Amazon.com

Just awful enough to qualify as someone's guilty pleasure, this convoluted thriller was supposed to cash in on the supposedly sexy teaming of Sylvester Stallone and Sharon Stone (then hot from her ample exposure in Basic Instinct), but their naked groping in a shower provides one of the film's unintentionally funny highlights. Ray Quick (Stallone) is a former CIA bomb expert whose former colleague (James Woods) is now in cahoots with a Miami drug cartel led by kingpin Joe Leon (Rod Steiger), who chews the scenery while his son Tomas (Eric Roberts) proceeds with a greedy hidden agenda. May Munro (Stone) hires Quick to kill off Roberts. The Specialist, featuring lots of explosions and redeemed by a dandy role for James Woods, is best suited for ardent Stallone and Stone fans. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (27)

Explosive Action!
Ray Quick (lordage Sylvester Stallone) is a veteran specialist who now assassinates people for money. His newest mission requires to bump off the murderers who took away May Munro's (Sharon Stone) parents. This is a taut film that will have you sweating. High fever! The chemistry that Stallone and Stone have is remarkable and will leave you thirsty. I must've drank ten sodas. Hyper! Quick gets each man one-by-one and finishes off Timayo (excellent name) played by Eric Roberts. Even when the movie doesn't involve his mission, Quick fights a couple of punks on a bus and causes tax money to be spent on a broken window. Shattering! Rod Steiger is the father of Timayo and James Woods (who is always an evil genius) plays a trigger man who used to set off Quick's bombs. This movie will leave you exhausted, but wanting more? You say 'no', but I say 'YES'! Immortal genius to the maximum.

Explosive love story!!!
The story of this movie is the following:

The parents of May (Sharon Stone) where killed before her eyes while she was a child. After many years she still could not thru these terrible memories out of her mind. Night horrors were eating her up. Specially, due to the fact that she remembered the names and faces of the killers. Finally, she decided to hire a bomb specialist who would assassinate the killers, members of the Miami drug syndicate. This bomb specialist, Ray (Sylvester Stallone), a former CIA agent, did not want to take a job in the beginning. He stared following May everywhere in order to understand her motives. After a while Ray felled in love with May; he saw that these criminals were really bad guys, and eventually called May and agreed to tale the job. If you want to know the end of the story, you should watch the movie.

What I liked the most about this movie is a beautiful and touching relationship between Ray (Sylvester Stallone) and May (Sharon Stone). They quickly felled in love with each other while speaking by phone.

Every character in this film was extremely well developed. All cast was precisely selected. Sylvester Stallone and Sharon Stone looked really great together! This couple was ideally chosen! The acting was superb by all of the actors, especially by Sharon Stone. This film also has a great music you will not forget as well as great shots of Miami.

There are not too many actions here. But it is a great thriller, and it is a beautiful love story. If you did not see it yet, you certainly should see it. Do not trust to anyone's opinion. Check it up yourself like I did.

Stallone is a walking bomb
Former government bomb expert will now help one woman in her personal vengeance. A lot of action scenes (check one in the bus), big explosions and great thrill. Stallone is cool as always, Stone looks hot and Roberts is the man (I'll never forget his question:"You like the bitch? Maybe you like me?!)Ambient is very good (especially by night) and you simply want to be in Stallone's skin while he's walking down the streets looking for bad guys. Music score is also masterfully done and inspires the moment. Definetly worth of watching.

Hardly Stallone's worst, but it's not worth mentioning.
Arguably Sylvester Stallone's last box office hit (unless you count Cop Land), The Specialist is not the typical Stallone testosterone fest. In fact, it remains a fairly atmospheric thriller revolving around obsession and revenge. But it's not as interesting as it may sound, thanks to the generally lackluster script and mostly unlikeable characters.

Stallone plays Ray Quick, an ex-bomb specialist who works for hire. After the movie's requisite prologue, he's in Miami working for May Munro (Sharon Stone), who wants him to kill three mobsters, especially the head mobster's son, Tomas (Eric Roberts), because they murdered her parents when she was a little girl. Quick contacts her only by phone, they are to never meet, but he's admittedly intrigued by her and vice versa. However, she's actually working for Ned Trent (James Woods), Quick's former colleague who's out for revenge.

