AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Paul Andrews Welcome to the Jungle starts in Fiji where newlywed couple Mandi (Sandy Gardiner) & Colby (Callard Harris) are enjoying their honeymoon, they meet up with old friends Bijou (Veronica Sywak) & Mikey (Nick Richey) who decide to get together. The two couples remember the story about Michael Rockefeller mysteriously disappearing off the coast of New Guinea in 1961, they recount stories of a helicopter pilot seeing an old white man living with a native tribe in the jungle & the two couples feel certain it's the missing Rockefeller. Sensing they could earn an absolute fortune if they do find him the two couples decide to travel to New Guinea & try to locate Rockefeller, the task turns out to be anything but easy as they have to deal with armed robbers, violent locals whom dislike Americans, unforgiving jungle terrain & hungry native cannibals...Not to be confused with the sometimes similarly titled action film starring The Rock this was co-photographed, written & directed by Jonathan Hensleigh who has written some really heavy weight Hollywood scripts including Die Hard: With a Vengeance (1995) & Armageddon (1998) this seems a rather odd choice of film for him to be involved with, anyway I can't say I particularly liked it that much but strangely by the end I was warming to the style & the story. Lasting just under 80 minutes Welcome to the Jungle is a rip-off of The Blair Witch Project (1999) with it's 'found footage' recorded by those no longer with us structure, it's odd because many say that The Blair Witch Project was a rip-off of Cannibal Holocaust (1980) which it was to some extent so for this film to introduce cannibals in the jungle as it's main plot feels strange to me. All of Welcome to the Jungle is 'found footage' so we get really bad edits all over the place where people are cut off, scenes begin & end abruptly & while I am sure that the makers were trying to make it look & feel as homemade as possible it gets incredibly irritating. The idea that these four friends would trek through some really dangerous New Guinea jungle on the off chance they might find Michael Rockefeller is a stretch to say the least, I mean if one of the richest men in the US couldn't find him what makes them think they can? The mysterious disappearance of Michael Rockefeller is true by the way, nothing else in Welcome to the Jungle is though. A large problem with Welcome to the Jungle is that the four main character's spend the vast majority of the film arguing & bickering which gets annoying, I did start to get into the film a bit by the end & was getting used to the style but that's about the best thing I can say about it.Because of the 'found footage' nature of Welcome to the Jungle it's an absolute eyesore to sit through, there are times when the screen is pitch black & we just hear what's going on, there are times when the camera jerks around all over the place & the editing feels strange as well. I know it's meant to have the look of a homemade film but it just gets irritating & annoying to watch. There's barely any gore, a few dead bodies & a weaker take on one of Cannibal Holocaust's iconic imagery. Despite being about cannibals I can't remember any actual on screen cannibalism & it's really tame. Certainly not worthy of an 'Unrated' release, it was released as a soft '15' over here in the UK. The only thing that works in the films favour are the locations which are very authentic looking, very isolated & seem pretty dangerous & remote but that's not enough to save the film.Apparently filmed entirely in Fiji the film looks like what the makers intended, it's just that I don't particularly like this style of filmmaking & think it looks cheap. The acting is alright, the actor's have no material to work with apart from 'argue about this' dialogue.Welcome to the Jungle is probably about as good as the makers could have pulled off with what they were trying to do but I dislike the whole 'found footage' genre which doesn't help, neither does the fact that there's no cannibalism or proper gore or shock's in it. Not my cup of tea at all.

chaugnurfaugn-269-83012 American beauties Mandi and Colby and their party-animal friends, Mikey and Australian Bijou, head out to remote New Guinea in search of Michael Rockefeller who went missing in 1961, presumed dead. Sightings of a bearded old white man travelling with natives deep in uncharted territories have the intrepid foursome fired up, so off they go with little more than the most rudimentary understanding of the trouble they could get into.Much has been made of the similarities between this and Cannibal Holocaust or Blair Witch. I've seen Cannibal Holocaust and agree that there are similarities, not least one particular grizzly scene. But I don't necessarily agree that this renders the entire movie contemptible. What Cannibal Holocaust lacked (slick production values, a watchable cast and character development) Welcome to the Jungle provides. Other than the fact that this is a 'lost tape' genre, wherein the entire film plays out through the lens of a hand-held video camera, is the only thing that marks it out as comparable to Blair Witch. The lost tape genre is still a trope rather than a cliché and there are countless other examples that play more accurately to the original format (ie. hauntings, paranormal etc).Welcome to the Jungle scared me a lot more than Cannibal Holocaust, which, frankly, I just found disgusting. I'm not a hardcore fan of gore or shockers made for the sake of shocking, but felt I needed to watch CH simply because of the infamy of the film, the pride I take in knowing the horror genre inside out and being able to post knowledgeable reviews. I also watched Human Centipedes 1 and 2 for the same reason, but that's another story! There were a few issues. The end was confusing and a little too sudden. And there were several instances of 'horror movie victim mentality' wherein the cast behaved not as rational and terrified human beings in a perilous situation but as horror movie protagonists walking obligingly to their doom just so we can watch it happen. Otherwise, this was an enjoyable and nerve rattling ride. The juxtaposition of serious and dedicated Mandi/Colby vs hedonist joy-riders Bijou/Mikey was particularly horrifying to watch. I found myself firmly in the shoes of Colby, which was not a nice experience.Generally a more mainstream and viewer-friendly attempt at the cannibal horror and a brave mix of sub-genres.

mrush 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.

gerrycoombs I sat down and watched this atrocity of a film the other day, and I was utterly disappointed. Many people have praised this movie, and when I watched it, all I could think of was "Cannibal Holocaust". Hell, from the opening scenes, the camcorder approach was identical, even before the guys and girls went into the jungle where the copy gets even more pronounced. I was especially perturbed by the impaled woman that was present in both films, but was used much more effectively in the 1970's Cannibal Holocaust than in this pile of crap.While the unfortunate use of live animals in Cannibal Holocaust is horrible and should never be repeated, the overall impact of that film cannot be denied. That film gets a 7 out of 10, while this one gets a generous 3. Save your money and buy Blue Underground's DVD of Cannibal Holocaust, that way you can watch the original with the animal bits removed instead of a mediocre re-make.