Rating: 
Summary: Amateurish film, even for Bullock or Amazon fans
Review: "Fire on the Amazon" was a major disappointment...With Sandra Bullock ("Speed", "The Net") and Craig Sheffer ("Fire in the Sky") in an Amazon rainforest setting, I was sure "Fire on the Amazon" was going to be a keeper to add to my collection of favorite films. Unfortunately, I was dead wrong and extremely disappointed! The plot starts out with our "reporter" (Sheffer) meeting Bullock working with a Sierra Club type of environmental group in a nameless South American country. The character of our "reporter" fluctuates from "don't give a damn" about the rainforest, to suddenly demanding to venture into the rain forest with Bullock in a dugout canoe to determine if an Indian was murdered by the police. The entire plot is weak, and the excuses for plot development are not at all credible. Character development is thin, as there is really no strong chemistry between Bullock and Sheffer - the cliche animosity towards each other at the beginning of the film is weak and not developed, and there is little or no excuse for them to team up in the middle of the film. And there is no character development or warming up towards each other as the film progresses. Suddenly there is the requisite cliche "love" scene for no reason at all (let's just call it a "skin and sex" scene with no feelings), which is so poorly edited that there is no continuity at all (some scenes mostly nude, with other partially clad scenes edited in, all with no sense of flow, buildup, or climax.) The overall quality of the cinematography was extremely poor and appeared to be low budget - in many cases handheld, poor focus, poor framing, and just plain noticeable sporadic amateur jerkiness, quite obviously not intentially meant to be handheld POV shots. The film color is dismally washed out and out of focus throughout most of the film, the editing looked like it was done by amateurs (the credits revealed two Editors and two "Apprentice Editors" who may have done much of the editing). Weak acting and botched lines seemed very "high schoolish" throughout the film. Native costumes were not at all authentic (looked like Polynesian towels and grass skirts, not at all like the breechcloths and ornamentation I have have experienced firsthand of real rain forest tribes!), setting was not established well (no shots of rainforest villages or developments of Indian characters that I was hoping for), hair styling was mostly wet and ragged for both main characters throughout the film, music was for the most part amateurish or non-existent in many scenes, and even the theme-song at the end of the film was extremely amateurish (was it Bullock herself trying to sing the theme-song? No mention of the song or singer in the credits). Overall the film was extrememly amateurish, unbelievable, and highly disappointing. It wasn't until later that I realized this film was an early, apparently low-budget film for Bullock, shot in 1990 and never released until now that she is popular. If you like Bullock, don't get this film! If you like Amazon rainforest films, I would rather recommend seeing "Emerald Forest", "The Medicine Man" or "The Mission" instead.
Rating:
Summary: A Forgetable Movie
Review: I guess everyone has to start somewhere. This 1990 film, released direct to video in 1993, and re-released this year, harkens back to the beginning of Sandra Bullock's film career when she was probably thrilled to get a B movie script. Actually, to call this a B movie would be the kindest of prevarications. It was nowhere near that good. A mediocre plot was marred by dreadful directing, wretched cinematography and awful acting. The film starts out like a recruiting film for the protest arm of the Sierra Club, with people locked in human chains to keep loggers from cutting down the rainforest. The leader is assassinated and then our heroine (Sandra Bullock), teams up with a whacked out photo journalist (Craig Sheffer) to find the killer and expose corruption. At this point it tries to convert to an action adventure thriller in the jungles of the Amazon. It fails. There are so many things to criticize in this film, I hardly know where to begin. Let's try cinematography. The color quality was awful, scenes were constantly out of focus and the lighting was poor. We had overexposures, and underexposures with no regard to effect. How about audio? The sound was muddy, the music was poor. And acting? The acting was amateurish, bumbling and shrill. Directing? Luis Llosa must have been on a tight budget. It seems like he did the whole film in one take. Actors were flubbing lines all over the place, but the cameras kept rolling. Okay, but what about Sandra? She was a raw talent at this point (in more ways than one). This film provides us with her one and only nude scene, which may be its only claim to fame. But don't rush to the movie store to rent it because of this. Though it is clear she is fully unclad, you really see nothing, which is probably a blessing. I love Sandra Bullock, but let's face it, she has a body only Popeye could love, and adds nothing to a film by appearing in the buff. Actually, her acting here showed promise, especially in one scene where she is trying to revive a child just rescued from a fire. But there is a clear difference in her skills and confidence compared with present day. This film is a must NOT see for anyone, especially Sandra Bullock fans. Why mar your good opinion of her. I rated this film a 2/10. It is an appalling waste of time. Why they revived it, I can only wonder.
Rating:
Summary: Uuugh! Wretched!