Action fans expecting bombastic and over-the-top action sequences should steer clear, this movie will be too sluggish for them. The Specialist has no desire to function as a typical Stallone actioner. There are no large-scale gun battles, fisticuffs, or car chases. In fact, I gather Stallone received the role purely on the basis of his box office clout (and perhaps also his ability to brood and act generally depressed fairly well).

So what is The Specialist, then? Is it a thriller? Yeah, sort of, there are a few suspenseful moments, mostly pertaining to Stallone using his bombs to knock off the mobsters. Surprisingly enough, the twist of having the hero kill the bad guys with explosives (Speed and Blown away came out the same year) works well enough, mostly because the villains' impending doom bears a certain inevitability that plays to the movie's advantage.

But there's little else about the movie worth recommending. The story doesn't make much sense; as soon as it's revealed Roberts' murdered Stone's parents when she was a child, I scratched my head in confusion. He couldn't possibly be more than a year or two older than Stone, meaning he committed the murders when he was about, what, ten or eleven? More likely, it appears the filmmakers are trying to pass off Stone as a twenty-year old bombshell. Sure, Stone looks great (and I do mean great) in this film, but she can't even pass for thirty.

The romance is unsurprisingly perfunctory and generic. As soon as the hero and heroine meet, they almost immediately tear their clothes off and go at it. This is neither romantic nor sexy, even with the undeniably hot Sharon Stone as part of this tryst. I've always kind of liked Stallone, subpar an actor as he may be. He's always had a fairly commandable screen presence, though he has yet to translate that to genuine charisma (which is what puts him considerably behind that other big lug, Arnold Scwarzenegger).

Neither suspenseful nor exciting enough to recommend, The Specialist is of little interest to anyone except for Stallone and Stone fans (and maybe James Wood fans, who will either delight or wince at his maniacally over-the-top performance). I'm still waiting for Stallone to revive his career with a big-budget action blockbuster, but I don't see it happening. Hey, I'm one of the few guys out there who actually liked D-Tox, so I wouldn't necessarily say his career has gone down the drain.
* 1/2 out of *****

There is Trash--and Then There is The Specialist
Most big budget big star films that come under heavy critical panning usually contain ludicrous acting on the parts of the big stars and a heavy reliance on special effects. I can see why THE SPECIALIST is now included in that group. Sylvester Stallone has rarely been as buff as he is in the role of Ray Quick, an ex-CIA bomb specialist who has been hired as a bomb hit man to kill some thugs headed by Rod Steiger and Eric Roberts. Stallone is as stone-faced as ever as he judiciously places small but powerful explosives to kill his victims. Stallone as Quick sleepwalks through his screen time, but as I watched this movie for the third time, I realized that the movie that I saw was exactly the one that director Luis LLosa wanted: a paen to the power and destructive force of matchbook sized bombs. Clearly, LLosa did not want anyone to take seriously the tale of a hired bomber who could kill in the hundreds and not arouse world wide attention. There are so many explosions that each one works metaphorically to eradicate any serious consideration of a plot that has as much weight as one of Quick's plastic explosives. The focus is less on Quick, but more on his supporting cast, Sharon Stone as the revenge-seeking woman who hires him and James Woods as the former CIA teacher spook who taught Quick all he knows about bombs. Miss Stone is the leggy female counterpart to a Stallone whose primary acting skill is to grimace as if he expects a hook from Apollo Creed at any moment. Stone walks around for most of her screen time in mini skirts while Stallone shows off his equally impressive pecs. Yet, despite their physical symmetry, their screen chemistry barely registers on the cinematic Richter scale. What keeps the film going is a balance between the incredible explosions (one of which allows a hotel floor to disengage itself from its structural base) and the superb acting of James Woods, who seems to be working as some kind of CIA spook with authority over the local police but is really on the pad of a crime boss, played shrilly by a balding Rod Steiger, who is guilty of badly overacting. Woods does what he can to keep the disparate elements of an off-balanced movie like this one on track. To his credit, he manages to give more than a note of authenticity even to the scenes that defy logic and analysis. The relationship between Woods and Stallone on a reverse-buddy level is far more of note that the hoped for sexual sizzle between Stallone and Stone. Essentially, THE SPECIALIST is predator prey film with Woods hunting Stallone, but the boundaries between the hunter and the hunted soon often blur. Watching a film like this is a perversely enjoyable experience. One does not expect any great statements about the Twisted Meaning of Life, but in the male bonding arena, nobody can top James Woods with his ability to make the audience feel the nervous agida as he closes in on his target. Stallone, however, has never learned how to react when he is outside of the squared circle, but in THE SPECIALIST, I did not really care about that. ... Read more

Reviews (144)

Fun, but... Okay, it stinks.
Well, however you look at it, this is an enjoyable little man-vs-nature movie. Enjoyable, that is, in the "what the hell, it's bad enough to be good and I've got nothing else to do" sort of way. The snake effects are pretty good, and Jon Voight (having a devilishly good time with his wack-o character and accent) does more acting than the whole rest of the cast combined.
Speaking of the cast, that one's a head-scratcher. The usually reliable Eric Stoltz kicks up his feet and literally sleeps through most of his role. Jennifer Lopez, in her pre-J.Lo days, makes you have to wonder just how her career ever really took off. Ice Cube runs around frowning, as usual. Plus, any movie that casts Owen Wilson as the resident hunk (has anyone ever seen his nose, for God's sake?) is already making way too many mistakes. And you simply can't wait for the stuffy British jerk to get swallowed alive. At least Voight's around to liven things up.
Then there's the plot. This documentary film crew is searching for some silly lost tribe, but of course gets sidetracked by trying to avoid being eaten. Then, at the very end of the movie, this tribe shows up to wave hello and do absolutely nothing else. Is this an "Awwww..." moment? Or an "Ooooo..." moment? Or a just plain "So what?" moment?
And this is one death-defying snake! Obviously, this kind of movie plays fast and loose with little things like "reality" and "laws of nature", but somehow I don't think snakes, even really big, mean ones, can sustain as much blunt-force head trauma as this one does by busting through windows and smashing boat decks with its noggin. Also, in some sort of misplaced disclaimer at the beginning of the movie, we're helpfully informed that anacondas sometimes regurgitate their still-kicking food, apparently just for the sick fun of eating it again, so we're sitting around waiting for that to happen, too. It's like the movie is begging us to believe that "Yes, anacondas really DO do that, we're not just being stupid and gross!" Sad, really.
But hey... it's something to do. Anyway, it's better than "Python", even though "Anaconda" doesn't feature Jenny McCarthy's head getting lopped off. Heh heh... that was pretty cool.

Voigt Carries the Film
When I watched Anaconda I was surprised that it was better than I expected. Part of the reason for that was the performance given by John Voigt.

A film crew is traveling the Amazon in search of the elusive People of the Mist. On the way the rescue Voigt from a stranded ship. Voigt is a snake catcher and claims he knows where the People of the Mist can be found. In reality he is trying to lead them into anaconda territory where he hopes to catch a live specimen and make a fortune. Finally the truth comes out, as do the snakes and it becomes a battle between man and beast as well as between man and man. In the end the survivors prepare to return to their ruined careers when they stumble across the People of the Mist.

John Voigt gave an excellent performance as a Paraguayan snake catcher (Paraguayan so as no one can tell if the accent is right). John shows off a physique that shows why he was chosen to play gigolos and boxers. I did not care too much for the black cameraman. He seemed to be one great big stereotype, so city bred he can't believe that fish live in water. The only other flaw with the film is the way the snake moves. Anacondas are strong but they can not support their entire weight on the tip of their tail. It also moved faster than a striking rattlesnake. Oh well, I still really enjoyed the movie.

ANACONDA
THIS MOVIE WAS COOL THE SNAKE LOOKS SO COOL. REALLY GOOD CREATURE MOVIE.EVEN HAS HOT ACTORS LIKE KARI WUHRE AND J-LO. GREAT BUT NO DEEP BLUE SEA.

It's a movie with a bite!
Plot: A group of filmakers/scientists journey through the amazon in search for a rare indian tribe only to encounter a snake hunter and 50-foot man-eating anaconda!
Review: Great film with a talented and impressive cast (Jon Voight(Heat), Jennifer Lopez(Evita), Eric Stoltz(Pulp Fiction),Ice Cube(Friday),Owen Wilson(Zoolander),and more...)
For a film of this genre, "Anaconda" continues to remain realistic throughout it's story.
Packed with action, suspense, and stunning visual and make-up effects, "Anaconda" delivers!

