Fire on the Amazon (1993) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
30 Reviews
Sort by:
Fire? Not even smoke.
Scoopy7 July 2000
A movie filmed in 1990, with a limited 1993 release, and a video finally released in 2000. Tell you anything?

It's a typically cheapozoid Roger Corman flick about the disappearing rainforest. The film is only 78 minutes long, and about half of it is a digression that takes place in an Indian village.

Here's the general idea. A famous indigenous environmentalist is killed. Although it is obvious that the money interests wanted him out of the way, the murder was performed with an arrow to feign an Indian attack, so the local police somehow decide to arrest a taciturn Indian who "hangs himself" in his cell after signing a full confession. There's a new plot twist, eh?

When the Indian's fellow tribesmen come for his body, a local North American environmentalist (Sandra Bullock) and a magazine reporter (Craig Sheffer) try to talk to them. They are unresponsive so, on the spur of the moment, the Americans follow the Indians up the river to their reservation.

Pause. Let's think about that. Sheffer and Bullock see the Indians paddling upstream, so they commandeer a canoe and follow. They don't know the terrain, they don't know how far it is to the destination, they have no supplies, they don't even have insect repellent, and they're in a stolen canoe paddling through the unfamiliar jungle, surrounded by crocs, snakes, bad guys, corrupt legal authorities, and stone age tribesmen.

Sheffer is shot from the underbrush, their canoe overturns, and they just decide to saunter through the rainforest in a random direction, even though night is approaching, they are soaking wet, and Sheffer has a gunshot wound. Well, as luck would have it, they are captured by indigenous people - the very ones they were seeking - and after some negotiations the tribe finally agrees to advance the plot somewhat:

1. They possess secret herbs that cure the wound

2. They perform a scientific autopsy on the guy who "hanged himself", thus proving he was dead before the hanging.

3. They possess more secret herbs that make Sandra Bullock want to make nice-nice for hours with the reporter (whom she had previously detested).

Well, now that the ice is broken, the lovebirds are constantly stealing a kiss on the corner of dirt roads, or in sleazy taverns filled with environmental terrorists and would-be competitors in the Anthony Quinn lookalike contest, and all of this romance is pursued with the same nonchalance you'd have with your best girly on the streets of London.

This movie might take the award for the most abrupt ending ever. Bullock and Sheffer are pursued by about a zillion heavily armed bad guys, including all possible legal authorities. They are trapped on a dock, machine guns to the front of them, water to the rear, with only about a minute left in the film.

A minute to resolve such a predicament?? Well, I'm not going to tell you how it ended.

The production values are execrable. The photographic quality is about equal to your dad's home movies, and the sound track is both inappropriate and cheesy. In other words, the director defied the odds and managed to make a bad script into an even worse movie.

I guess you know by now that Sandra did a dimly lit nude scene, and this is a rarity in her career, but she has said that she had her essentials taped down for this scene, so I don't know exactly what we are looking at. Maybe some Pebbles and Bam-Bam band-aids.

Incidentally, it seems there are still several minutes missing from the DVD cut. According to other comments, the original unrated cut was 85 minutes, but the unrated DVD release is 78. I suspect, however, that the clamor to restore the director's vision will be somewhat quieter than the one concerning "A Touch of Evil".
33 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Is it really worth a rental?
DarthBill16 April 2004
Environmentalist Sandra Bullock, who couldn't have been much more than 28 or 29 when she did this flick, gets mixed up with idiot photo man Craig Sheffer and they get into all sorts of trouble down in the Amazon.

Barely released in theaters, mostly released on video and I think I saw it on DVD somewhere...

A long, dull, bad movie made before Sandra hit it big in "Speed". Memorable mostly for featuring what may very well be Sandra Bullock's only cinematic sex scene. Even though Sandra's 5'7" body is completely unclothed you don't actually see anything, as others have pointed out, not that her body is unpleasant to look at even if you don't see her naughty bits.

If you really want to see Sandra Bullock naked, rent this film and fast forward till you get the aforementioned love scene and then hit eject.
26 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Uuugh! Wretched!
FlickJunkie-21 July 2000
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.
18 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Deep in the hot and steamy jungle...
mhawfield-225 May 2000
Deep in the hot and steamy Amazon jungle, activist Alyssa Rothman (Sandra Bullock) helps a brash photojournalist (Craig Sheffer) investigate the assassination of a famous environmentalist, at the risk of their own lives.

