alansmithee04 In fact, this puddle of cinematic up-chuck came in a full year before Zemeckis' adventure/romance. But whereas Douglas and Turner were able to generate a few sparks, Fonda and Raffin's relationship just kind of sits there, forlorn and pathetic, like a wet lump of used Kleenex.Fonda is the only helicopter pilot in the entire South American country of Whereeverania. Raffin is the US anthropologist who hires him to fly out into the jungle so she can visit a colleague about a mysterious tribe of pygmies he's discovered. Along the way insults get flung, tables get turned, and the dad from "Good Times" shows up as an African witchdoctor who has inexplicably decided to take a holiday trip to the amazon.If that last bit sounds stupid, well, it only gets worse.The entire production is about as exciting as an NPR pledge drive and by the time this thing finally drags to a climax it makes "A Prairie Home Companion" seem like Bullitt by comparison. Unless you're the hardest of hard core bad movie fans, avoid this one like you would a rabid dog.

kamas716 I liked watching Deborah Raffin. And Peter Fonda gave a decent performance as the drunken pilot. But, overall, the movie sucked. However, it was better than the book, which is usually pretty rare thing to say.Deborah Raffin is always good looking. But this didn't really give her much breadth or depth of performance. Peter Fonda was decent. He provided the comic relief as the continually drunk helicopter pilot. I read the book in high school as it was suggested by my literature teacher as similar to Jurassic Park in concept (which I had just finished reading). It wasn't really. And the writing was vastly inferior. The movie improves on the story, but not by much.If you've got nothing better to do on a Saturday afternoon but contemplate your navel lint, it might do for a couple hours of entertainment. Otherwise, avoid it like a root canal.

Whovian Last summer I picked up a copy of Geoffrey Household's novel, DANCE OF THE DWARFS. I had recently taped the film on late-night TV and figured someday it would be interesting to compare the two versions of the work. I have now read the book and watched the film, and I must say that a comparison is difficult; if I hadn't known from the credits that the book had inspired the movie, I'd have thought the few vague similarities between the works were pure coincidence! The novel is written in the form of an agricultural researcher's journal and, while it has its flaws, manages to be suspenseful and to introduce some interesting ideas. The film, on the other hand, is a painfully unthrilling adventure movie reminiscent in many ways of the unfortunate 1985 remake of KING SOLOMON'S MINES. The most tragic difference between the book and the film is that the interesting and graceful creatures of the novel have been replaced here by guys jumping around in rubber suits. The novel wasn't that great, but it didn't deserve this horrible treatment.

karkinos This was pretty much a character driven movie. I watched the entire movie only because I found the characters interesting. The acting by the main characters was fine given the constraints of a low budget horror flick. I would recommend watching this movie only if you want to see another good examine of the uncouth man uncivilizing the resistant and cultured woman. Otherwise, try to ignore the weak "special effects".