In Bolivia's Amazon basin, corporate cattle ranches are replacing the rain forest. When Santos, charismatic leader of the union of rubber tappers, forges an alliance with Indians to protest... See full summary »
Keep track of everything you watch; tell your friends.
If your account is linked with Facebook and you have turned on sharing, this will show up in your activity feed. If not, you can turn on sharing
here
.
Rob Greene has information about an undercover terror team inside the CIA led by Joe Connelly. To stay alive with the knowledge, he is advised to stay undercover by his supervisor Andrews. ... See full summary »
Famed archaeologist/adventurer Dr. Henry "Indiana" Jones is called back into action when he becomes entangled in a Soviet plot to uncover the secret behind mysterious artifacts known as the Crystal Skulls.
The U.S. Government is willing to help any country that requires help in ridding themselves of drugs with support from the Army. Unfortunately, the drug cartels have countered that offer by... See full summary »
Two British soldiers in India decide to resign from the Army and set themselves up as deities in Kafiristan--a land where no white man has set foot since Alexander.
Director:
John Huston
Stars:
Sean Connery,
Michael Caine,
Christopher Plummer
After arriving in India, Indiana Jones is asked by a desperate village to find a mystical stone. He agrees, and stumbles upon a secret cult plotting a terrible plan in the catacombs of an ancient palace.
Director:
Steven Spielberg
Stars:
Harrison Ford,
Kate Capshaw,
Jonathan Ke Quan
In Bolivia's Amazon basin, corporate cattle ranches are replacing the rain forest. When Santos, charismatic leader of the union of rubber tappers, forges an alliance with Indians to protest deforestation, he is assassinated. O'Brien, a US photo-journalist who has no skills as an investigator, wants a story when he thinks the police have framed and murdered an innocent Indian as the assassin. In his search for the truth, he involves Lysa Rothman, who worked for Santos and with whom he falls in love. As he gets deeper into trouble with the cops and the real assassin, he not only needs Lysa's help but that of the Indians' leader. How many will die so O'Brien can get his story? Written by
<jhailey@hotmail.com>
During 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. See more »
At 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." See more »
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.
14 of 18 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
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.