RipDelight
This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.
filippaberry84
I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.
Billy Ollie
Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable
emdragon
This picture from 1979 is quite entertaining, actually. On the surface it seems to be a light quasi-western comedy with murder, and a mystery treasure hunt. But there is a problem, the picture turns out to be the ultimate cradle and snatch movie. It is an example of a movie that stepped over a boundary of social morays. . .and I believe helped set the stage for some of what is allowed along moral physical lines in film making today. It is pretty quirky and a fun picture to watch, however. I will give it that. It tries to stay sweet while all the time building up a sexual attraction between the 2 leads, Brooke Sheilds (13), and Peter Fonda, who looks to be about 35 in the picture. Since Peter Fonda is the director also, it must be him who I must assail to have created this unseemly, immoral paradigm for lustful regress with this young almost pre-teen. Strange as it seems, this picture is well enough made to be called enjoyable. It never goes very far toward any kind of actual sexuality, so it skirts danger that way, but the very idea of it is a bit hard to take. The cinematography in the Grand Canyon gets some decent treatment, and the music, especially the Carol King songs are a treat.
iponigirl
This movie is absolutely adorable. Having seen it many times throughout the years, each time I find more fun and silliness in it. The silly and animated acting reminds me somewhat of "Wild Hearts Can't Be Broken", another great adventure film. It is not meant to be a "romance movie" as it is too ridiculous, but more an adventure, with breathtaking scenery. Peter Fonda's part of a 35 year old or so gambler, never does anything to abuse or hurt Wanda, "Brooke Shields" who is coming of age and wants to see the world and be a star. He is very respectful of her and respects her younger age. The only one who really announces his desire to "have her" is the sidekick of the bad guys, who ends up dead hanging on a cross. Bo and Wanda both are looking for the "Pot O Gold" in their lives, and happen to partner up. She brings out the good luck charm and they end up happy together, yeah, so there is a slight difference in age, there is no sex or nastiness in the movie. The so called "bad acting" that some people mention is their hamming it up to add to the script. I think they are having a great time with it, and those of you that think it's so bad, lighten up and have a laugh. Maybe you'll enjoy life more.
parkerr86302
I've read a lot of negative reviews for the film, and yes, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but somehow I've always enjoyed the movie in a "dumb fun" sort of way. But maybe I'm biased because the town scenes were shot in Prescott, Arizona where I lived, and as a teenager, I remember the excitement of the film crew hitting town. I can identify all of the town locations---the Mt. Breeze Motel (sign clearly seen on screen) is no longer standing today. And, of course, all of the teenage boys I knew thought Brooke Shields was hot! As far as the film goes, its whimsy worked well on me. It has been on video, and it has had a few TV airings, but it seems to have done quite a disappearing act these last few years. I don't know why---maybe it is because of the strongly implied love affair between the middle-aged Peter Fonda and the 13 year old Brooke Shields (whose on-screen character is 13 as well). Such things don't sit too well, and rightly so, in the present day, but people didn't think so much of it back in 1979.
JimB-4
Any movie in which Brooke Shields out-acts a Fonda is going to be both an anomaly and a horror. Shields actually is only bad because she's youthful, inexperienced, and clearly not well directed by her co-star. Peter Fonda is bad because, well, because he's bad. I liked him in Ulee's Gold, years later, but Lord above, he's awful here. Not that anyone else is good. There's not a single performance (outside Henry Fonda's delightful cameo) that is even passable. I've never seen a movie with this many bad performances. In the case of Luke Askew, the chief villain, it's clear this is because of poor dialogue and direction, as he's done good work in the past. But his partner, played by Ted Markland, is an embarrassing ham. The writing is just bloody awful, and the actors cannot be faulted for the terrible things they have to say. But they say them so badly! The editing and direction are worse than pedestrian. Shots are held way too long for no dramatic reason, or cut off before the impact of the scene can be realized. This picture was far worse than I'd imagined and would have been utterly forgotten (and probably never even made) without the participation of a couple of famous names. One bright spot: the cinematography in the Grand Canyon is exquisite, capturing the beauty of that area in a way even big-screen Imax productions have not quite done so well. And finally: either this is a bad version of Paper Moon, with a lovable pair of father-daughter types, or it's a bad version of Pretty Baby, with a considerably more icky romantic relationship between a forty-something and a 13-year-old. It suggests more of the latter than the former, and thus is pretty disturbing.