Review: I guess everyone has to start somewhere. This 1990 film, released direct to video in 1993, and re-released this year, harkens back to the beginning of Sandra Bullock's film career when she was probably thrilled to get a B movie script. Actually, to call this a B movie would be the kindest of prevarications. It was nowhere near that good. A mediocre plot was marred by dreadful directing, wretched cinematography and awful acting. The film starts out like a recruiting film for the protest arm of the Sierra Club, with people locked in human chains to keep loggers from cutting down the rainforest. The leader is assassinated and then our heroine (Sandra Bullock), teams up with a whacked out photo journalist (Craig Sheffer) to find the killer and expose corruption. At this point it tries to convert to an action adventure thriller in the jungles of the Amazon. It fails. There are so many things to criticize in this film, I hardly know where to begin. Let's try cinematography. The color quality was awful, scenes were constantly out of focus and the lighting was poor. We had overexposures, and underexposures with no regard to effect. How about audio? The sound was muddy, the music was poor. And acting? The acting was amateurish, bumbling and shrill. Directing? Luis Llosa must have been on a tight budget. It seems like he did the whole film in one take. Actors were flubbing lines all over the place, but the cameras kept rolling. Okay, but what about Sandra? She was a raw talent at this point (in more ways than one). This film provides us with her one and only nude scene, which may be its only claim to fame. But don't rush to the movie store to rent it because of this. Though it is clear she is fully unclad, you really see nothing, which is probably a blessing. I love Sandra Bullock, but let's face it, she has a body only Popeye could love, and adds nothing to a film by appearing in the buff. Actually, her acting here showed promise, especially in one scene where she is trying to revive a child just rescued from a fire. But there is a clear difference in her skills and confidence compared with present day. This film is a must NOT see for anyone, especially Sandra Bullock fans. Why mar your good opinion of her. I rated this film a 2/10. It is an appalling waste of time. Why they revived it, I can only wonder.
Rating:
Summary: For Fans of Sandra
Review: I think that Fire on the Amazon is a very poor movie, but manages to mantain some interest in its plotline. It was produced in Peru amazonia by Roger Corman and directed by peruvian film maker Luis Llosa (in fact, cousin of writer Mario Vargas Llosa). For me, the main interest in the film is the presence of a very young Sandra Bullock, who performs her only one nude scene. It is a "must see" for every fan of hers.
Rating: 
Summary: Sandra on Fire!
Review: I thought the sceenry depicted South America in its natural and native state, much like that of the young miss Sandra. The fight sceens were a bit much for me but their camara angle was exellent. althought the nude sceen was erotic and got me turned on (even with some green leafy), I would have liked it to be more jungle wild with fruit on the vine and olive oil to bring out her great skin. The make up artist and the key gaff people should be fired. Buy the unrated version if you can, there are some additional behind the sceens looks with a little more Sandra skin. Look out for the branch on chapter five and press the pause button at 1:56 into chapter 11 and then 9 through 1 skiping the prime numbers back ward for a hidden egg. Do NOT watch with the bag of Chito's.
Rating:
Summary: A Forgetable Movie
Review: Once you see the movie it is readily apparent why is was never released until now. Very poor acting- plot line (if there is one) difficult to follow. It is obvious it was released to take advantage of Sandra Bullocks nude scene. As they say in New York - "Forgetaboutit" - a real dog!
Rating:
Summary: Pathetic
Review: The depiction of the photojournalist in this movie is a complete joke. Characters and their motivations were poorly established and the cinematography and direction seemed cheap and amateurish.
Rating:
Summary: A complete waste of time
Review: The only positive thing I can say about this film is that it is only 78 minutes long. I was inspired to rent it after the morning TV news reported it's release and how Sandra Bullock allegedly tried to block it because of a nude scene. Well, I would say she tried to block its release because it is so embarassingly awful. I have seen better student films. The dialog is so bad at times it makes you laugh. The male lead (a photo journalist) take so many pictures of everything it is comical right out of a Saturday Night Live skit. He even holds out his camera to take a picture of himself while he is being held in a choke hold with a knife to his throat. As for the nude scene, it is just a series of headshots and hair flips barely enough to justify an R rating (no T&A). The plot is so weak it makes you wonder how they are going to end it as you check your watch to see how much time is left. Don't waste your time with this one...
Rating:
Summary: A complete waste of time
Review: The only positive thing I can say about this film is that it is only 78 minutes long. I was inspired to rent it after the morning TV news reported it's release and how Sandra Bullock allegedly tried to block it because of a nude scene. Well, I would say she tried to block its release because it is so embarassingly awful. I have seen better student films. The dialog is so bad at times it makes you laugh. The male lead (a photo journalist) take so many pictures of everything it is comical right out of a Saturday Night Live skit. He even holds out his camera to take a picture of himself while he is being held in a choke hold with a knife to his throat. As for the nude scene, it is just a series of headshots and hair flips barely enough to justify an R rating (no T&A). The plot is so weak it makes you wonder how they are going to end it as you check your watch to see how much time is left. Don't waste your time with this one...
Rating: 
Summary: Bullock is still America's sweetheart!
Review: This movie is strictly for Sandra Bullock's fans. I fell in love with her when she was in Demolition Man and have lusted for her since. The movie itself is okay. Decent plot, but the movie moves way to fast. Sandra is very young in this movie (24 or 25) but her acting is superb as usual. Fan's that are buying this version just to see Sandra's T & A will be disappointed, the rated version shows no nudity and the sex scene is tame. The unrated version may be the way to go if you want to see some skin. At any rate, Sandra is the most beautiful actress on the planet and her hardcore fans will not be disappointed. Buy it for Sandra not the film itself.
| 
