Wanda Nevada (1979)

I love this movie so much

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Really, seriously this movie is a complete waste of time. Made by the most inept and undistinguished of directors (not very good actor either) Peter Fonda, and staring Brooke Shields as...you guessed it...a child-woman-sex-object. Peter Fonda simply cannot act, period. He misses such basic acting chores like showing emotion, reacting to emotion or building a believable character that this film is unwatchable. Whatever range of human emotion Mr. Fonda has at this point in time is kept tightly under wraps for any on screen appearances. Maybe the juxtaposition of being the director and any calling all the shots got him wrapped up in daily stresses enough to shut down his acting mojo? Just guessing, but it seems very plausible.The plot is a complete disorganized mess, although I do agree with other that somehow the tone of the film changes about halfway mark, from insipid ride-along-whimsy actor banter (filmed no less) to milquetoast-Hallmark Film-quality-third-grader-level drama. Casting Broke Shields was a mistake too, because she cannot act either. She is way too to immature. What do you get when you add zero to zero? Yup, nothing'. The other actors try, but even those professionals can't carry the heavy burden.I think the writers should have been able to save this but, the story and script just are not A-quality. There is no grand arc of drama, no reason to care about these people, nothing but to keep watching to see if something happens romantically between these two. It does not, which is a credit to Brooke Shield's parents for not completely pimping her out at such a young age (in this instance).But I have to say I think Brooke Shields has slowly and methodically built a solid core of acting (over many years) that is miles above this primitive attempt. And she is one of the most stunning beauties to ever be photographed or filmed. Case in point is the film Blue Lagoon where she actually gets good lines, is well directed and has developed some rudimentary but powerful acting ability. Not her best, but certainly much better than this film.

And I loved it! It's very hammy as the previous poster noted, but that is part of its simple charm. I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for it - and yes, the scenery is gorgeous! I can agree to one extent about the age difference, but having been a young gal who always had crushes on older fellows, I don't see anything seriously wrong with this one. I see nothing serious happening in it, just hints and in 1979 that was just "kinda" creepy.I saw this before there was much internet and surely no IMDb -- so finding Henry Fonda's name in the credits (Yep, used to read those) was quite the thrill! Luckily it was on cable and I got to watch again and watch Hank more closely - what a gem.Sweet movie, simple fun, no big heavy stuff to deal with. I also enjoyed the time it was set in. :)

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.

Man oh man! What a bizarre piece of filmmaking! But this is a guilty pleasure from my childhood even though I hate to admit it. They showed this movie on my basic cable system all the time. Where I grew up in San Jose, California (right on the border of Cupertino) we had this thing called The G Channel on our cable system where they basically showed the same one movie over and over and over again. Wanda Nevada was one of those movies. I fell in lust and love with the young Brooke Shields and loved her adventures in the Grand Canyon in the 1950s. The script at times makes almost no sense, the film contains one of the lamest four character gun shootouts ever, highlights are that Henry Fonda makes an appearance, some beautiful shots of the Grand Canyon, a cool 1970s film score, a lot of dialog that's so bad it's good and a nice Carole King song played over the end credits. Maybe you have to be stoned to truly enjoy this flick. And hey, everybody knows there ain't no gold in the Grand Canyon!