Wonderful character development!

Sadly Over-hyped

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Its too bad this script relies on bo svenson to carry the day and donald pleasance is his usual goofy self...naked amazon women please to save us all from dead brain disease...it took me 5 hours watching time with pauses to get to the meat...and then there was none...click, its gone done and over

GOLD OF THE AMAZON WOMEN is one of the earlier films in the career of director Mark L. Lester, whose pinnacle still remains COMMANDO. As a film, this is far below that, and astonishingly tame given the subject matter's ripeness for exploitation. A slumming-it Bo Svenson plays an explorer in New York who embarks on a trip to South America to hunt for El Dorado. Instead, he finds himself captured by a tribe of highly unrealistic Amazon women led by a middle-aged Anita Ekberg, who is better than you'd expect. The waters are muddied by the entrance of Donald Pleasence's ridiculously unimposing villain of the hour, Blasko, who is singularly irrelevant as it turns out. Expect a lot of blonde actresses in leather bikinis running around with bows and arrows but very little else in terms of plot. There's no gore, little action, no nudity, nothing that would make this stand out as even a minor entertaining B-flick.

After a couple unusually random events occurring in New York city. This leads two explorers to head out on an adventure for the Golden Cities of El Dorado in the South American jungle. On their journey a villainous rival and his two henchwomen want to get to the gold first, so they try at every opportunity to get rid of their opponents. But what actually stops them in their tracks is their encounter with the women warriors of the Amazon.Should I expect much? Of course. Expect to be blown away… maybe if you're drunk! Eh, It doesn't come any bad and tatty than this low-end, late night TV feature. But hell, it made for one entertaining viewing, because of how silly, convoluted and peculiar the project turned out to be. One scene involving a rubber snake takes the cake. It's that obvious that I thought it would lead to a gag, but Bo Svenson's character goes ahead like it's one of the world's most deadly snakes (Um, I think the script actually quotes that!) and takes care of the problem with such ease. That goofy moment had me in stitches. Everything about this is plain ridiculous and phony, but it's all unintentional kitsch. This is no comedy, but the seriously light-hearted material delivers a fine quota of mindless mayhem and a few snappy one-liners. Don't go out of your way to make any sense of it because the aimlessly erratic premise and hokey script doesn't deserve the effort. Take it for what it is and make fun of it. The performances are certainly neurotic. A very cynical and husky Bo Svenson is simply slumming about as Tom, but Donald Pleasance's enthusiastically hammy performance really does get into his greedy villain Clarence with such gleefulness. The way he appears from nowhere and without little reasoning is quite baffling, though those spontaneous actions indeed packed the film's energy. Anita Ekberg is stone-like in attitude as Queen Na-Eela of the Amazons and Richard Romanus plays it twitchy as Svenson's explorer buddy Luis. Bob Minor appears in something fairly minor and there are many frisky bikini leather clad women… but remember this is made for a TV feature. This means its quite tame on all aspects; skin and violence. Mark L. Lester's direction (who at first I didn't even know he held the helm) is rather off-colour and staged with little purpose. He would go on to much better efforts through the glorious 80's. He keeps it moving, but it can labour when it stops to admire the scenery. The score is the tacky product of the TV industry… more dourly repetitive elevator music with its volume turned up and the handling of camera-work is rather stale."Gold of the Amazon Women" is a hunk of inept fluff, but the junky presentation provides some enjoyable schlock along the way.

I was looking at the 100 worst movie list and did not see this listed until I realized that it was a "made for TV movie".I assume that it, therefore, does not qualify it for the dubious distinction of being listed for one of the all time worst.However, when I arrived at the site that described the cast etc. I was surprised to find that it had a 4.1/10 rating.I assume that the rating was acquired by virtue of how campy, ridiculous the film was.thanx for letting me toss a few comments around on this flick.