Rating: 
Summary: for Bullock completists only (and oh yeah, the nude scene)
Review: "Fire On The Amazon" is just like the 1987 film "Hangmen" in that only die-hard Sandra Bullock fans who absolutely must own every movie she's been in would be interested in purchasing. And that's pretty much all there is to it. "Fire On The Amazon" offers nothing of interest to the everyday movie watcher. In fact it's pretty abysmal, with a plot that will leave you scratching your head and rolling your eyes. But it does have Sandra Bullock in it, and that is a good thing. Ok, now to Sandra's nude scene (which, let's face it, is why 99% of people would want to own this movie). It's actually pretty good, if you can overlook the cheesiness of it. No T&A, but it does show a full-body shot of Sandra and the photographer getting it on, soft porn style. The rest of the scene is basic movie lovemaking style. Please note that I'm going by the Unrated version, which only seems to be available on VHS. I haven't seen the R-rated version but I would guess that it shows less and probably cuts out the full body shot. Bottom line: get this movie only if you love Sandra Bullock and want to see her before she became a household name, or if you simply want to see her only nude scene. But as I said you're better off getting the VHS Unrated version if your only purpose is to see Sandra in the buff.
Rating:
Summary: for Bullock completists only (and oh yeah, the nude scene)
Review: "Fire On The Amazon" is just like the 1987 film "Hangmen" in that only die-hard Sandra Bullock fans who absolutely must own every movie she's been in would be interested in purchasing. And that's pretty much all there is to it. "Fire On The Amazon" offers nothing of interest to the everyday movie watcher. In fact it's pretty abysmal, with a plot that will leave you scratching your head and rolling your eyes. But it does have Sandra Bullock in it, and that is a good thing. Ok, now to Sandra's nude scene (which, let's face it, is why 99% of people would want to own this movie). It's actually pretty good, if you can overlook the cheesiness of it. No T&A, but it does show a full-body shot of Sandra and the photographer getting it on, soft porn style. The rest of the scene is basic movie lovemaking style. Please note that I'm going by the Unrated version, which only seems to be available on VHS. I haven't seen the R-rated version but I would guess that it shows less and probably cuts out the full body shot. Bottom line: get this movie only if you love Sandra Bullock and want to see her before she became a household name, or if you simply want to see her only nude scene. But as I said you're better off getting the VHS Unrated version if your only purpose is to see Sandra in the buff.
Rating:
Summary: Sandy, What Were Ye Thinkin'?
Review: As someone who greatly enjoys Sandra Bullock's unique blend of intelligence and wit, I was curious as to what her first "major" film outing was like-- particularly after seeing such mixed online reviews of Fire On The Amazon. Well, Sandy was just finding her acting chops in this one, and really did quite well, given what she had to work with. But oh boy, was she ever saddled with a cheesy, pretentious script, thoroughly annoying co-star and a largely gratuitous sex scene! The script, while earnest and well-intentioned (i.e., saving the rainforest), was far too heavy-handed to be effective; it could have been a pretty good story with more subtlety in the dialogue and direction. The co-star, the Heath Ledger lookalike whats-his-face, was one-dimensional, potty-mouthed, way too eco-groovy and unlikely to survive more than ten minutes in the Amazon basin without someone feeding him to an anaconda. And the "infamous" jungle tryst between the two perspiring do-gooders was notable only for its unconventional (for the movies, anyway) sexual positions; Sandy didn't *really* embarrass herself, but the experience must have convinced her, once she did end up with some clout, to avoid such scenes again.
In the final analysis, Fire On The Amazon is a curiosity for Sandy aficionados, but is otherwise not worth the price of admission. Better to spend the money on some shade-grown coffee instead.
Rating:
Summary: Not much here
Review: Aside from die hard Sandra Bullock fans, most people won't find much here of interest. A cheesy environmental type story set in the South American rain forest, it finds her as an activist caught in the middle of Native violence and shooting soft core porno with some journalist guy (Craig Sheffer). Sandra plays her role well....unfortunately it's just not a good role. Pass this one bye.
Rating:
Summary: Not much here
Review: Aside from die hard Sandra Bullock fans, most people won't find much here of interest. A cheesy environmental type story set in the South American rain forest, it finds her as an activist caught in the middle of Native violence and shooting soft core porno with some journalist guy (Craig Sheffer). Sandra plays her role well....unfortunately it's just not a good role. Pass this one bye.
Rating: 
Summary: Roger Corman Presents...once again
Review: 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...
Rating:
Summary: Do Not Waste Your Money
Review: First and foremost, let me state that Sandra Bullock is my absolute favorite and this review is not a reflection of her. This movie is below disappointment. There is almost no plot. The production is poor (i.e. non-continuous cuts, actual cut outs of audio effects, stereo effects reversed! (Unbelievable)) It is only seventy some minutes long but seems like hours. As for you voyeurs wanting an 'unrated' version, forget it. There is more 'unrated' in the first thirty seconds of most other movies than in this entire movie (which I am extremely pleased with, Sandra Bullock is above that kind of perversion). If you want a movie, get Air Force One. If you want a glimpse, get Eyes Wide Shut. I heard that the release of this movie was almost blocked by one of its members due to its poor plot/production. It is easy to see why. Do not waste your time or money on this one. Again, it is very important that you understand that this review reflects the movie and not Sandra Bullock.
Rating:
Summary: The Movie that should NEVER have been made.
Review: From 1991 but clearly released only to exploit Sandra Bullock 's current popularity. A poorly written script, un-sympathetic characters, and run-of-the-mill plot. The much heralded sex scene is probably interesting if you don't get out much and was obviously included in a shameless attempt to gain viewers. Make no mistake, Bullock handles her role, such as it is, with absolute professionalism. No actor can save a bad script. The films one redeeming feature (in theory) is that it is only 78 minutes in length. However these are 78 very L_O_N_G minutes. On the upside though this movie can be successfully watched in fast-forward mode with no damage what so ever done to the plot. Honestly, avoid this one -you'll feel stung anyway. There are many very compelling films on this subject, and Bullock has made many excellent films. This one is bad.
Rating:
Summary: Waste Of Your Time
Review: I bought the unrated version of this movie from amazon it was only 78 minutes and was the same as the R version. Don't buy this movie. If you want to see it go rent it from your Local Video Store. This movie was the biggest waste of my time and money.
Rating:
Summary: Unrated? Looks like I got scamed
Review: I purchased the unrated version of this movie, only to find an R rated disc inside the unrated case. The movie was 78 minutes, and from what I've heard rumored on IMDB the unrated ver. is supposed to be 84 min. I don't know what 6 minutes they cut out, but the movie is so poor, it's not worth searching after.
|