So goes the tag line for this film. I believe that Sandra Bullock wanted to block Roger Corman at New Concorde (formerly New Horizons) from releasing this title NOT because of the nude scene (which really isn't, just shadows and hints of nudity) but because of the thin plot. But it is the nudity angle that will drive the rental market on this direct to video release.

It is only interesting to see Sandra in the film before she became a big star in Speed. Short running time makes it easier to watch as well (78 minutes on the R rated, 85 minutes on the Unrated version).
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Your time is more important than this film
darkman-2726 November 2000
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.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
You mean they actually got paid to make this mess?
dustyking14 May 2001
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.
13 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Bad Clichés
RetiredRanger27 June 2004
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.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Very poor script
gday11 January 2001
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.
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Clichés and bad acting...
Arandhil12 October 2004
Such a wonderful collection of clichés and bad acting you really have to search long and hard to find. Set in the jungle one might at least expect some good cinematography, some stunning nature shots...but no.

Craig Sheffer is among the worst I have seen in his role as an idiot American journalist. I don't know what weekend course in acting he has taken, because much more than that it can't be.

Sandra is wonderfully beautiful as usual and as supposed to most other in this movie she actually can act. Thanks to her and of course the fabulous nude scene makes the movie worth watching, if you like Sandra that is. If you don't, for some inexplicable reason, then stay clear from this movie.

Rating 2/10 (Sandra 10/10)
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An abomination
edgein1521 December 2000
Of all the movies I have seen, this is one of the five or so I have ever watched which makes me believe that animals were actually tortured on the set. This is no lie. I implore anyone to watch this movie, especially during the fire scenes and tell me that no animal was harmed during the making of this "film". A scene with a python is especially disturbing. You'll know it when you see it. Prove me wrong, please.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Brittany Stewart14 July 2010
OK. So this I have watched the movie 2x. Im not gonna say it was a great movie, but it wasn't totally horrible. the ending made me cry. If you aren't a Sandra Bullock fan then I suggest you don't watch it. But if you are a true Sandra Bullock fan then watch it. It is always interesting seeing the work that was done before they hit it big. Fire on the Amazon does have a storyline if you pay attention to it. I mean Im only 17 and see things and understand things then a lot of the adults I know. Basically if you like Sandra Bullock watch the movie. The movie may not be the greatest but it is worth watching. Many people don't like this movie but personally I don't hate it. There is one scene in it that is shocking if you have seen a lot of Sandra's movies. It is kinda awkward if you watch it with your family. So I warn you ahead of time to be prepared for it.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Oh good God, what a bad flick!
shanleydillman29 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Good God, how did a talented young actress get involved in such a bad film? Sandra Bullock starts out in this otherwise bad film in a good light. Then her character takes a quick turn for the worst. And Craig Sheffer certainly convinced me that he was an uncaring, aloof writer. But his character also went from bad to worse in a quick turn of events. Somehow, after a night of binging in some of the local pharmaceuticals and a very rank nude scene with Sandra, he is a new man.

In all seriousness, don't rent this film. You might as well fall asleep on the couch with a good book. Sandra is such a great talent, but that can't turn a poorly written, poorly directed film into a good one. And she uses so little of it in this flick. It reminds me of the last big scene in Speed 2, where you wish the boat would just crash already, so you can return the DVD to the rental place.

The Spoiler: Sandra Bullock who shows very little of her talent in this film caps it off with a very lousy death scene at the end. Lucky for her, her career didn't die at that moment as well.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Important topic, lame presentation
ptervin23 November 2001
With such an important topic, why does the dialogue and the acting have to be so bad. Who would waste the time to put something like this together; I'm embarrassed to have wasted the time to watch it. The actors must have been very hungry....
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Oh boy, what a stinker
cc00285611 August 2001
Originally filmed in 1990, this project was apparently shelved until video release in 1996. After watching the DVD version I had to wonder, why bother to open Sandra up to more, well, potential criticism after the debacle of Speed II? Had to be the exploitative, but heavily shadowed, "nude" scenes. Yawn. From the opening shots (complete with the prerequisite voice-overs, necessary for folks without any idea of the threat to rain forests, to catch up), I had to wonder if this project was filmed on 16mm. Picture quality is a notch below awful, the script was apparently washed down the Amazon during the rainy season, and day players were politely invited to help direct, which is perhaps the only explanation for the disjointed and inconsistent character motivations. Sandra tries, she really does. She looks great and does the best she can ... but I couldn't help but feel I was being preached to, the same boring sermonette about the evils of the white men. A curiosity, but one that should have remained shelved.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Seriously, don't bother.
ihappylady31 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I put this movie on my Blockbuster list without reading the synopsis or reviews. I figured Sandra Bullock, it has to be good right? NOT! Not even close to good, not even close to mediocre. After watching for 10 full minutes I decided to pull out my computer and actually read some reviews. I figured maybe I was missing something...nope. I'm not going to get into the acting, cinematography, coloring etc because everyone else said it so well.... it's awful.

