louns@uw-june (Michael Lounsbery) (08/07/85)
Having so far seen a fair number of positive reviews of _The_Emerald_Forest_, I thought perhaps it was time to give my impressions of it. I feel it was inconsistent, often poorly acted, and, above all, hokey. To begin with, I could never figure out what the film was trying to do. If it was an entertainment film, the ecological points about the disappearing forests were out of place. If the film was trying to drive home the point about the tragedy of the Amazon's forests, the happy ending is definitely off. The viewer would have been much more impressed by the extinction of to the "Invisible People," as was probably more likely than the too happy ending presented. Sure, a couple of the older members of the tribe died, but the young ones, including the hero and heroine were there to take over and live happily ever after. Also inexplainable was the fact that next to no feeling is ever shown for the "Fierce People" throughout the film. From the start, they are portrayed as evil people who deserve to die. All right, they were pretty aggressive, but nothing was made of the fact that, after all, their entire tribe (or at least all the men) was wiped out by the very tribe portrayed as good. For a film supposedly concerned with the rights of the Indians in the Amazon, this comes off smelling very bad. The film was too matter-of-fact about the killing of the first one by the kid's father, and also didn't seem to care very much about the fate of the long-haired white guide who apparently was eaten by the evil cannibals. Another inconsistency was the father's actions toward the dam. As soon as he finds out destroying it has a chance of saving his son, he blows it up. Come on! The guy has been building this dam for 10 years, do you really think he's just going to casually blow it up on the first advice of his son? At least a little mental anguish about destroying his creation, and the ensuing dilemma, is called for. Such a subject was treated much better in _The_Bridge_on_the_River_Kwai_. It also seemed that more could have been made of the city-dwelling "Bat People." There was a tremendous chance to build up the irony of their new life that was wasted. Subjects like that have been treated much better in Herzog films (to which _The_Emerald_Forest_ has been compared) such as _Where_the_Green_Ants_Dream. As far as occasional bad acting, I really felt that the actress portraying the kid's mother ruined every scene she was in. She just didn't fit. I liked the guy who played Tomee's Indian father, but nobody else really stood out. (The guy playing Tommy's white father always looked like he was about to kill the first person to talk, even when he wasn't toting his big black machine gun.) The main thing I really didn't like was how hokey the film really seemed. A white kid is kidnapped by Amazon Indians, and grows to be their chief at 17. This is the kind of stuff the National Enquirer writes about! Although the film takes itself very seriously, right from the start everything is just too melodramatic. There were too many scenes that were surely intended to be serious that actually had most of the theater laughing at them for the unbelievability of the way they were presented. I guess I might as well be fair and say what I did like. The photography was great, with magnificent air shots of the forest, which truly was an emerald in color. Also, the action really starts to pick up near the end, even making the movie fun for about 20 minutes (even though the action consists of wiping out the evil "Fierce People" and the horribly crude white guys who supply them with weapons). _The_Emerald_Forest_ had some really good potential, but just couldn't put it all together to come up with a memorable and lasting film. I'd give it a rating of *1/2, maybe ** if you don't mind hokeyness.
luner@uwai.UUCP (08/09/85)
> ... inconsistent, often poorly acted, and, above all, hokey. Having seen a number of movies recently with "sad" endings, I enjoyed the balance. > ... could never figure out what the film was trying to do.entertainment? > ecological? I offer the thought of man changing the environment: The introduction of the machine gun that upsets the "balance of power", the dam and expansion of "civilization" that forces the "Fierce People" to move into the homeland of the "invisible People". > ... no feeling is ever shown for the "Fierce People" ... as evil people > who deserve to die. There has to be a generic bad guy. Their cannibalism was used to justify their fate. > ... their entire tribe (or at least all the men) was wiped out I think I saw a few get away. There were only about 5 male good guys left, too. > The film was too matter-of-fact about the killing of the first one by > the kid's father, and also didn't seem to care very much about the fate > of the long-haired white guide who apparently was eaten by the evil cannibals. Admit it, the Star Trek "Prime Directive" is hard to swallow when your life is on the line. The reporter was a semi-slime. I don't count it as a loss. :-) > father's actions ... he blows it up. Didn't the flood do it before he had a chance? [ Some comments I agree with or don't care to comment upon ] > _The_Emerald_Forest_ had some really good potential, but just couldn't put > it all together to come up with a memorable and lasting film. I'd give it a > rating of *1/2, maybe ** if you don't mind hokeyness. The jungle photography was very good. The story is good, but not without faults.I'd give it *** (i.e. Worth paying $4.50 for) [**** is worth seeing more than once at full price, e.g. Amadaeus]
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (08/19/85)
>Another inconsistency was the father's actions toward the >dam. As soon as he finds out destroying it has a chance of >saving his son, he blows it up. Come on! The guy has been >building this dam for 10 years, do you really think he's >just going to casually blow it up on the first advice of his >son? Minor correction here. If you look closely, the father fails to blow up the dam. There is no explosion when he pushes the button that would blow up the dam and seconds later the force of the water does what he failed to do. Your point is well taken that he might not be so willing to destroy his own work as he is shown to be, but FATE saves him from actually doing the deed. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper