Arenas Movie Reviews

I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I've heard numerous times that this movie was to be a tribute to real life United States Marine Carlos Hathcock. If this in fact was a tribute to Gunny Hathcock I feel that it paid tribute to him in a way that he probably could have appreciated.Tom Berenger is probably the best actor to portray a no b.s., efficient military operator that Hollywood has to offer. His presence is enough to make you want to like who he is portraying.

Unless you are a USMC sniper you really have no way of knowing how true to life this movie actually is. I have spoken to a number of men serving with STA and they have given this movie mostly a thumbs up. USMC SS Tom Ferran was a consult on the set so that explains why many aspects of this movie are very good. Obviously there are some technical blunders where the producers have decided that entertainment is more important than reality.

The plot for this movie is very simple; sneak in, eliminate your target, sneak out. If you don't appreciate the fieldcraft of sniping you will probably not like this movie. Much of the film is very slow paced and more like a drama. There are a few scenes with explosions, lots of shooting, etc. I like this movie because the makers didn't completely sell out the legacy of the USMC snipers to make an action packed film.

I liked this movie because there wasn't a whole lot of unecessary action, though there was some. The movie was pretty slow paced and that is something many snipers can probably appreciate. If you have never studied sniping you'll probably not think much of this film. If you have studied it, you just may like the movie.

Let me say that although the Billy Zane character had no place in this movie (Civilians are NOT assigned to Marine Snipers!), Tom Berenger did a OUTSTANDING portrayal of a Marine Master Gunnery Sergeant. He had the looks, the lingo and the mannerisms down pat. My wife watched the movie and told me "There's You!. Except the wrong scope reticle pattern, the gear was correct. Great movie! I bought it.

Who can say that this movie is bad? I read a review that it was boring, and no plot. All they did was wonder through a jungle, and one snaps and starts trying to kill the other. This is my reply to them: Ever heard of Character Development, and behaviour, how people react to things?
Just picture yourself in a jungle, and you can be shot at, at any moment without warning. Anyone can snap from that.
This film is more for adults, who understands more of what goes on. Younger people just look for action, and some great special effects, blowing up, etc.
Just buy it! It's a great movie!

Official Actual Rating: **1/2 (two stars and a half)

Steve Carter's (Big Bad Mama) 1983 extremely modest spaghetti western, martial arts, and low budget action hybrid, Lone Wolf McQuade, is by itself a rather remotely intriguing early eighties lackadaisical B-grade prime specimen of energetic action sleepwalking at it's most soothingly appealing and inversely blankly catatonic. Consider an imaginary high school athlete with the entire facility and anatomical ability to become an All-American yet with the small time desire to only be the school's custodian part time after-school and you generally get the bleak situation. In it's most coolly aloof, melodramatically sincere, and yet reclusive callow telling, the film represents nothing more than a passionate circular shift of narrative under-reaching for apathetic self-contentment that often seems to find narrative momentum however never fully follows it anywhere. The spaghetti western contexts of insurmountably acute mysticism (especially in the opening sequence) do raise Mc Quade (virtually superior to all of Norris's filmed efforts to date) above mere action exploitation that unfortunately never sufficiently pursue the true ambition of the material leaving McQuade rather land-logged residing firmly on the peak of B-film incomplete what-ifs that never quite completely come to fruition.

Many attest ,along with Norris himself, that his sizable popular internationally acclaimed CBS 1990's hit television series Walker, Texas Ranger was the natural substantive continuation of the themes, spiritual issues, and ideologies first addressed here. That being the case the network television remake astronomically refined, unquestionably advanced, and palpably addressed quintessentially all of McQuade's questionable issues of detail inconsistency, dramatic impotency, and chronic characterized one-dimensionality that intensely haltered this particular effort from being nothing more than routine 1980's actual fodder.

The story (what ultimately remains) revolves around the title character, renown Texas Ranger J.J. McQuade (Chuck Norris), who with typical Sergio Leone flourishes remains an all-encompassing renegade loner who's reputation retains all matter of reverence from the community, ecstatic masculine camaraderie with his former superior/best friend (L.Q. Jones, or could we say comedy relief perhaps), typically bureaucratic reservations from his new superiors, fear by his side saddled novice junior partner Kayo (Robert Beltran, of Star Trek Voyager fame) that complicates his solitary angst, and begrudging admiration from his partially aloof ex-spouse and his flourishingly attractive young daughter. As you can already speculate, McQuade is your typical Harry Callahan Alpha male on the loose for any rambling treachery or illegitimate legal disrespect that might nonchalantly mosey on down to his little hamlet of the world for some criminal jollies. The illegal gun smuggler mastermind of this piece is an egomaniac martial arts guru Rawley Wilkes who habitually taunts and impedes upon McQuade's private and professional lives at every conceivable turn that is of course until the predetermined showdown of a lyrically Fistful of Dollars reminiscent magnitude at the film's conclusion. In this case the numero uno (number one in other words) of disrespect is none other than "Kung Fu" television series martial arts cult celebrity (heavily misused significant talent) David Carradine (Kill Bill Vol. 1, Kill Bill Vol. 2) who makes the grandiose most of this typically campy action kitsch film by brandishing his pathologically deep eccentricities that incredibly grandly unveil misogynistic resplendent sour dimensions of sadistic grandeur to the remainder of these conventionally predictable Texan action mantra proceedings. Essentially at it's kick punctuated heroically laced center, this silver screen neighborhood of repetitious action compromises of nonexistent sweep over anecdotal embellishment summarily leave the viewer dramatically windswept towards the invariable possibilities that laid in waiting that couldn't quite trespass beyond convention onto the screen itself.

As for the DVD edition of Lone Wolf McQuade, the DVD edition contains a competently serviceable 1.85 to 1 wide-screen anamorphic presentation, a flawlessly dynamic Dolby Digital 2.0 Mono audio track, the theatrical trailer, and typically no other film related options to speak of.

P.S. When a group of Mexican police officers attempt to squelch a ragtag group of horse rustlers, always bring the precursory Chuck Norris along just in case.

This is probably the best Chuck Norris movie because it's got the best supporting cast by far (David Carradine and Barbara Carrera) and is just in-your-face lone wolf Chuck at his level best. A ranger who won't quit and will take it to the limit and then some. A steady dose of testosterone from beginning to end. There's some martial arts in here but it's not really the centerpiece in the way that that's all there is to the movie (like other Chuck Norris films). A perfect movie for what TBS used to call "Movies for Guys Who Like Movies." If you like Chuck or a traditional action movie, then I think you'll like Lone Wolf McQuade.

THE MAJORITY OF CHUCK NORRIS FILMS ARE CONTEMPORARY 'B' MOVIES AND THIS ONE IS NO EXCEPTION. BUT, IT JUST MAY BE THE BEST OF THE BUNCH.
FORGET REALITY AND TRY TO ENJOY IT AS ESCAPIST ENTERTAINMENT.
CHUCK IS J.J. MCQUADE, RENEGADE TEXAS RANGER. HE DEFIES AUTHORITY, DRINKS ONLY 'PEARL' BEER AND LIVES LIKE A SLOB. BUT AS USUAL HE IS A WHITE HAT GOOD GUY.
THE CLICHES ARE SO THICK YOU NEED A BUTTER KNIFE TO SPREAD THEM. HE CARRIES A .44 MAGNUM, DISLIKES PARTNERS, ESPECIALLY YOUNG ONES. HE IS A LONER, THUSLY KNOWN AS 'LONE WOLF.'
THE MOVIE PROJECTS ITSELF AS A MODERN DAY SPAGHETTI WESTERN COMPLETE WITH
A "WHAH-WHAH-WHAH" MAN WITH NO NAME TYPE OF SOUNDTRACK.
DAVID CARRADINE OF 'KUNG FU' FAME PORTARYS MCQUADES ARCH RIVAL AND ILLICIT ARMS DEALER. THE CASE GETS PERSONAL WHEN MCQUADES DAUGHTER AND GIRLFRIEND ARE KIDNAPPED AND HELD AT A REMOTE WEST TEXAS COMPOUND. MCQUADE SHOWS UP AND YOU GUESSED IT, WE END UP WITH KUNG FU MEETS KARATE CHAMP.
THIS FILM LIKE MOST OF CHUCK'S EFFORTS IS EXTREMELY JUVENILE AND ABOUT AS DEEP AS A CHILDS BACK YARD SWIMMING POOL. BUT IF YOU ACCEPT IT FOR WHAT IT IS, A BASIC ACTION FLICK IT WORKS PRETTY WELL ON THAT PRIMARY LEVEL.
WESTERN FANS CAN LOOK FOR L.Q. JONES WHO PLAYS A RETIRED OLD SCHOOL RANGER. HIS SCENES MAKE THE MOVIE.

ALL THINGS CONSIDERED IT BEATS THE HECK OUT OF THE SUPER T.V. FANTASY 'WALKER TEXAS RANGER.'

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...

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.