Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site uwai.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwai!luner
From: luner@uwai.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: Another view on _The_Emerald_Forest_ (spoiler)
Message-ID: <226@uwai.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Aug-85 15:54:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: uwai.226
Posted: Fri Aug  9 15:54:30 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 05:48:13 EDT
References: <135@uw-june>
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 35

> ... 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]