I did read that Ms Bullock did her one and only love scene so I took some advice and fast forwarded to that. of the worst love scenes I've ever seen. Neither of them opens theirs eyes once...probably for good's not sexy, it's creepy. It's called Jungle Fever" in the scene selection menu..go figure. After watching that mess I jumped to the end because well I hate watching a movie and not knowing the end. POSSIBLE SPOILER...

I cannot even say the end saddened me. Thankfully Sandra Bullocks career was not "as dead" by this sore mistake in judgment.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Murder by Indians or Corrupt Police
JacksonsGhost1 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This film was one of Luis Llosa's early ventures in Hollywood, and Luana Anders last as a writer. It follows photo-journalist R.J.O'Brien (Craig Sheffer), who is jailed by corrupt South American police while investigating the murder of an environmental activist, being released when rain forest activist Alyssa (Sandra Bullock) kindly tells the police he is harmless.

I don't know how to describe the film except it has such a lazy feel to it. When the Indian that R.J. was jailed with supposedly confesses to the murder R.J. believes he was framed, and when the Indian is found hanged in his cell R.J. and Alyssa decide to dig deeper, though Alyssa is less than impressed with R.J.'s behaviour to this point. R.J. redeems himself a touch by charging in to a burning hut to save a young boy, who is resuscitated by Alyssa, and having a burning ember on his shirt gives R.J. an excuse to turf it and show some muscle to Alyssa, who promptly cries on his shoulder. Feeling the answer lies with the hanged Indian's tribe they paddle up river into the jungle, unaware that the real murderer is stalking them until R.J. gets shot, but they escape to Indian territory where they are stalked again, and R.J. yells loudly while trying to lose them. The Indians turn out friendly and pass around some "feel good" potion by the fire which drives R.J. and Alyssa to get naked and quench their desire. Continuing to enjoy mixing pleasure with business R.J. returns to his hotel with Alyssa, but before they can continue their newfound romance in the hotel room the police ambush R.J. in his room, beating him up and leaving him tied to a chair with a time bomb at his feet. Alyssa arrives at his door, against instructions from her boss, just in time to untie him and they escape once again, but when they run to Alyssa's boss for help they find that she too is on the take and it seems that the happy duo are now left to bring the story to its conclusion by themselves.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
raypdaley18213 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Take 1 famous actress (Sandra Bullock - Speed, Demolition Man, Miss Congeniality) and 1 semi-known actor (Craig Sheffer - Nightbreed) and give them a story about the de-nuding and deforestation of the Amazon.

It looks like a made for TV movie, low production values, poor plot, poor script and poor characters - only the locations look any good. The very bad love scene between Bullock and Sheffer does not help the film at all. It was agreed in advance by Bullock what could and couldn't be seen so don't expect to see anything remotely erotic.

It was quite a surprise that Bullock died at the end leaving the lesser known actor, Sheffer to tell the story of the plight of the burning and logging of the rainforest.

Avoid it if you can, it's predictable and very stereo typed.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Truly a new low for Craig.
Lee Bartholomew24 June 2002
Warning: Spoilers
I'd only seen Craig on A River Runs Through it. Where he was under care from a master.

But in this movie.... he's alone. This is where what little talent is shown to be nil.


In truth.. I bought this dvd for $4 and because it's a movie Sandra would rather forget. I can see why. Although it lacks full nudity... it show's enough for us to imagine the rest.

It also shows that Sandra can act (unlike one of her peers Julia Roberts).

And she does act when she wants to. Craig... he can't act. That and his character is asking for a fight.

This movie has such horrible writing. It's probably a good thing that this is a basic student film. Most of the Corman films are. They help beginning filmakers create their first films.

These idiots have no chemistry together. No chemistry and they have to drug the two of them just to get them to bed.

