IMDb > Welcome to the Jungle (2007) (V) > IMDb user comments

IMDb user comments for
Welcome to the Jungle (2007) (V) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
Index 28 comments in total 

47 out of 63 people found the following comment useful :-
Guess who's coming to dinner, 28 October 2007
3/10
Author: WarpedRecord from United States

"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.

Was the above comment useful to you?

27 out of 38 people found the following comment useful :-
Nothing new here, 4 November 2007
3/10
Author: Hirnklops from Germany

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!

Was the above comment useful to you?

14 out of 22 people found the following comment useful :-
AKA The Blair Witch Holocaust., 12 November 2007
5/10
Author: BA_Harrison from Hampshire, England

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.

Was the above comment useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Why do they do this...?, 14 December 2007
1/10
Author: Poe-17 from usa

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The fun part is to try and organize the rips. First we've got a film ripping "Cannibal Holocaust" that was then ripped, if we're cinematically honest, by "Blair Witch" (which resourced "Cannibal Holocaust) which "Welcome to the Jungle" rips again ... and leaves us with this total mess.

There is no redeemable reason to even attempt a remake of "Cannibal Holocaust" but if you were going to, you would up the stakes, not diminish them. If you are ripping "Blair", again, you would up stakes, not shrink away.

How in the world someone could get this project off the ground, light it up and get money behind it is scary.

This film, despite its legacy and origins, is a dead solid perfect example of how it has all gone wrong. If you're going to jump on a classic, remember you have to ... you know what? You're better off not trying that unless you're really gifted. These guys, whoever they were, weren't.

I understand how a viewer could miss the mark; but how producers, directors and writers could let everything about the retelling escape them boggles the mind.

Don't know that it should have been attempted but what a miss. What a cinematic foul.

Shame on you.

Was the above comment useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
too much build up, for not enough payoff, 13 December 2007
4/10
Author: movieman_kev from United States

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"

Was the above comment useful to you?

10 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
Effective and Disturbing, 2 November 2007
7/10
Author: Slasher_Guy

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Welcome to The Jungle is actually quite surprising in more ways than one. It manages to be entertaining, effective and disturbing throughout, and is a great effort by director Jonathan Hensleigh. I definitely recommend this one for fellow Horror Fans, and I have to say for a movie that looks quite low-budget...it's actually one of the scariest movies I've seen in a while, especially when things start to go awry.

The movie tells the story about two couples who head to New Guinea to search for a man named Michael Rockefeller, who went missing there decades ago and was believed to have been spotted, or killed by a group of cannibals. The couples see the opportunity of making discoveries, and of course making money, as arguments start in the middle of the jungle...where all is not right. The movie pairs up the two likable characters, and the two characters who will have pretty big egos near the end of the movie...and it depends on which characters you will be rooting for.

The four main cast members manage to pull of believable performances and have interesting characters to work with. The movie has quite a build-up of characterization before things start going wrong and relationships begin to go all over the place. When the things start going wrong, some of the characters you will feel sorry for...others you won't. The cannibals are also very creepy, and will give you the chills when you see them. Motionless people smeared in white with bamboo sticks, staring at the characters and following them and effectively done.

Welcome to the Jungle is filmed in a way like "Alone with Her", with it being from the actor or actresses' point of view on a video-camera. It remains like that throughout the entire film, and manages to stay effective and real - especially when things begin to go wrong. When things start to go wrong, watching it from the the characters own views is actually creepy and tense. In one scene, you witness one of the characters being cornered by cannibals and dragged away...while us, the viewers, witness it all.

The movie isn't particularly gory, as most of the violence is off-screen or off-camera - but the discoveries are pretty brutal. Let me just say, bamboo sticks can do a lot of damage and some of the things you will see are pretty nasty and disturbing! It is genuinely a creepy movie, especially with the cannibals appearing. I don't think anybody would like to be lost in a foreign country, especially with these vicious beings.

Overall, I watched this movie knowing only a little about it, but it turns out for me to be one of the best Horror's of the year. I say this as for a movie that looks relatively low-budget - it feels real, looks real, has strong acting and is actually creepy. It was more than I was expecting basically. At times, you'll actually feel like you are with the characters and watching the events unfold as if you were there....pretty creepy stuff if you ask me.

9/10

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Interesting concept has its moments but as entertainment is pointless., 16 May 2008
6/10
Author: Lucien Lessard from Canada

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/*****).

Was the above comment useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
This Jungle Should Be Clear Cut, 2 September 2008
1/10
Author: Pietruck from United States

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!

Was the above comment useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Welcome to the jungle!, 1 August 2008
7/10
Author: emmapollard-1 from United Kingdom

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I think it was actually quite a good film. I think it's all too easy for people to think, "This is crap - it's like Cannibal Hollocause without the gore" because it never said it was going to be like that. The entire film is filmed on two video cameras (like that of 'Blair Witch'. If you start watching the film not knowing this, you think, "Oh, it's going to be crap," but actually, if you give it a chance, it's actually quite good. Granted, you don't see any of the gore (except for the odd foot or dismembered limb!) as it's all off screen, but the film is quite realistic. The video camera obviously wouldn't see everything because when you're being dragged off to be decapitated, you would usually take the camera with you?! So basically, two couples decide to find out where Michael Rockerfellar disappeared to in the 60's. They fall out - one couple nick a raft and go their own way. They find natives are following them, armed with bows and arrows. They get hit with arrows and are taken off to be tonight's dinner. Next couple follow en route with a raft they've made and find the remains of their friend. They hear the screaming of their other (obviously alive) friend and foolish, follow it. They escape narrowly, just in reach of the sea but are seen by another native. They surrender and are sat down to dinner but then realise everyone's suddenly disappeared. Yup, they're tonight's dinner! 7/10 is my verdict :)

Was the above comment useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
This movie is a total rip off., 19 August 2008
3/10
Author: gerrycoombs from Canada

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.

Was the above comment useful to you?
Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]

Add another comment

Related Links

Ratings External reviews Parents Guide
Plot keywords Main details Your user comments
Your vote history