Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

72 virgins This film is a wretched disfigurement of what any film is supposed to be: entertaining, able to be followed, and containing a well thought-out plot. When roughly half the film is some gibberish language that has no subtitles, nor hints at what they are ever talking about, the film is dissatisfying as well as not easily followed. No person wants to sit down and listen to dribble acted out by second rate actors who could obviously be seen stammering, even when one does not know the language. These are blatant markings of a failure. And as if the these negative aspects are not enough, the film is not even built around a well written plot.In conclusion, the film is a complete and total failure in the eyes of any sane human being; it is not interesting, can not be followed, and it does not contain a well-thought plot. This film is not fit for viewing. The only way this film could be of any use would be as an example of le bad cenema.

dottyjyoung Yes, there were some very good scenes in this movie.Yes, the cinematography and settings and costumes were great.Yes, Chad Allen did a good job. And after reading Elizabeth Elliot's books and Jim Elliot's journals, it was wonderful to see Jim Elliot being portrayed as a clown, and to see Elizabeth Elliot's courage in going back into the woods to love her husband's killers.But this was a poorly-written movie. The writers left out key information about the Aucas, gave sermons instead of organizing plots, and wrote such wooden dialogue as, "Hitting the dog won't make the hurt go away." Mincayani's scene over the dead child sealed it for me. Who was this child? Why did this death evoke such a strong reaction from him? Why the references to termites? Or jumping the great Boa? Why was this not mentioned earlier in the movie? Until this point, we have NO INDICATION of what Mincayani's people believed, except that they killed each other. And why oh why were fathers and mothers asking that their live children be "put in the ground" with them? These things could have easily been explained in the course of the movie, if the writers focused more on the story, and less on trying to please everyone.I was so confused by the jilted dialogue and the poor screen writing craft that was displayed, that I looked up the Auca people on Wikipedia, and was able to fill in some of the plot holes for myself.You guys can do better than this. I know you can. Getting someone saved by the end of the movie does NOT make the movie good. Read the book "Story" by Robert McKee. And do NOT rely on Deus Ex Machina to move your plot forward.Keep writing. Christian movies need good writers.

emuir-1 Why do filmmakers take the trouble to go to exotic locations, use the native language of the characters in the film, then cast non-native actors in many of the roles? The whole effect is ruined. It is as jarring as when old Hollywood cast Susan Hayward as a Mongol princess, and various blond blue eyed Caucasians natives of India or the South Sea Islands. Mel Gibson did exactly the same with Apocalypto. To make it even more ridiculous, the non-natives usually cannot speak the tribal language which affects their performance. Louis Leonardo and Christine Sousa may be good actors, but they do not look like Amazonians. Their characters physical appearance might have been credible as mixed race offspring of workers in an Amazon shanty town and their native wives, but not in an isolated jungle tribe which we are led to believe had no prior contact with civilization.Casting gripes aside, I did not realize before I saw it that this was a religious themed film, but they fortunately kept the preaching to a minimum. Films with a religious message are frequently appallingly amateurish with characters walking around with beatific smiles on their faces while turning the other cheek to adversity. If you have watched St. Theresa you will know what I mean.The only problem other than the casting, was that I could not follow what was going on most of the time. There was no explanation of who the white men with guns were, or why they were killing the natives. the story seemed to jump about all over the place with no explanation for who was doing what and why. All I could do was sit back and enjoy the beautiful scenery of Panama.

mbrenne235 This was a movie that grabs you and moves you as only a real life event can. The protagonist was committed to helping a wild jungle tribe stop killing each other to the point of extermination. His mission would be considered suicidal by most people. Yet he wanted to give these people hope, by replacing their hatred and anger with hope and the knowledge of Jesus Christ. You won't be bored by this movie. It was filmed on location in South America, and accurately depicts the lifestyle of these Indians. The biggest negative to me, was the leading role of a devoted Christian missionary was played by an actor who not only rejects the role he played in, but actively fights against the Christian cause. He is a homosexual activist. I was disappointed, because knowing that ahead of time, made his part less believable. Nonetheless, he played the part well.