Snakes!... Why Did It Have to be Snakes?!
Not since the 1973's "SsssssS" (Strother Martin and Dirk Benedict) has a snake movie been so creepy. ANACONDA's plot is your garden variety monster movie. Each character is picked off one by one by the monster (in this case, a giant anaconda snake) and one or two survivors find a way to kill it. Thrown in the mix is always an antagonizer who goes against the grain. In this film, Jon Voight plays totally out of type as the mysterious big game hunter who latches on to a documentary film crew in the Amazon. He leads them on a wild goose trail looking for a lost indian tribe, unknown to his hosts that he's looking for a big game snake. The film is predictable and the CGI/animatronic snake is somewhat decent. Some of the giant anaconda CGI movements look unrealistic to the point of looking cartoony. It is easy to distinguish between the CGI and the mechanical snake. But once the snake shows up, the movie picks up. The creepy (but clever) sequence is when Voight becomes victim to the giant anaconda. A camera shot seems to come from inside the snake as the mouth opens and it begins to swallow him. Then a couple of scenes later when you think Voight is a goner, the snake regurgitates him covered with digestive juices. To make it even creepier, Voight is still alive and winks at Jennifer Lopez. Overall, a predictable B- horror/monster movie with an interesting cast which includes Jennifer Lopez, Jon Voight and Ice Cube, but with cheap computer effects not up to par with JURASSIC PARK. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Part potboiler, part work of conscience, Fire on the Amazon is acheesy but effective drama set against the ecological disaster of SouthAmerica's disappearing rain forest. As these tropical-topical movies often go, the story is told through the adventures of outsiders, in this case acynical photojournalist (Craig Sheffer) and a dedicated activist (SandraBullock), both from America. After initial skirmishes, the good-looking pair find themselves immersed in a growing war between a corrupt army and an organized, well-armed resistance mounted by indigenous people. Much sadness and outrage follow as the innocent are decimated along with the land, and this season of grief brings our protagonists together in love. The film's notorious if rarely seen erotic interlude, both in its R-rated and unrated versions, is hardly perfunctory, yet director Luis Llosa (Anaconda) shoots it as a piece of soft-core fluff. Credit that to executive producer Roger Corman, the legendary showman who knows how to sell even the most serious low-budget production with a hint of schlock. Fire on the Amazon was originally made in 1990 and its release was delayed several years, finally prompted by Bullock's rising stature in Hollywood. She's actually quite good in it, as is Sheffer, and their respective fans would probably enjoy the actors' performances. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (18)

for Bullock completists only (and oh yeah, the nude scene)
"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.

Roger Corman Presents...once again
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...

Not much here
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.

Sandy, What Were Ye Thinkin'?
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.

A Dubious Debut
In this painfully earnest, yet mildly cheesy film, we see glimpses of Sandra Bullock's strong personality to come. However, she is mostly overshadowed by the overacting of the others involved, as well as the film's simplistic, bludgeon-you-over-the head political messages (i.e., "Indians good; multinational logging corporations bad"). Ms. Bullock is pretty decent, but otherwise there's not much subtlety here. ... Read more

Description

The Superbit titles utilize a special high bit rate digital encoding process which optimizes video quality while offering a choice of both DTS and Dolby Digital 5.1 audio. These titles have been produced by a team of Sony Pictures Digital Studios video, sound and mastering engineers and comes housed in a special package complete with a 4 page booklet that contains technical information on the Superbit process. By reallocating space on the disc normally used for value-added content, Superbit DVDs can be encoded at double their normal bit rate while maintaining full compatibility with the DVD video format. ... Read more

Reviews (144)

Fun, but... Okay, it stinks.
Well, however you look at it, this is an enjoyable little man-vs-nature movie. Enjoyable, that is, in the "what the hell, it's bad enough to be good and I've got nothing else to do" sort of way. The snake effects are pretty good, and Jon Voight (having a devilishly good time with his wack-o character and accent) does more acting than the whole rest of the cast combined.
Speaking of the cast, that one's a head-scratcher. The usually reliable Eric Stoltz kicks up his feet and literally sleeps through most of his role. Jennifer Lopez, in her pre-J.Lo days, makes you have to wonder just how her career ever really took off. Ice Cube runs around frowning, as usual. Plus, any movie that casts Owen Wilson as the resident hunk (has anyone ever seen his nose, for God's sake?) is already making way too many mistakes. And you simply can't wait for the stuffy British jerk to get swallowed alive. At least Voight's around to liven things up.
Then there's the plot. This documentary film crew is searching for some silly lost tribe, but of course gets sidetracked by trying to avoid being eaten. Then, at the very end of the movie, this tribe shows up to wave hello and do absolutely nothing else. Is this an "Awwww..." moment? Or an "Ooooo..." moment? Or a just plain "So what?" moment?
And this is one death-defying snake! Obviously, this kind of movie plays fast and loose with little things like "reality" and "laws of nature", but somehow I don't think snakes, even really big, mean ones, can sustain as much blunt-force head trauma as this one does by busting through windows and smashing boat decks with its noggin. Also, in some sort of misplaced disclaimer at the beginning of the movie, we're helpfully informed that anacondas sometimes regurgitate their still-kicking food, apparently just for the sick fun of eating it again, so we're sitting around waiting for that to happen, too. It's like the movie is begging us to believe that "Yes, anacondas really DO do that, we're not just being stupid and gross!" Sad, really.
But hey... it's something to do. Anyway, it's better than "Python", even though "Anaconda" doesn't feature Jenny McCarthy's head getting lopped off. Heh heh... that was pretty cool.

Voigt Carries the Film
When I watched Anaconda I was surprised that it was better than I expected. Part of the reason for that was the performance given by John Voigt.

A film crew is traveling the Amazon in search of the elusive People of the Mist. On the way the rescue Voigt from a stranded ship. Voigt is a snake catcher and claims he knows where the People of the Mist can be found. In reality he is trying to lead them into anaconda territory where he hopes to catch a live specimen and make a fortune. Finally the truth comes out, as do the snakes and it becomes a battle between man and beast as well as between man and man. In the end the survivors prepare to return to their ruined careers when they stumble across the People of the Mist.

John Voigt gave an excellent performance as a Paraguayan snake catcher (Paraguayan so as no one can tell if the accent is right). John shows off a physique that shows why he was chosen to play gigolos and boxers. I did not care too much for the black cameraman. He seemed to be one great big stereotype, so city bred he can't believe that fish live in water. The only other flaw with the film is the way the snake moves. Anacondas are strong but they can not support their entire weight on the tip of their tail. It also moved faster than a striking rattlesnake. Oh well, I still really enjoyed the movie.

ANACONDA
THIS MOVIE WAS COOL THE SNAKE LOOKS SO COOL. REALLY GOOD CREATURE MOVIE.EVEN HAS HOT ACTORS LIKE KARI WUHRE AND J-LO. GREAT BUT NO DEEP BLUE SEA.

It's a movie with a bite!
Plot: A group of filmakers/scientists journey through the amazon in search for a rare indian tribe only to encounter a snake hunter and 50-foot man-eating anaconda!
Review: Great film with a talented and impressive cast (Jon Voight(Heat), Jennifer Lopez(Evita), Eric Stoltz(Pulp Fiction),Ice Cube(Friday),Owen Wilson(Zoolander),and more...)
For a film of this genre, "Anaconda" continues to remain realistic throughout it's story.
Packed with action, suspense, and stunning visual and make-up effects, "Anaconda" delivers!

