Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

You won't be disappointed!

Waste of time

The acting in this movie is really good.

I find it offensive that so many reviewers have sided with Wanda's oppressors and would rather see her locked up in a "reform school" -- where the only thing that would be re-formed is her sweet spirit. Why have so many people still not realized that chronological age is not an accurate gauge of anyone's emotional maturity? As a Master Yoga Therapist and Jungian, I know that men with black-and-white morality values cannot face finding a thirteen-year-old sexually or romantically attractive; so they suppress their desire and compensate by rejecting the catalyst. A similar syndrome is the father who compensates for an unconscious desire for his daughter by rejecting all her potential suitors as "not good enough" for her. Older women often have problems with those who are young and attractive.The precious message of this charmingly unpretentious film is this: All General Rules of behavior must be given room for grand exceptions. After all, it is these that make life worth living.

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.

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. :)

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