RanchoTuVu
A poker playing Peter Fonda winds up the winner of an attractive and spunky thirteen year old orphan played by Brooke Shields. Too young to be his girlfriend, he nevertheless finds himself stuck with her, in a plot that has the two of them in a kind of buddy film about a gold strike in the Grand Canyon. The first few scenes are interesting. A poker game in the back room of a barber shop, and later a scene in a bar, and the adventure through the Grand Canyon is beautifully captured by the cinematographer. As well, this is essential viewing for fans of Brooke Shields, who has plenty of vitality and energy. In spite of its good points, the characters are mostly unbelievable, especially the two bad guys. That's because this film doesn't establish itself as much more than a misdirected new age adventure comedy.
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.
jmoore-34
OK,I'm prejudiced.I watched this movie in Livingston,Montana when it came out in the local theatre.There were a few rather rowdy folks behind me in an otherwise pretty empty house and they were being a bit noisier than I liked.After a few pointed stares and shushes as the movie started I got PO'D and turned around and flat told them to "shut the Hell up!".It was with some chagrin that about two minutes later I recognized Peter Fonda on screen as the guy sitting behind me.........Now,context.The movie is set in the early 50's(Studebaker Hawks etc) and the relationship between the Fonda character and the Shields character reflects/mirrors that between jerry lee Lewis and his child bride and Elvis Presley and Priscilla! Either it is totally coincidental or Old Petey was at least trying to be prescient.Yes it is a kinda dopey movie but I did enjoy it,not just because Peter was sitting behind me (He is a darn nice guy,not at like his nasty sister) but it was just a rather harmless bit of fun movie.Nuff said. John
sallysunrise
I rented this movie because it falls under the genres of "romance" and "western" with some Grand Canyon scenery thrown in. But if you're expecting a typical wholesome romantic western, forget it. This movie is pure trash! The romance is between a YOUNG GIRL who has not even gone through puberty and a MIDDLE-AGED MAN! The child is also lusted after by other leering men. It's sickening.Peter Fonda is portrayed as being virtuous by trying to resist his attraction to Brooke Shields, and her character is mostly the one that pursues the relationship. He tries to shoo her off at first but eventually he gives in and they drive off as a happy, loving couple. It's revolting.I don't see how this movie could appeal to anyone except pedophiles.
AD