Snakes!... Why Did It Have to be Snakes?!
Not since the 1973's "SsssssS" (Strother Martin and Dirk Benedict) has a snake movie been so creepy. ANACONDA's plot is your garden variety monster movie. Each character is picked off one by one by the monster (in this case, a giant anaconda snake) and one or two survivors find a way to kill it. Thrown in the mix is always an antagonizer who goes against the grain. In this film, Jon Voight plays totally out of type as the mysterious big game hunter who latches on to a documentary film crew in the Amazon. He leads them on a wild goose trail looking for a lost indian tribe, unknown to his hosts that he's looking for a big game snake. The film is predictable and the CGI/animatronic snake is somewhat decent. Some of the giant anaconda CGI movements look unrealistic to the point of looking cartoony. It is easy to distinguish between the CGI and the mechanical snake. But once the snake shows up, the movie picks up. The creepy (but clever) sequence is when Voight becomes victim to the giant anaconda. A camera shot seems to come from inside the snake as the mouth opens and it begins to swallow him. Then a couple of scenes later when you think Voight is a goner, the snake regurgitates him covered with digestive juices. To make it even creepier, Voight is still alive and winks at Jennifer Lopez. Overall, a predictable B- horror/monster movie with an interesting cast which includes Jennifer Lopez, Jon Voight and Ice Cube, but with cheap computer effects not up to par with JURASSIC PARK. ... Read more

Reviews (10)

Not like the other Bullock movies
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.

Grade F-
This movie was so bad I could not watch the whole thing.
THE GOOD
Nothing, may have gotten better after the half way mark, but it was a pain to make it that far.
THE BAD
Everting about the movie. Sandra's acting is bad. And the guy playing opposite her, is just horrible. So bad that it was almost like watching a man who is acting like, who is acting like, who is taking pictures. Editing was poor. Was there even a director in this film? This was a film that was unreleased, upon untill Sandra became a star. They should have burned all copies, and filmed that, because that would have been a better film to watch.
C.P.O.V.
Some cuss words, but other than that, I couldn't say. Mind keep wandering, film was too boring.-EJW

A complete waste of time
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...

Pathetic
The depiction of the photojournalist in this movie is a complete joke. Characters and their motivations were poorly established and the cinematography and direction seemed cheap and amateurish.

Amateurish film, even for Bullock or Amazon fans
"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. ... Read more

Description

On an ark the size of a house, they quietly headed down the Amazon. For the others, it was a chance for adventure. For outlaw Joam Garral, it was the only way he could go back to Brazil. And while the muddy Amazon water hides its bloodthirsty denizens, even greater danger lurks for Garral. His secret past gets out and a ruthless bounty hunter is hot on his trail. Now deep in the jungle, there's no turning back and few make it out alive! ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Satisfactory
Satisfactory adventure film. There are enough tense moments to make the film interesting. The story moves along quickly. The film and actors will win no awards but I found the movie enjoyable enough. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This giant-man-eating-snake-in-the-jungle thriller definitely scores points as a guilty pleasure, especially with Jon Voight hamming it up as the monster-poacher. He makes life miserable for a team of documentary filmmakers on the Amazon river. Anaconda is one of those movies that exists for no other reason than to give computer animators a chance to strut their stuff with a new digital beastie, and they don't disappoint. It's a lot of fun to watch the mega-snake scarf down its victims and--in the case of Voight--regurgitate 'em right back up again, all covered in gooey digestive juices. You might wonder why Eric Stoltz, who plays Dr. Steven Cale, showed up for a role that requires him to be off-screen for most of the movie, but hey--when it comes to big snake movies, you might as well put your brain on hold and sit back for the slimy ride. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (144)

Fun, but... Okay, it stinks.
Well, however you look at it, this is an enjoyable little man-vs-nature movie. Enjoyable, that is, in the "what the hell, it's bad enough to be good and I've got nothing else to do" sort of way. The snake effects are pretty good, and Jon Voight (having a devilishly good time with his wack-o character and accent) does more acting than the whole rest of the cast combined.
Speaking of the cast, that one's a head-scratcher. The usually reliable Eric Stoltz kicks up his feet and literally sleeps through most of his role. Jennifer Lopez, in her pre-J.Lo days, makes you have to wonder just how her career ever really took off. Ice Cube runs around frowning, as usual. Plus, any movie that casts Owen Wilson as the resident hunk (has anyone ever seen his nose, for God's sake?) is already making way too many mistakes. And you simply can't wait for the stuffy British jerk to get swallowed alive. At least Voight's around to liven things up.
Then there's the plot. This documentary film crew is searching for some silly lost tribe, but of course gets sidetracked by trying to avoid being eaten. Then, at the very end of the movie, this tribe shows up to wave hello and do absolutely nothing else. Is this an "Awwww..." moment? Or an "Ooooo..." moment? Or a just plain "So what?" moment?
And this is one death-defying snake! Obviously, this kind of movie plays fast and loose with little things like "reality" and "laws of nature", but somehow I don't think snakes, even really big, mean ones, can sustain as much blunt-force head trauma as this one does by busting through windows and smashing boat decks with its noggin. Also, in some sort of misplaced disclaimer at the beginning of the movie, we're helpfully informed that anacondas sometimes regurgitate their still-kicking food, apparently just for the sick fun of eating it again, so we're sitting around waiting for that to happen, too. It's like the movie is begging us to believe that "Yes, anacondas really DO do that, we're not just being stupid and gross!" Sad, really.
But hey... it's something to do. Anyway, it's better than "Python", even though "Anaconda" doesn't feature Jenny McCarthy's head getting lopped off. Heh heh... that was pretty cool.

Voigt Carries the Film
When I watched Anaconda I was surprised that it was better than I expected. Part of the reason for that was the performance given by John Voigt.

A film crew is traveling the Amazon in search of the elusive People of the Mist. On the way the rescue Voigt from a stranded ship. Voigt is a snake catcher and claims he knows where the People of the Mist can be found. In reality he is trying to lead them into anaconda territory where he hopes to catch a live specimen and make a fortune. Finally the truth comes out, as do the snakes and it becomes a battle between man and beast as well as between man and man. In the end the survivors prepare to return to their ruined careers when they stumble across the People of the Mist.

John Voigt gave an excellent performance as a Paraguayan snake catcher (Paraguayan so as no one can tell if the accent is right). John shows off a physique that shows why he was chosen to play gigolos and boxers. I did not care too much for the black cameraman. He seemed to be one great big stereotype, so city bred he can't believe that fish live in water. The only other flaw with the film is the way the snake moves. Anacondas are strong but they can not support their entire weight on the tip of their tail. It also moved faster than a striking rattlesnake. Oh well, I still really enjoyed the movie.

ANACONDA
THIS MOVIE WAS COOL THE SNAKE LOOKS SO COOL. REALLY GOOD CREATURE MOVIE.EVEN HAS HOT ACTORS LIKE KARI WUHRE AND J-LO. GREAT BUT NO DEEP BLUE SEA.

It's a movie with a bite!
Plot: A group of filmakers/scientists journey through the amazon in search for a rare indian tribe only to encounter a snake hunter and 50-foot man-eating anaconda!
Review: Great film with a talented and impressive cast (Jon Voight(Heat), Jennifer Lopez(Evita), Eric Stoltz(Pulp Fiction),Ice Cube(Friday),Owen Wilson(Zoolander),and more...)
For a film of this genre, "Anaconda" continues to remain realistic throughout it's story.
Packed with action, suspense, and stunning visual and make-up effects, "Anaconda" delivers!

Snakes!... Why Did It Have to be Snakes?!
Not since the 1973's "SsssssS" (Strother Martin and Dirk Benedict) has a snake movie been so creepy. ANACONDA's plot is your garden variety monster movie. Each character is picked off one by one by the monster (in this case, a giant anaconda snake) and one or two survivors find a way to kill it. Thrown in the mix is always an antagonizer who goes against the grain. In this film, Jon Voight plays totally out of type as the mysterious big game hunter who latches on to a documentary film crew in the Amazon. He leads them on a wild goose trail looking for a lost indian tribe, unknown to his hosts that he's looking for a big game snake. The film is predictable and the CGI/animatronic snake is somewhat decent. Some of the giant anaconda CGI movements look unrealistic to the point of looking cartoony. It is easy to distinguish between the CGI and the mechanical snake. But once the snake shows up, the movie picks up. The creepy (but clever) sequence is when Voight becomes victim to the giant anaconda. A camera shot seems to come from inside the snake as the mouth opens and it begins to swallow him. Then a couple of scenes later when you think Voight is a goner, the snake regurgitates him covered with digestive juices. To make it even creepier, Voight is still alive and winks at Jennifer Lopez. Overall, a predictable B- horror/monster movie with an interesting cast which includes Jennifer Lopez, Jon Voight and Ice Cube, but with cheap computer effects not up to par with JURASSIC PARK. ... Read more