The phrase "literary work" feels out of place when discussing this type of story. Look, I'm a fan of Clive Cussler, truly. I’d even rank him alongside authors like Elmore Leonard and Louis L’Amour, and those two with Dumas and Doyle. They all create pulp fiction—adventure, crime, mystery, horror—it all fits under that “pulp” umbrella, and I readily devour it, without any reservations. ...and I don't need to try and elevate it by labeling it "literary" to make myself feel better about enjoying it. I’ve got academic credentials tucked away somewhere; I possess the intellectual capacity, and a library overflowing with classic literature, historical accounts, and philosophical treatises—enough to freely appreciate writers like Chris Claremont, Marv Wolfman, and Timothy Zane without needing to declare their work "Literature." What I will call it is “Adventure,” or “Fun,” and what should be paramount for any writer or filmmaker: “Entertaining.” It doesn't have to stick rigidly to the source material. *Jackie Brown* was quite different from *Rum Punch*, yet both were enjoyable to experience through reading and viewing. So, *Sahara* isn’t a faithful adaptation of the book. It’s an action-adventure comedy. That means it embodies everything that pulp should be, everything movies ought to be... In fact, this is precisely the sort of film critics would have championed during Hollywood's Golden Age.

Source on TMDB