Welcome to the Jungle

Okay, I rented this because I got my crush on all the 80's cannibal and zombie flicks. It's always nice to have some movie to switch off your brain and enjoy people being eaten, may the acting be bad and the plot be worse.

So, what have we got? Two hot chicks? Check. The crazy dude? Check. The cool dude? Check. Deserted Island? Check. Stupid plot? Check. Stupid dialogs? Check. Cool shots of the landscape? Check. A very gory scene right at the beginning? Well... No. Random gratuitous breast shots? No. Overuse of gore? No.

What the hell is this supposed to be? A few skulls placed on rocks and some people with white paint in the face don't make no cannibal movie. There's no suspense, no gore, no humor, no nudity, and no plot whatsoever. And it doesn't have a message in some political way or something like that. It's a movie who just doesn't get going, and once it does, it's over.

The acting is pretty decent, and the camera work is very nice at times. But that's about it. If you wanna see a REAL cannibal movie, go get "Cannibal Holocaust" or one of the early 80s movies the Italians did. They are indeed BAD, but, hey... At least they're gory!

You know I have seen a ton of poorly executed rip-offs made in my time and I don't normally leave comments but "Cannibal Holocaust" is such a great, terrifying piece of cinema, and "Welcome to the Jungle"(also the European name for the Rundown with the Rock) is such a colossal disaster, something has to be said! I am shocked that this film would even warrant distribution from a respectable horror label like Dimension. I am not going to give away spoilers I am just going to say stay away from this movie and if this topic interests you then please check out "Cannibal Holocaust." "Cannibal Holocaust" is so realistic that even the Italian government thought the filmmakers really killed people and had them arrested until it was proved otherwise. That is great film-making!

The premise was interesting, a search for Michael Rockefeller who disappeared in the jungles of New Guinea in 1961. Tying a story, especially a horror story, to an actual historic event intrigues me. Like adding Ambrose Bierce to Dusk til Dawn (3) or Edgar Allan Poe to any number of films it adds an extra dimension to the whole spirit of suspension of disbelief; and then to add cannibals to the mix without taking them out of their natural element is like icing on the cake.

Then it falls apart. When is this "found camera" fad going to go away. It is a filming technique that worked once, 40 years ago in Cannibal Holocaust, but has fallen on hard times. After a while the shaky camera thing gets irritating. And when you add in the Blair Witch stylings; the whiny, bitchy filmmakers who are more interested in themselves than the thing they are documenting, then things go from bad to worse.

Too much of the dialogue and storyline seemed improvised. Rather than adding character depth or an interesting plot development, it only took 1 dimensional characters and made them even more uninteresting and unlikeable.

Some of the cinematography was good, though some was too dark (intentional perhaps but grating non the less), and there were some beautiful location shots. The impaled "girl on a stick" scene, lifted from Cannibal Holocaust, was impressive. Okay, that is pretty much the extent of it's finer points.

As to the aforementioned suspension of disbelieve, it requires an involvement in the story to work, and that wasn't present. These weren't professional documentary filmmakers with a "get the shot no matter what" mentality. They were spoiled 20 something or others who would have dropped the camera and run for their lives at the first sign of danger. The danger that came, by the way, in the last 30 minutes or so. Up until then it was all the kind of self indulgence that one would expect from from these two particular couples taking videos of their journey. In other words, trite nonsense that has nothing to do with either the documentation of the search nor true progression of the story.

They did keep it fairly realistic in that they didn't show what the cameras would not have shown. Bodies dragged out of view of the lens, killings happening out of sight, etc. Unfortunately that meant that most of the really good scenes occurred off camera. So, realistic yes, boring, double yes. In other words, show me the blood and gore. In low budget horror filmmaking when you are working without tension, acting, or reason, then you have to make up for it with some added gore and a little T & A. Consider that my gratuitous gratuity to the genre.

If you have to continue in the "found camera" vein then do it with a new twist. Maybe a filmmaker who finds the footage and then attempts to recreate it in his or her own film with perhaps horrifying repercussions. Then we can use a few bouncing camera shots and then move on to some decent filmmaking.

I love low budget horror. I even love bad low budget horror. But when I see a film that actually had potential, let down by poor execution by people who should know better, I feel nothing but regret.

Four goof balls go in search of Micheal Rockefeller, long presumed dead when he disappeared while on an expedition in Southwestern New Guinea, in hopes of getting a huge payday after they locate and interview the now legendary figure. They find that the locals are less than hospitable to put it mildly. The also must contend with petty bickering....A LOT of petty bickering.

In my opinion, the best films on the subject of cannibal natives are of the grind-house potboiler Italian variety. Movies such as Cannibal Ferox, Jungle Holocaust, and Cannibal Holocaust are extremist fare that any true horror buff can sink their teeth into. This film, on the other hand, while obviously hoping to capture the same unrelenting mood of said movies, can't help but come up short.That in and of itself is really not that surprising as even going into "Welcome to the Jungle" I pretty much knew that it wouldn't compare favorably to those infamous gore drenched films of yesteryear. Instead I decided to give it a chance on the sole reason that I like Jonathan Hensleigh's work for the most part. And while i couldn't really get behind this movie as I found too many parts of it outright boring thanks to severely under-developed characters. It's a bit too much build up for not enough payoff. Still, there ARE worse films out there and one could definitely feel that if the movie were in less capable hands that it would be much MUCH worse.

My Grade: C-

DVD Extras: Commentary by writer/director Jonathan Hensleigh; a 15 and a half minute Making of; a deleted scene with optional commentary; promo trailer for this film; and trailers for "the Mist", the atrocious "Halloween" remake; "1408"; "Black Sheep" & "Broken"

Welcome To The Jungle is a taut, well made, well acted shock 'mockumentary' that might have been considered a groundbreaking classic of exploitation cinema, if it hadn't been for the fact that not one second of it is in any way original. The pace and directorial style is stolen from The Blair Witch Project, whilst the nihilistic plot and certain visuals are taken from the film that inspired Blair Witch, Ruggero Deodato's infamous Cannibal Holocaust. It is hard to admire something that so shamelessly rips off other genre classics, no matter how well put together it is.

Writer/director Jonathan Hensleigh's extremely derivative plot sees two couples (a pair of hedonists, and their more sensible friends) travel to a cannibal infested jungle to try and find the heir to the Rockefeller fortune, who went missing in the area over 40 years earlier. As the going gets tough, tempers become frayed and arguments inevitably break out. But things really go tits up when one of the group angers the locals by pilfering a skull from a native burial site. The extremely miffed gut-munchers stalk the amateur adventurers and teach them not to go messing with their ancestors' remains.

What follows is undeniably tense, occasionally quite nasty, and technically well handled by cast and crew, but I fail to see how the makers of Welcome To The Jungle expected to present this film without criticism. Perhaps, if it had been as unrelentingly harrowing as Cannibal Holocaust (is that even possible?), fans of extreme horror would have forgiven the plagiarism and admired the film's willingness to shock and disgust. But instead, even the nastiest moment in Hensleigh's film, in which one of the victims is shown impaled on a bamboo pole, is a weak copy of a much more disturbing image in Deodato's movie.

Horror fans who have yet to experience the 'delights' of Cannibal Holocaust or the effectively creepy atmosphere of Blair Witch will probably find much to enjoy about Welcome to the Jungle. However, the rest of us will be annoyed by the bare-faced cheek of its makers. To give it a rating any higher than 5/10 just seems wrong.