Deforestation of the Amazon is forcing indigenous Indians away, so few men can profit from cattle. Opposition gets killed. A US photojournalist tries to investigate. Activist Alyssa helps hi... Read allDeforestation of the Amazon is forcing indigenous Indians away, so few men can profit from cattle. Opposition gets killed. A US photojournalist tries to investigate. Activist Alyssa helps him.Deforestation of the Amazon is forcing indigenous Indians away, so few men can profit from cattle. Opposition gets killed. A US photojournalist tries to investigate. Activist Alyssa helps him.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
Juan Fernández
- Ataninde
- (as Juan Fernandez)
Jorge García Bustamante
- Valdez
- (as Jorge Garcia Bustamente)
Baldomero Cáceres
- Pedro
- (as Baldomero Caceres)
Ramón García
- Chato
- (as Ramon Garcia)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
This movie is a joke....not the type of movie I would have expected for Sandra Bullock. The mazazine journalist is angry and swearing constantly which is not normal for anyone (even low lifes). The movie was very poorly written and directed....totals waste of time.
I guess everyone has to start somewhere. This 1993, direct to video film 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.
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.
This movie is so full of over used clichés it is pathetic. Sandra Bullock is beautiful in the movie, but even her acting is very poor at times. Apparently a bad story, bad writing, and the poor acting by others got to her. There is a scene in an office with Ms. Bullock, the obnoxious reporter, and Bullock's boss where it seems like everyone is reading flip charts. The clichés about the evil lumber companies, cattle ranchers, and corrupt law enforcement are about as bad as a Miss America contestant saying she is throughly behind world peace. If these clichés have some thread of truth to them, ignoring the entire movie because of feeling manipulated with them is very likely. I haven't seen something so poorly done since "Billy Jack". If you are especially interested in the real crisis occurring in the Amazon, I recommend that you don't watch this movie.
There is a reason this movie was shelved for, how long? 7 years? This should be the first hint.
At any rate, I watched this movie with an open mind. I wanted to like it, and enjoy myself, but there just was not much to it. An Idiot reporter runs around p***ing off the locals and Sandra Bullock meets up with him. I guess there is some environmental activist named santos that meets and unfortunate end, and they are sort of involved. The plot of this movie is so really hard to follow. Maybe because there really is not much of a plot at all. The last 15min are sort of exciting, only because you know it's almost over so you can do something else.
Yes, Sandra has a love scene. No it's exciting enough to watch this movie.
Ever watched a movie that made you keep looking at the VCR to see how long you had been watching it? That is This Movie!
Movie gets a nice big 2 out of 10 from me.
At any rate, I watched this movie with an open mind. I wanted to like it, and enjoy myself, but there just was not much to it. An Idiot reporter runs around p***ing off the locals and Sandra Bullock meets up with him. I guess there is some environmental activist named santos that meets and unfortunate end, and they are sort of involved. The plot of this movie is so really hard to follow. Maybe because there really is not much of a plot at all. The last 15min are sort of exciting, only because you know it's almost over so you can do something else.
Yes, Sandra has a love scene. No it's exciting enough to watch this movie.
Ever watched a movie that made you keep looking at the VCR to see how long you had been watching it? That is This Movie!
Movie gets a nice big 2 out of 10 from me.
The male star's vocabulary consisted of "one word" The word that would get 'erased' at least fifty times if we were to think this horrible movie would ever make it to the TV screen for humans to watch.
Did you know
- TriviaSandra Bullock placed duct tape on her breasts during the filming of the love scene so that she could know for sure nothing would be visible that she didn't want seen. She also made the production company sign a contract stating which parts of her were not to be shown.
- GoofsDuring the sex scene Jeff has his bandages on and off during shoots. He also seems to have his shirt on after he was completely naked on previous shoots.
- Crazy creditsAt the beginning of the credits the following is shown: "Every day, more than 70,000 acres of rainforest are destroyed. The loss to humans and science is incalcuable."
- Alternate versions1996 re-cut version added 31 seconds to the steamy love scene.
- ConnectionsFeatured in The Directors: The Films of Roger Corman (1999)
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $2,000,000 (estimated)
- Runtime1 hour 27 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content