Home : Movies, Matthew McConaughey : Did Snobby "Sahara" Stars Sandbag Movie Budget?

Did Snobby "Sahara" Stars Sandbag Movie Budget?

Posted Apr 15th 2007 3:12AM by TMZ Staff

We all know beauty isn't cheap -- but looking as good as Matthew McConaughey and Penelope Cruz costs a bloody fortune!
Penelope and Matt
According to a special report from Glenn Bunting of the Los Angeles Times, the people behind the legally troubled 2005 movie, "Sahara," shelled out more than $350,000 to keep the actors fit, fed and and fabulous -- leaving the film's budget, well, in the dust.

In the report, set to be published tomorrow, Bunting claims he has obtained official documents verifying the outrageous expenditures, which include:

Penelope's hairstylist -- $135,550
Penelope's dialogue coach -- $125,804
Matt's Personal trainer -- $67,977
Matt's Personal Chef -- $48,893

With costs like these, it's no wonder the film reportedly needed a colossal $130 million budget!

Comments [80]
SHARE |
4ie6

Reader Comments

(Page 1 of 6) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

1. I've never particularly liked either of these actors. Matthew is far too greasy, unkempt and smelly looking, and this completely repulses me. Penelope isn't a classic beauty, and I don't care if she dated Tom Cruise. I've seen them in movies, and I never found any of their characters likable and it was always the other actors that have always kept me continuing to watch the movie. It's sad that the movie went under, but even the investors for film productions take risks so this shouldn't really be a big surprise.

If I were to produce a movie, I would never entertain the notion of choosing these actors, ever. Just the idea of watching them in a movie makes me want to get up off my seat and leave.

Posted at 3:16AM on Apr 15th 2007 by BruceLD

2. CRUZ DATE CRUISE BUT she is not the least bit pretty or sexy and not a good actor either .. just in style for today .. He is better than she is and neither are anyone I ever need to see on screen and will pass on seeing this film .. not good.

Posted at 3:35AM on Apr 15th 2007 by VAL

3. Actually those costs are within reason and most likely about average a film project would be charged for those services...no real story here guys....sad

Posted at 3:46AM on Apr 15th 2007 by alan rickman

4.

CELEBS ARE OVERPAID !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MANY CELEBS ARE LOUSY ACTOR / ACTRESS , IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY .......

JUST TO KEEP UP WITH THE "JONESES" , THAT'S WHAT IT'S ABOUT .

IF STUDIO COMPANIES THAT STUPID TO PAYING THE ACTORS/ ACTRESS THAT

MUCH MONEY THEN ITS THERE OWN FAULT ...... GENERAL PUBLIC SHOULDN'T

HAVE TO PAY AVERAGE $8.00 TO SEE MOVIE , WAY TO MUCH FOR UNSKILLED

ACTORS / ACTRESSES. WASTE OF MONEYYYYYYYYYYY.............

Posted at 6:14AM on Apr 15th 2007 by OverPaid , as far as acting , many celebs aren't all that !!!!!!!!!!!!

5. Personal chef?

Just grab a sandwich like everyone else, what's the matter with you? .

Posted at 1:06PM on Apr 15th 2007 by cynic

6. It breaks my heart when I think of how many families consider even real butter a luxury. These "actors" will never give a damn about that, or anything else that doesn't concern their own selves. Pity.

Posted at 9:51AM on Apr 15th 2007 by Anonymous

7. They paid $125,804 for Penelope's dialogue coach and you still can't understand a word she's saying in English LOL! They need to get their money back.

Posted at 8:29AM on Apr 15th 2007 by kcsunshine

8. I HOPE THE PICTURE DROPS DEAD AT THE BOX OFFICE. THESE SO-CALLED STARS ARE GROSSLY OVERPAID FOR BEING GROSSLY UNTALENTED.

Posted at 8:47AM on Apr 15th 2007 by Brother Harold. S.J.

9. You wonder why poor people are pissed at the spoiled and pampered rich. I don't care how they look, they're definitely are NOT getting their monies worth. When all these celebrities talk about giving to the less unfortunatel, how about taking a majority of these b*llsh*t expenses and give them to someone less fortunate. Maybe, they can use Butch at the local gym or Trudy at the local beauty salon.

Posted at 9:02AM on Apr 15th 2007 by TBA

10. I thought the movie was great, very Indian Jones, National Treasure esk. I do think actors are very, very much over paid. But come on Mathew is soooooooo sexy.

Posted at 9:07AM on Apr 15th 2007 by Tabby

11. Brother Harold:

You need to get out of the monastery more often. The movie was released in 2005 and according to the LA Times has lost $78 million.

Posted at 9:19AM on Apr 15th 2007 by Mike C.

12.

Everyone! Just stay home and rent the movies. Eventually, they all come out on pay per-view anyways.

Hollywood, is ripping us off. Eight to twelve dollars for a ticket, and ten dollars for a pop, and a bag of popcorn. God forbid, if you want to throw in some candy.

Why should we pay these crazy prices, so the movie stars can live like Kings & Queens?

Posted at 9:59AM on Apr 15th 2007 by T.S

13. Wow, don't these so called "stars" realize that the more the public learns of their diva demands, the less likely we are to part with our hard earned dollars to go see their movie? I work waaaay too hard to earn a living to hand it over to these people who think the world revolves around them. Shame on them and shame on the studios that cater to them. That's my take on it.

Posted at 10:02AM on Apr 15th 2007 by The Messenger

14. Hate to seem superficial, but Matt's chef and personaltrainer are completely worth it. Just look at him.

Posted at 11:32AM on Apr 15th 2007 by token

15. considering that's just a small chunk out of a 130 MILLION budget, that's basically pocket change....

Posted at 11:04AM on Apr 15th 2007 by Miss Tia

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments