Queen of the Amazon

This movie looks like the producers rented a boat, employed inexperienced actors and let them enjoy themselves while loosely following some sort of script. Amazon River shots are amazing (they're difficult to spoil), and there are some great wildlife shots as well, but other than that it's not really interesting to watch. Acting is not good, action is slow. The hostage situation mentioned in the storyline takes place at about 2/3 of the movie. They didn't even bother to put in some digital blood and bullet marks when someone gets shot.

And everythings for free, so lets go hire a boat on the amazonas and shoot the movie weve always wanted to make, and of they went, family and frinds, making the screenplay at the airport, bought a camera or two at the tax free and so goes the fairytail.... just a possible scenario of the origins of this production...

which stinks to such a degree that its only watchable a double or triple speed , and make a benny hill like show outta it. Plot is stupid, acting is amateuristic stumbling, and the main set production are what you may expect in a narrow space, cause its done the difficult way on board a ship. There are only one area of the moviemaking that i can acclaim and that is the beutiful sceneries of nature shot with high quality drones that make the background frame of this production. Actually well filmed and well chosen takes that theyve mingled with the poo-rest.

So a two minus for this amazonian jungle cruise comes from the grumpy old man. I think if i had the doe and the guts i couldve made a sequel with a far better story and plot, including some piranhas and barracudas using crooks for bait, so its a no recommend whatsoever.

I saw this film as part of the Las Vegas International Film and Screenwriting Festival, and found it to be a nice addition to the mix of films, especially since it was a more commercial premise and had what may be the best cinematography and location photography I've ever seen from an independent film. This genuinely raises the quality of the film, as it is such a big part of the whole thing.

One problem, as other reviews note, is the acting. It's very wooden, and I also think the film could have benefitted from "feeling" more like a film. I can't put my finger on it, but it felt like a nature show or a PBS show, mixed with a Lifetime or basic cable thriller, not a cinematic film. It could also be the overall mood of the film? I love movies, but, unfortunately I don't know enough to make a specific suggestion with one viewing.

It's a C or D movie so don't expect too much. Some talented performers and creatives have played part in making this film, but it's seriously worsened by a majority of less talented/experienced people.

Acting is pretty terrible (D) Cinematography is quite amazing (B) Plot works, just (B) Music sounds like a midday soapy (F) Directing is scattish at best (C) Underlying Message is pretty good.

All in all. If you have nothing better to do, go for it..

You know when you are watching something that is done on a shoestring, the only way the makers can.

Rate it how you want, but why with such venom?

I love reading the critical analysis of some of these snobs.

I bet many of them haven't dared take that step, to try and produce something from somewhere within them, and then put it on view for the world to see.

That takes guts alone.. Why such venom, for anything> Hahaha It it was by Hitchcock or Speilberg, then okay. But these people tried to do something.

Not sat behind their screens thinking..... hmmm, I have nothing else to do in my life now, I can't move on until I have vented, hahah It wasn't great, but jeez, hahaha Maybe take up a drug addiction and fill that void in your soul.

Aurevoir (That's Greek)