Search - Fire on the Amazon on DVD

If you're watching this for the plot, don't waste your time.

Mark Harris | El Paso, TX United States | 03/12/2006

(2 out of 5 stars)

"This is an awful movie. No plot, terrible acting (even by Ms. Bullock, who is one of my favorite actors), and even bad lighting and camera angles on the one scene you're probably getting this movie to see. The two stars are simply because this is the first and probably only film in which Sandra is actually buck naked-- not that you can really see anything of substance, but it's a novelty when an A-lister like Sandra takes it all off. If owning her one and only skin flick is your goal, buy it. Otherwise, just admire her beauty fully clothed in one of her good movies."

Amateurish film, even for Bullock or Amazon fans

D. Meyer | Hartselle, AL USA | 07/13/2000

(1 out of 5 stars)

""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."

A complete waste of time

brianofwestwood | 08/12/2000

(1 out of 5 stars)

"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..."

Not like the other Bullock movies

Rayne | Montgomery, AL USA | 09/21/2000

(2 out of 5 stars)

"This movie was somewhat of a disappointment. From watching it, I really thought it was an older movie not one that was recently released. The story didn't catch my interest. The plot was developed enough and the quality of the film was poor.I watched it mainly because of Sandra Bullock, I've loved all her films so far, but this one is nothing like any of her others. I wonder what made her do it. It is so unlike her and the movie surely didn't measure up to her usual standard. I definitely didn't think it was a worthy film and I didn't even get through most of it. It just wasn't gripping enough to keep me watching to the end."