moonspinner55 In the southwest circa 1950, a poor gambler (not above a little cheating) wins an orphaned, would-be teen Lolita in a botched poker game; after getting hold of a treasure map promising gold in the Grand Canyon, the bickering twosome become prospectors. Peter Fonda is an actor/director asleep at the wheel. He is so enervated on-screen, his lachrymose line-readings cancel out any irony or humor in the dialogue. While trading would-be sassy barbs and non-witty repartee with Brooke Shields, or fingering a non-existent mustache on his grizzled face, Fonda doesn't reveal a character so much as an unsure actor being directed by himself, an unsure filmmaker. The movie has a few lovely touches and pretty vistas, also an odd but interesting cameo by Henry Fonda as a grizzled canyon man, but the rest is fatigued comedy-drama, with the two leads being trailed by cartoonish killers who will stop at nothing 'til they get their hands on that map. Pouty Shields is a young beauty, no doubt about it, however her tinny voice has no range; every time she opens her mouth, one inclined to either cringe or duck. *1/2 from ****

newday98074 Wanda Nevada is a pubescent fantasy movie using circa 1979 ideas of what constitutes illicit romance for 13 year old girls. Script, pacing, and direction are uniformly awful. Action sequences defy belief. Characters speak with the simplified diction one usually finds in films aimed at the under 10 set, but also includes multiple sexual references involving Shields' character as well as graphic deaths. The movie wants to be a comedy on some level but is never funny, an adventure picture but plot and action are insipid, and a children's movie but introduces pedophilia and child rape as real possibilities. It also wants to be a buddy picture, a coming of age picture, a ghost movie, an Indian spiritual movie, a travelogue, and a western. The overall affect is of massive stupidity with a nasty twist. Wanda Nevada is a complete waste of time unless you want to see a good many terrific shots of the Grand Canyon. That it manages to do just fine.

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.

David Vanholsbeeck Beaudray Demerille(a weak Peter Fonda, who also directed), an aging gambler, wins young teen Wanda "Nevada"(pretty, but not talented Brooke Shields) in a poker game. Together the unlikely pair(of course)embark on a search for Indian gold in the Grand Canyon.That's the story and there really is no need to search for a deeper meaning in it. It just isn't there. The acting is very weak too, which was quite a surprise given the fact that Peter Fonda was in the lead.If you're looking for something interesting in this film, take a look at the nice scenery and some good looks of a young Brooke Shields. Her character however is so irritating(especially at the beginning)and dumb, that she never quite comes off as sexy or appealing. Too bad, but, given the story, I doubt anything more could be made of this. I wonder why Peter Fonda directed and starred in this film. He must have even talked his father(Henry Fonda)into a (useless) cameo in this ridiculous mess. Unfortunately, this was their only film together. Couldn't Henry be in EASY RIDER for example? 3/10