Welcome to the Jungle

"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.

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.

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!

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!