User reviews

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.

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!

In 2004 Jonathan Hensleigh made The Punisher, a brutal flick that had some following. Jonathan thought to pick in on the docu style flicks by making the most shocking of them all, the cannibal script. To add more believability he added some backstory to it. Michael Clark Rockefeller disappeared during an expedition in the Asmat region of southwestern Netherlands New Guinea. His body was never found and it was believed that he was attacked by a crocodile although some say back then in the sixties cannibals were still living in that area.

4 friends are going to do some research towards Rockefeller on the island. Of course things go wrong an they do enter cannibal territory.

The most shocking was Cannibal Holocaust back in 1980. Still up to today people are afraid to watch this gory flick. The problem with Welcome To The Jungle is that they tried to remake Cannibal Holocaust. It failed on all bits. The script is really boring. You have to wait until the last 20 minutes before the cruelty comes in. Before that there is a lot of talking and arguing between the friends. And even when they enter the cannibals it looks ridiculous. It's not by putting some skulls on a rock that you have a cannibal zone.

On the part of the gore what's a natural fact in those kind of movies, well, it's low too. You do see parts of bodies everywhere but nothing is shown on-screen. Maybe the best part is when they discover one of their friend's corpse.

The acting was okay but the script failed on all parts. Guns 'n' Roses Welcome To The Jungle sounds creepier than this flick.

Gore 2/5 Nudity 0,5/5 Effects 2/5 Story 1/5 Comedy 0/5

"Welcome to the Jungle" has nothing to do with the Guns N' Roses song of the same name, but it owes a lot to "The Blair Witch Project." Too bad it has none of the latter's suspense or creativity.

The plot, such as it is, involves two young couples armed with video cameras who set off into the New Guinea jungle to find Michael Rockefeller, heir to the wealthy family, who disappeared on an expedition there in 1961. Reports are that Rockefeller encountered cannibals, and there's no need to post a spoiler here because the developments of this film are pretty obvious from the start. Unfortunately, before those developments actually develop, we are subject to an hour of improvised whining while the four adventurers wander the jungle, oblivious to the danger that the viewer knows awaits them.

The acting is average, the dialogue is banal, and the hand-held camera is a chore to endure. The film lacks scenes of torture — all of it happens off-camera, ironically — but the images of carnage are as gratuitous as you'd expect from Dimension Extreme. It's hard to feel any sympathy for these self-involved tourists once they've made it clear they'd never be welcome at our dinner table.

The only thing "Welcome to the Jungle" has going for it is some impressive photography. Unfortunately, the dessert doesn't justify the main course.

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.

A group of friends (Sandy Gardiner, Callard Harris, Nicky Richey and Veronica Sywak) decide to find Micheal Rockerfeller, who disappear during an expedition in the Asmat region of southwestern New Guinea in 1961. Which they are hoping to get rich of finding a man, who disappear more than 45 years ago. The group of friends find themselves in a violent territory traveling in the jungle. But they slowly realized, there's a group of tribe are following them and hunting them one by one.

Directed by Johnathan Hensleigh (The Punisher "2004") made an watchable, something fascinating horror film. That is based on a real Urban legend myth in the early 1960's. But it is a hard movie to enjoy, especially these four lead characters are unpleasant to be with. It is also too familiar to "Cannibal Holocaust" at times but without the effectiveness. Although the documentary-style filming is nicely done, the locations are good and there's a few strong moments but not enough. It is more of a curio than anything else. It is worth checking once, at least. (** ½/*****).

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"

Dont let the title of my commentary fool you..I LOVE THIS MOVIE..a group of young disrespectful people decide to go find Michael Rockefeller so they can make a documentary and think of all the money they will make...they cant get along with each other so of course they trigger a zombie island massacre and if you dont get my reference we cant be friends...their wanton disrespect of the local tribes gets pretty much everyone killed ...and they deserved it...I loved every minute of it.

this is movie is exactly the disappointment I expected it to be so I cannot be to harsh in the comments I make give i knew what I was signing up for.

It is a straight out rip off of Cannibal Holocaust but with none of the truly gory scenes. There are several attempts at scary scenes but they fall well short of being anything but for want of a better word "humorous".

There is a direct rip off scene from Cannibal holocaust involving a young lady which is half decent but the response of the other characters involved in the gruesome discovery does not build anywhere near the level of dread required to make the image a true shocker.

I did like the final frames of the movie, in fact it was quite excellent that you eventually got a little payoff for sitting through the entire film but it was really all to little all to late.

Go watch Cannibal holocaust rather than spend your time with this one.

I thought this movie was gonna be good.It starts out at least looking a bit promising but then just when it finally gets to some good stuff it ends leaving you feeling unsatisfied and kind of mad.And let me add that this movie has absolutely nothing to do with Guns N Roses.

2 couples set out to find the missing Michael Rockefeller ,who disappeared into the jungles of New Guinea in 1961 and was never heard from again.A rumor from a bush pilot sends the four out into the jungle to find Rockefeller and get rich and famous doing it.After one of the four steals some bones from a burial site the local natives get ticked off.But they might have anyway,who knows? This movie has nothing original to offer.We've seen the cannibal movies before and we've seen the shaky hand held movie documentary style filming before.My question with these supposed self shot movies is would a person really keep filming even after they realize their life is in danger ?Really? You gonna keep the camera light on out in the middle of the jungle at night with headhunters all around?I kinda think I'm gonna shut it off and hide like the sniveling coward I am.

Anyway the movie goes along fine and then all of a sudden it's sort of wraps up all quick like and the credits roll.Did you boys run out of money or did you get tired of filming out in the hot jungle?It just abruptly quits before any good gore or terror gets going.

Some night time quick glimpses of some gore is about it.No nudity at all even though you got 4 hot young folks out in the middle of nowhere taking swims and sunbathing and stuff like that.

I can't recommend this movie ,it just never delivers on it's promise of terror and gore.

Another modern revisitation of the "found footage" horror movie, Welcome to the Jungle uses the infamous 1961 disappearance of Michael Rockefeller as a plot backdrop.

Hoping to record an interview and make millions with it, four friends set off into the cannibal occupied Papua New Guinean jungle to track down the mysterious heir and uncover his story. Initially a fun experience for all, patiences gradually wear thin as tensions begin to rise between the four.

Welcome to the Jungle brings us an interesting premise, its feet set firmly in the real world. Depressing is the extent to which this concept is ruined, however, by the sheer awfulness of this film. The promising plot and inclusion of cannibalism have us expecting an entertaining ninety minutes, everything right with the movie before we set out. Things don't necessarily go downhill for some time either, the opening introductions to the characters effective, if not entirely endearing. Eventually, they become quite irritating and unbearable, in particular Mikey's stupid leaping and shouting. They are inherently unintelligent, their decision to voyage into cannibal infested territory reached without apparent thought of danger whatsoever. Their interactions, though largely realistic, feature far too many explanations of plot to be entirely believable. The eventual disintegration they undergo is repetitive and boring, their arguments repeated time and again. The plot itself is nowhere to be seen. They sit around a beach, go off to a jungle, and argue. This is a film in which nothing happens. At all. Sure, the ending half hour involves some sort of developments, but there's no action to it. This could be okay, action not at all necessary, but there's no suspense either. Nothing to make you nervous, frightened, or at all involved. By the end, it's clear that the film serves absolutely no purpose, the plight of the characters not even earning sympathy. There is no message at its heart; no substance to its characters; no proficiency to its direction; no justification for its existence.

With unlikeable and uninteresting characters, Welcome to the Jungle offers absolutely nothing for its audience. Devoid of narrative and pointless, it is boring, tedious, and terrible. In the end, all it is is the type of film that brings you slightly closer to death, wasting your little time.

This must be one of the worst and most annoying mockumentaries ever made....Follow 4 pampered twenty nothings as they quest to find another well to do never was former twenty nothing from 1961 rumored to be in the jungles of New Guinea after crashing off its coast 35 years earlier (or so the premise goes). On their stereotypical shallow "mis"adventure, you have your gun toting towny bandits, your angry bitter meaninglessly antagonizable militia, your sacred burial grounds complete with skulls and dress up skeletons, your creepy random forest dwelling Aussie guy appearing from and disappearing to nowhere warning the characters about said skulls and skeletons, your loin clothed flesh hungry forest locals outfitted with spears, body paint, and bows, and, oh yeah, the best part, your make shift rafts materializing out of nowhere made with no supplies yet seaworthy enough to float them down a river (that looks like a creek in Montana).....Ultimately, the dialog makes no sense and was often difficult to hear (which was a good thing considering the parts you can hear). The "home" video camera stylings fall apart almost immediately and watching becomes a chore. It was understood that this was low low low budget movie, but this was an absolute horror to watch.

Don't say I didn't warn you!

I have watched this film several times and I still clench a bit when the smoke warrior appears a few feet from bijou. this was a very well done found footage, acting seemed real, dialog felt real, locations felt as real as they can in a movie like this. I loved the nods at cannibal holocaust, yes I am okay with the fact that this was a remake of it in a sense. to all those that "hate" it, it seems like there's a large group of movie goers out there that just like to spend their time hating on every found footage or any original movie idea that's made. If it's not the same people doing the same thing then y'all have to tear into it. If you don't like found footage, you wont like this movie i'm betting, so don't watch it and come on here and talk about how much you hate the genre. I on the other hand love found footage (even the cheesy bad ones sometimes) and I find that if i'm entertained for the time it takes to get through the flick, then its a decent movie. I'm not looking for some director to wipe my ass and hand me a 5$ bill every time i boo and hiss. for anyone that does like the found footage genre, you got to check this one out, its very much worth it.