Arandhil
Such a wonderful collection of clichés and bad acting you really have to search long and hard to find. Set in the jungle one might at least expect some good cinematography, some stunning nature shots...but no.Craig Sheffer is among the worst I have seen in his role as an idiot American journalist. I don't know what weekend course in acting he has taken, because much more than that it can't be.Sandra is wonderfully beautiful as usual and as supposed to most other in this movie she actually can act. Thanks to her and of course the fabulous nude scene makes the movie worth watching, if you like Sandra that is. If you don't, for some inexplicable reason, then stay clear from this movie.Rating 2/10 (Sandra 10/10)
~PL~
I can't believe that Fire on The Amazon needed to be cut (there's the R-rated version of 78 minutes and another one of 85 minutes). Really, there isn't anything particularly disturbing...well, there is absolutely nothing offensive...really. And for those who think that the nude scene with Sandra Bullock worths it, I don't know what planet you can be from...really, I didn't know there was that scene before watching it, and if I had known, I wouldn't have rented this, because, even though the scene doesn't show anything, I didn't want to see Sandra doing the thing. Anyways, these few lines were an overview of the whole film's point, so you can imagine how pointless this film can be. The storyline has nothing particular, though it is not bad either, but nothing comes out of this movie...It talks about an environmentalist that has been murdered (and the killer used an arrow, to make people believe it was an indian-were they making a joke to show how stupid authorities can be and believe that if the guy has been killed with an arrow, it automatically has to be an indian guy that killed him?). And a journalist (Craig Sheffer)(who has the bad -and that will probably get on your nerves- habit of always taking photos) followed by a woman that works nearby (Sandra Bullock) investigate and go further in their researches of the real killer (because an indian had already been accused). Well, the acting in this film isn't bad at all, and that's really surprising, because Sandra Bullock has, usually, the habit of playing her characters like an half-brained maggot. But in this film, she is actually really natural and good. The storyline is very ordinary, but its development is really poor. The directing is painful to watch, especially because of the picture quality, but also for the atmosphere that it delivers-it makes the film even more boring. Actually, the major problem with Fire on The Amazon is the plot. Really, it looks as if they first wanted to make an adventure movie, with an investigation, but the director and producers seemed to have had a change of their mind, and to have changed their objectives of the film. Let me explain. (Spoilers warning) There's a part where Bullock and Sheffer try to follow an indian guy in a boat. When they arrive, another man tries to kill them (and hits Sheffer in the shoulder, after what he seems totally okay, by the way), but they survive. After this mild peril (and the way it happens it really is mild peril, because the director doesn't seem to know how a scene of suspense should be done!), they join the indians in their village, and they eat some kind of herbs that make them high. And that's where the director had his mind twist...he made his characters eat some herbs and he gives the reason that it's an indian ritual...and it gives him a reason to introduce a scene of sexuality, where Sheffer and Bullock (who previously couldn't stand each other, by the way) make love while they're high, in very multiple positions (and that's what shocked the censors, even though there is no visible nudity showing anyone's private parts). Now, the question is; why did they put this scene? Maybe they've been inspired by the herbs they smoked before writing the scenario...and it's an inside joke by the producers...I didn't find it funny anyways...After that, another mind twist from the director, which is to kill some characters. There are some gunfights (really, this doesn't even deserve to be called "action", the fight scenes are shameful). One other thing, the running time. I've seen the 85 minutes version, and even though 85 minutes represents a very short film in my opinion, this was long and dull. Nothing happens in this film, nothing makes you jump on your seat. Every time something supposedly (or that is supposed to be) interesting, you just realize how lame and wrongfully filmed it is. Luis Llosa (who also brought us masterpieces such as The Specialist, Sniper, and of course, Anaconda- feel the sarcasm here?) just doesn't know how to deliver some scenes, and in this film, it happens to be the most important ones that he missed. Finally, Roger Corman is the producer...I'm saying it again, Roger Corman is a symbol...when you see that name on a movie box, and you're looking for some quality film, avoid it. Roger Corman is a synonym of "bad movie" or "cheesy movie" or "lame movie". And this one doesn't even have the merit of going in the "cheesy" category. This is plain bad, and boring. Bullock acted very well, for the first and last time in her career, but when you're falling asleep while watching a movie, even if the lead actress is good, it's still a very bad movie...I give it 3/10.
