Did Snobby "Sahara" Stars Sandbag Movie Budget?

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!

Reader Comments

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

61. TMZ isn't reporting the full article. The actors beauty regimine wasn't even close to the reason why the movie is in financial trouble. While the actors assistants brought in upwards of $300,000, Matthew made 8 million, Penelope only 1.6 million, and Steve Zahn, 2.2 million without royalties. The movie also used bribes to shoot in other countries, and shot million dollar scenes that never made the cut.

In other words...don't get your news from TMZ, actually read the newspaper!

Posted at 2:57AM on Apr 16th 2007 by ginny

62. I am a huge Clive Cussler fan and loved the movie Sahara. My only thoughts on this are that I thought Mathew made an excellent Dirk Pitt in the movie, and I would pay to see him play that role again. Steve Zhan also was fabulous as Al Giordano. What great charisma the two of them share in creating these characters which to be able to pull of to any Clive Cussler fan wasn't going to be an easy task. These characters chronical several books together and anyone whom has read any of them has their own image of these people. I think they did a fabulous job. Penelope hon... sorry but I think I could see a lot of other people better fit your role.

Now back on subject... my only real concern about this sort of thing being published is it hindering the making of another book to movie in the future. I understand actors/actresses have other "needs" than us average folk, but shouldn't those things be paid for by them? I mean I don't expect my employer to pay for my haircuts, and my membership to the health club.

Dunno... just food for thought!

Posted at 7:37AM on Apr 16th 2007 by Angel

63. I'm not sure if I have ever sat through one of "homosexual" Matthew McConaughey's movies. I'm not into Gay actors like him.

Posted at 9:56AM on Apr 16th 2007 by Ra - Sun God

64. That money would have been more wisely spent lengthening Matthew's chubby, little sausage-like arms! He looks ridiculous. And I'd head straight to civil court to recoup my wasted money on Penelope's dialogue coach. How many years of training is it going to take for me to understand what the hell she's saying? (And I pride myself on being a careful listener, especially to those whose native language isn't English. She's just a lost cause). Good to see him and his beard again though...

Posted at 11:38AM on Apr 16th 2007 by JaneSays

65. Hollywood is worse than the federal government. NAH !

Posted at 11:49AM on Apr 16th 2007 by Rob

66. By now, Penelope should speak English well enough to be understood. It's amazing how she can't get rid of her accent so that American audiences can understand her since she wants to be a big American actress.

Her dialog coach needs to be fired.

Posted at 3:30PM on Apr 16th 2007 by New plan Stan

67. These two are not very good actors. Let's face it, the only reason Cruz is known is due to her romance with the other talentless but popular egomaniac with a similar sounding name. McConaughey is better known for his "is he or isn't he" thing with Lance Armstrong or at least he seems to be better at it. Anything over union minimum is too much for these two especially when they are getting the perks!

Was Cruz actually awake during the dialogue lessons??

Posted at 2:36PM on Apr 17th 2007 by JimC

68. FI would like either one or both of them to repond to som of these comments. Oh, what ever happened to the good giving person in Matt???? We saw it for Hurricane Katrina, but is it still in existance or was that just a passing thing? (you know for publicity?) I thought (and maybe still do) that it was great for what he did for the animals and the people affected in hurricane Katrina. I guess I want to know was it all just a show? To gain popularity.

Posted at 10:23PM on Apr 17th 2007 by response

69. Well you know what?? Somebody was willing to pay and they got what they wanted -- This really has nothing to do with how well someone speaks english .... So, let's not go there... It is just sad that all that money was wasted on such nonsense.... If they needed all that money to make them look and act well, can you just imagine if they were just like everybody else???? I guess they are not the "REAL" people they claim they are. My boyfriend and I have discussed this in length and he seems to agree ( this goes out to Mr. or Ms. Hollywoodbuzz)

Posted at 10:46PM on Apr 17th 2007 by response

70. response to #57 -- My friend you don't know if I am famous or not -- think about it For Matt to bragg about breaking a sweat at least once a day, well, would he stick by that with out his personal trainer?? Could he do it?????

Posted at 8:46PM on Apr 18th 2007 by ??????????

71. All that money for hair and the chic is still ugly. Ewwwww!

Posted at 1:01AM on Apr 18th 2007 by Michele

72. I would just like to take the facts presented, if you add up the costs that are mentioned in your blog, the percent of those costs equal only three tenths of one percent to the total costs of the 130 million dollars. I am sure that is not the reason for the costs problem within the budget and if you know anything about the movie business you would surely understand that the costs mention are regular fees that are almost always in a movie with megastars. But I know it is great journalistic sensationalization to help make money for the bloggers by selling advertising space determined by the number of hits a blog takes. We are what we eat ...

Posted at 10:44AM on Apr 20th 2007 by bill

73. I wasted my money seeing Sahara. It was a piece of fluff that bearly amused at its best. Matthew, in my estimation, is a terrible actor. He plays each role he gets exactly the same. He can't help it, always a conceited, selfimportant and shallow demonstration. The only movie that I ever enjoyed with him in it was A view to Kill. As for Penelope Cruz....PLEEEEEEZE! Why does this woman get any parts? I just don't get it.

Posted at 1:19PM on Apr 20th 2007 by Mitch

74. I think Matthew is a WONDERFUL actor! I pay to see all his movies and have enjoyed them all. I think his requests and benefits are inexpensive compared to other stars.
Matthew is a very talented actor and one of my favorite University of Texas ex's, the other Texas ex is the great Fess Parker.
Hookem Matthew this old native Austinite adores you and ALL your movies!

Posted at 10:50PM on Apr 20th 2007 by Mary Margaret

75. Matthew is DARLING!. Wish I could fix him up with one of grandaughters.

Posted at 2:16PM on Apr 20th 2007 by jacki

Previous 15 Comments | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments