Welcome to the Jungle (2007 Video) User Reviews

AKA The Blair Witch Holocaust.

[BA_Harrison · 5/10 · 12 November 2007]

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.

Nothing new here

[Hirnklops · 3/10 · 4 November 2007]

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!

Interesting premise but lost in translation

[shadowfever · 3/10 · 10 March 2011]

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.

Guess who's coming to dinner

[WarpedRecord · 28 October 2007]

"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.

I can tell you basically everything that happens in about 30 seconds

[philtxsg24 · 1/10 · 25 December 2012]

This is probably the worst movie I have ever seen. I spent 3 dollars to buy it which should have been a hint and was so bad I wanted my money back even with the little bit I bad spent on it. Basically they go into the jungle and the two couples get in an argument so they split up. One of the couples gets killed not very far into the movie after running into a tribe of cannibals. Then the second couple is rafting down the river and run into the tribe and get away from them. When they get further down the river meet up with another bunch of cannibals and end up at what they think is a celebration or party then when they think their gonna dance or something they get hit in the head and killed then the movie ends. There you go that's the whole movie

only 20 minutes worth watching

[trashgang · 3/10 · 23 December 2011]

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

Abortive attempt at reviving the trekking through the jungle cannibal horror sub-genre

[Woodyanders · 4/10 · 18 June 2013]

Two young couples venture into the New Guinea wilderness in search of Michael Rockefeller, the heir to the Rockefeller fortune who disappeared back in 1961. Naturally, our group runs afoul of a hostile cannibal tribe. Writer/director Jonathan Hensleigh crucially fails to generate any essential tension or momentum while the now hackneyed found footage premise covers too familiar territory in a bland and uninspired way. Moreover, the ponderous build-up proves to be a rather tedious chore to endure, with a belated pay-off that doesn't deliver the gruesome goods abundantly enough to be worth all the effort to get to it. Worst of all, the four protagonists are remarkably irritating and unlikable; their constant bickering and idiotic antics get extremely tiresome super fast and make it impossible for the viewer to care about what happens to them. Sandy Gardiner, Callard Harris, Nick Richey, and Veronica Sywak all contribute credible naturalistic performances, but are unable to make their obnoxious characters even remotely interesting or sympathetic. Only some decent gore, the gorgeous tropical scenery, and the effective hand-held cinematography by Hensleigh and John Leonetti prevent this picture from being a total wash-out. A merely passable time-killer, but it could and should have been a lot better.

Stop the world, i wanna get off!

[gareth242000 · 2/10 · 24 January 2010]

This film was not the worst i have ever seen, but any worse and it would have been a real test to make it through the entire movie. Although the director Jonathan Hensleigh is by no means one of my favourite directors i find it hard to believe he wrote die hard with a vengeance and jumanji for example, both action movies that although he didn't direct were full of exciting and very creative ideas. What happened! The characters in this film were so easily dislikable with their endless bickering and one-up-man-ship that their downfall couldn't come fast enough for me. If they portrayed any character i would have been happy to sit for longer and wait for it to appear, but it was like the script was produced by a teenager with an attitude problem. All the main characters were obnoxious and self centred. You may argue that this was to an extent, partly at least the point of the film? like cannibal holocaust and others in same elk which portrayed the white people from privileged backgrounds were actually more sinister and barbaric than the characters who ate humans in the jungle, maybe the idea was that these the main charters were more hateful than the cannibals? Either way, i would argue you could have dealt with that potential idea far quicker and stopped wasting time. I don't know, just not my thing and like other have mentioned it obviously tried to live up to the old classic cannibal films and failed almost before it had started.

Why do they do this...?

[Poe-17 · 1/10 · 14 December 2007]

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.

Interesting concept has its moments but as entertainment is pointless.

[hu675 · 6/10 · 16 May 2008]

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/*****).

too much build up, for not enough payoff

[movieman_kev · 4/10 · 13 December 2007]

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"

Stupidity has a habit of getting its way

[user-534-475053 · 10/10 · 30 August 2019]

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.

Welcome to the jungle!

[emmapollard-1 · 7/10 · 1 August 2008]

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 :)

A whole world of average

[absentia-1 · 4/10 · 20 February 2008]

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.

Irritating Cannibal Holocaust rip-off.

[poolandrews · 3/10 · 10 October 2012]

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.

It petered out

[mrush · 4/10 · 19 December 2009]

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.

The Blair Witch called.... She wants her plot back.

[JoeB131 · 2/10 · 25 November 2007]

Is a Blair Witch project derivative even necessary at this point. I mean, the idea isn't original, it's been redone and parodied so many times.

Both movies were based on the premise that when horrific things are happening all about you, you are actually going to keep the video cameras rolling. See your friend impaled naked on a stick? Keep filming, that's what I'd do. Really.

The plot is that two young couples go to New Guniea to find Michael Rockefeller (who would be 69 years old now had he lived), taking their video cameras along, engaging in a lot of infighting, getting into a series of misadventures and eventually becoming the main course in a cannibal feast. Except the actors are so annoying, so not likable, you are almost ready to hand the cannibals a bottle of A-1 Steak Sauce(TM). The film ends with the chopped up parts of the main actors lying in the dirt and an old man wanders past the cameras that are still rolling. (Persumably Rockefeller, I hope his family sues!)

This movie is not sponsored by the New Guniea Board of Tourism.

Welcome to the Jungle: Boring, Tedious, and Terrible

[imagiking · 1/10 · 4 April 2010]

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.

Awful.... Awful, Awful, Awful!

[Vigilante_no12003 · 1/10 · 21 April 2008]

Quite simply one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I work in a video store, and being that I get movies free I thought I'd rent this on the basis that: a) I don't have to pay any money & b) it's directed by Jonathan Hensleigh, who I feel has produced some good stuff in the past. The movie started off OK, then just snowballed downhill. I noticed there was no screenwriter credited.....mainly because there was no screenplay to speak of, and all the dialogue sounded improvised anyway. The movie promises lots and delivers very little. The ending is abysmal, and virtually nothing happens...period! The two couples bitch and moan at each other, then the ones you want to see go, get snuffed out, and the other couple get rescued by the 'friendly' natives, as opposed to the cannibalistic ones that were stalking them for the last 15 Min's of the movie. Absolute tripe...steer well clear!

This Jungle Should Be Clear Cut

[Pietruck · 2 September 2008]

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!

Cannibal Holocaust meets The Blair Witch Project in a fine film from the director of The Punisher.

[Pat_ChoKo · 7/10 · 24 April 2008]

While not the best film in the "handi-cam, first-person-POV" sub-genre of horror films, Welcome to the Jungle certainly takes it's place in the oft-hated "shaky-cam/documentary" wing of horror.

Jonathan Hensleigh, director of 2004's The Punisher, and writer of such films as Armageddon, Die Hard With A Vengeance, and The Saint, presents to us a first-hand, documentary-style account of a group of 20-somethings who venture into the jungles of New Guinea in search of the long-lost Michael Rockefeller.

The good: Great cinematography, great directing, beautiful scenery, and a compelling story. This film is very reminiscent of the Blair Witch Project, only more polished and less shaky. It takes the best elements of The Blair Witch Project and pushes them slightly further. In this writer's opinion, it draws a bit more from BWP than Cannibal Holocaust, although both of those aforementioned films' influences are very apparent.

The bad: You don't really care for the characters. Some of their actions are questionable, and while you care more for the "good" couple than you do for the drunken, drugged, "bad" couple; all four of the principal-characters come off as greedy, yuppie, crybabies.

While some reviewers will say that the film is boring in it's first half, I wouldn't go so far as to make that claim. The film does a good job of building up to it's final scenes. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the first half is kind of compelling. The way the characters interact with each other is really entertaining to watch, especially when they turn on each other and split up.

Overall, this film is really good. It's miles ahead of the usual DTV crap that you're accustomed to, especially from Dimension Extreme.

7/10

Cannibal movie, Hollywood style

[mvario · 4/10 · 3 November 2007]

Director Jonathan Hensleigh (the writer of such classics as Armageddon and Die Hard 3) has gotten together with the producer of Æon Flux and Hulk to give us a modern Hollywood take on the cannibal genre.

The story? Four young adventurers head into jungle cannibal country in search of the missing Michael Rockefeller. Found footage that they shot on their journey tells their story. Sounds a bit like Cannibal Holocaust? Yeah, pretty much.

So what do we get? Well pretty much what one would expect. The production values and acting are pretty decent. The story is pretty much unoriginal, very similar to Cannibal Holocaust with a few changes. We get no sex, no rape, no animal killing. We get a tiny, itsy-bitsy bit of tit. Gore wise we get a few found body parts but most of the killing is off screen. This is a cannibal movie aiming for a mainstream audience.

Pacing-wise it is more like The Blair Witch Project. Rather than get a selection of atrocities along the journey (as typical with 80's cannibal flicks) this journey mostly consists of our group fighting more and more among themselves with no real sign of the cannibals until the end.

This is the second unofficial remake of Cannibal Holocaust in recent years. The other was Bruno Mattei's Mondo Cannibale in 2003. This film is basically the anti-Mondo Cannibale. MC had some pretty bad acting and very low budget production values, but it gave us gore and gratuitous nudity and animal killings and all the other exploitation elements that CH was known for, though on the cheap.

On the other hand Welcome To The Jungle is a cannibal movie with all the exploitation elements removed. I'm not quite sure who the intended audience for this film is. Fans of old-school 80's exploitation cannibal movies are going to be disappointed and left wanting. Younger folks are going to think it a Blair Witch rip-off, albeit with a little bit more of a payoff.

I expect the upcoming CH remake will also suffer this kind of "mainstreaming", and I don't think it really works. I think there was a reason that the Americans pretty much stayed away from doing cannibal movies in the 80's, and that's because the whole point of the genre is that it is exploitive and non-mainstream. Take that away and, as Welcome To The Jungle demonstrates, there isn't much left.

very good found footage flick

[xyle666 · 10/10 · 24 September 2015]

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.

I seem to have felt a twitch of admiration...

[Self_Proclaimed · 7/10 · 22 February 2008]

Having only seen Cannibal Holocaust and assuming that it inspired The Blair Witch Project, I fell that I can say this film is a double ripoff. For the first time, I'm not unhappy about that. Seeing this reading the back of the case, I thought to myself, "I never thought anyone would dare take on the task of remaking Cannibal Holocaust." I was attracted. The characters were well-formed and I loved the cinematography; I always liked that part of Cannibal Holocaust more. The group of explorers was the most interesting part, though.

Two couples on a trip through the jungle. Bijou's an old friend to Mandi, Mikey's a somewhat new friend to Colby. Foreseen conflict between the couples and definite conflict between at least one couple? I would think so. The short interview scene established Mikey as a heavy drinker and beforehand, his attitude already showed jealousy toward Colby. Bijou was shown to be an alcoholic, perhaps in denial, and seeming to move toward depression from the beginning of the movie. Colby we saw as an energetic, kinda good-hearted guy that was, for the most part, 'just having fun' with his life. Mandi showed a good heart until her comment on Colby about using him for sex that was barely believable, and not for lack of good acting I think, came out. The trip showed it all and they played it very well, for going with no script.

I must say, though, that Bijou's portrayal of the alcoholic was almost on the dot. For all the time the film kept me curious, that was easier to see than anything. Too bad she got the proverbial spike...

Welcome to the Jungle

[Scarecrow-88 · 2/10 · 15 June 2008]

Vacationing American tourists decide to leave the beautiful ,lush locale of Fiji to find some Vice President's son, lost in the jungles of New Guinea where cannibals await them, hoping to make thousands of dollars if they can snag an interview with the man..if he's still alive that is. With two camcorders, the two couples record their activities leading up to, during, and the aftermath of their expedition. We watch as the relationships between the two couples disintegrate and what occurs when they do indeed encounter the natives.

Mandi(Sandy Gardiner)invites her old pal Bijou(Veronica Sywak)to hang out with her and boyfriend Colby(Callard Harris). Mandi and Colby are those beautiful, privileged kids from wealthy families while Bijou, from a more modest background, has grown into an alcoholic, smoking cigs and weed, without a care in the world. This kind of attitude would be okay in Fiji where Bijou could party hard, but into the heart of the jungle or through the back roads of New Guinea where local village militias and street thugs with guns and rifles are present, her belligerent, care-free nature & drunkenness soon rubs her company the wrong way. Making matters worse is Colby's invite to their jungle excursion for bartender Mikey(Nick Richey), a rowdy, hard-drinking joker, like Bijou(..which is why they hit it off almost instantly)with a short temperament, whose uncontrollable outbursts often almost get the gang into deep trouble. But, Mikey knows where to get the map whose directions lead them to the place the man they're after would be located. Soon, Mandi and Colby find themselves bickering endlessly with Mikey and Bijou regarding keeping with a tact schedule throughout their arduous journey through the jungles of New Guinea. While Mandi and Colby wish to keep a proper schedule in place to save time, Bijou and Mikey wish to drink and smoke, not as serious about the task at hand. Soon Bijou and Mikey take a raft made by natives, and take to the river, while Mandi and Colby discover that their supplies have been removed. Only tragedy awaits when the primitives expose themselves, bodies painted and armed with spears. Before these circumstances, Mikey had removed sacred skulls from a ritualistic shrine of the primitives, and the gang encountered an Aussie who has lived amongst the natives peacefully, forewarning them to leave well enough alone or else.

Failed attempt at reviving the cannibal genre, with incredibly stupid characters(..even if there is a possibility for making money with an interview, why leave the picturesque fun & sun of Fiji for such a difficult undertaking as an expedition into the heart of a jungle of cannibals?!)who will undoubtedly annoy viewers. If you do not care for these people, how can we possibly attach ourselves to their plight? And, this film doesn't deliver on the more exploitive elements cannibal fans are accustomed to. The film has little to recommend except some professional camera-work and solid editing, something that's often criticized when a film is mostly shot through the use of camcorders. The violence, by the natives to those who enter their territory, happens out of frame, or shot from such a distance, that they fail to shock you...especially if you've seen "Cannibal Holocaust" which is superior in practically every way. You mostly see the aftermath of those who were killed and ripped apart by the natives, discovered by Mandi and Colby's camera. I guess the most shocking portion of the film is Mandi and Colby's discovery of what happened to Christian missionaries "bringing the word" to the New Guinea natives. That and the horrifying outcome of what the natives do to Bijou and Mikey, two characters who are impossibly grating. I think this was an attempt to add a modern take on Ruggero Deodato's "Cannibal Holocaust" without the very things that film had which people look for in this type of sub-genre.