. I could be wrong.

Boy, I've been reading this website for a long time. I never thought the first time I would make a comment I'd get the owner responding to me. hahaha Sorry I didn't agree with you Brad. But at-least you made me finally use the comment box.

Actually I remember there being conflict with the author and something about a lawsuit closer to its release. I remember talking about it with my Dad when I found out its box office stats. somewhere we heard a comment about it then. I figured it was public knowledge.

@rick: I totally agree you can like it and I can't, that wasn't the source of my confusion. You were just arguing with such conviction it had me baffled. To each their own, but it was a film that I just didn't mesh with.

As for the lawsuit, the first time I think I heard about it was February 2007 when I did a post on it. I did a little look-see when you posted your comment and it looks like Cussler made a stink about it around 2004 or so, but I guess I was in the dark.

Glad you added your voice to the comments. Hope I didn't scare you away from commenting in the future! :)