And this movie is way too short. If they coulda gotten rid of Craig. Things might have been better. Then there was the stupid killing of Sandra. It woulda been worth our while for the two of them to escape off in the plane. Bleh. Thank god the dvd was $4. They were having a sale on Corman films. To bad they didn't have any of Krista Allens Emmanuelle films. :(


Quality: 0/10 Entertainment: 5/10 Replayable: 1/10
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Very, Very BAD
kentatm11 July 2000
This is one of the worst films I have seen in a long, long time. There is a thin storyline about finding out who killed an enviromental activist but it doesn't quite cut it. Bullock performs ok, but the the rest of the cast makes little impact. There is really no reason to waste money on this junk even if Bullock is seen nude.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
As bad as it gets
swordfish-111 April 2002
This one is a true disaster. Thank god I didn't watch it till the end, cause who knows I might be in an emergency room trying to calm down. I would rank this in my personal TOP 10 of the worst movies I've ever seen. How is it possible that they made a movie like this. And by playing in this movie Sandra really screwed her carriere pretty much. I give 0,0001 from 10 to this disaster.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
storem26 January 2002
I saw this movie only recently on VHS tape which was on sale. Luckily I didn't buy this at full price or went to see it in the theaters. In Belgium however this movie never made the theaters due to a law suit between Sandra Bullock and the producers.

About the movie: Not the brightest work ever to make the screen. Even the "full uncut version" as no nudity up to European levels everyone would expect from the yellow sticker on the tape. So the reason for not releasing this movie to the theaters must be the "overall crappiness" of the movie, rather than the nude scene with co-star Craig Sheffer.

My advise: If you want to see Sandra Bullock in actions, please choose one of the more recent movies. You won't spoil you evening waiting for some juicy nude shots of Sandy, because that's the only marketing they put into this film.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Just wretched...
Bri2226 February 2001
Bad, bad, bad... "Fire on the Amazon" stands as an example of how NOT to make a movie. The writing is bad, the editing and continuity (especially in the first 10 minutes of the movie) are shockingly poor...really amateur stuff. The characters are generally unsympathetic and their dialog is turgid and forced. The plot had possibility, but once someone started writing the screenplay for this, it was all downhill. Save your money.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
unlikeable character annoying
SnoopyStyle11 March 2015
Well connected big cattle ranchers are burning down the Bolivian rainforest. Non-violent Santos charismatic leader of the rubber tappers union is assassinated. Callous arrogant photographer R.J. O'Brien (Craig Sheffer) comes to do a story on the struggle. Alyssa Rothman (Sandra Bullock) is an environmentalist supporter of Santos. An Indian is arrested as the assassin but he's killed in detention. R.J. investigates with Alyssa's help.

This movie feels terribly tired. The dialog is clunky. None of the characters are appealing. The politics are simplistic. O'Brien represents the worst of characters. He's an arrogant know-it-all. Craig Sheffer plays him in the least likable fashion. The story is full of bad cheesiness. Bullock is earnest but is unable to salvage this mess. The two of them have no chemistry at all.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
What did I just watch?
Orion Gallagher17 June 2014
Warning: Spoilers
78 long minutes of something along the lines of an after school movie about the plight of the rain forest. Sort of. An after school movie may have been better.

The only thing redeeming about this movie is the pg rated sex scene with Sandra Bullock. Sort of. This scene must be the fire mentioned in the title, but it was just smoke. Not smoke in a good way.

Nothing else was redeeming. The stereo types weren't redeeming. The over the top bad 'acting' wasn't redeeming. The sad commentary about the awful plight of the rain forest wasn't redeeming. This is 78 minutes I'll never get back. Never ever ever.

Did I mention the pg rated sex scene with Sandra?
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Her second 1st movie (DVD)
leplatypus27 June 2010
In France, the first movie of Bullock has always been linked with "Judge Dredd" and in some way, she has been "discovered" by Sly. So I got surprised to discover in a cheap DVDs store ("all for 5 euros") a movie before this first one and also called her beginning.

When you see the trailer, it's looks like a horror movie happening in the south American jungle but as you watch it, you can see that it is just plain reality: the fight for forest, Indians versus owners.

I don't like Spanish culture so my interest was low but I really appreciated the shooting in real locations! The rhythm was good for an hour but exploded with the explosion sequence because it degenerated then in a very low action movie. But, bad script or not, Bullock is a really a charming and talented actress, right from her start"s".
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews