Eat Me

email this story
read comments (31)
post a comment

Eat Me

Yesterday I lucked into a screening of Jonathan Hensleigh's Welcome to the Jungle, a hand-held, Blair Witch-y, spookily atmospheric horror film about four kids looking for the remains of Michael Rockefeller in New Guinea (which they hope will lead to paydirt) and running into cannibals.

And I don't mean nameless actors who've been wardrobe-fitted with animal-bone necklaces and loincloths and had the right kind of movie-set makeup applied so they'll "look" like cannibals. I mean genuinely spooky feral types with muddy-milky skin and carrying hand-made weapons. We never see them all that clearly, but they're glimpsed now and then, crouched and stalking through jungle flora and looking like the real deal. Yeah, I know...but I believed it. It creeped me out in a way that I'm not likely to forget.

It's been shown to foreign buyers at the American Film Market and, I'm told, has been sold in virtually every last territory; only U.S. distribution has yet to be finally settled. Warner Bros. wanted it; ditto Fox Atomic. Now it's looking like an MGM distribution deal via Bauer-Martinez...probably.

Jungle is an unusually gripping variation on a kids-in-peril movie (the actual name of the genre is "kids visit an exotic and creepy climate and are soon in deep shit"). This is because of the raw non-staginess of it, the realistic atmosphere, the non-actorish acting, the hand-held photography, and the seemingly authentic locales. (It was shot in Fiji's central highlands on a relatively lean budget with a no-name cast.) You can taste the moisture and the earthy-leafy jungleness all through it, but especially in the second half. Which jacks up the fear factor once the uh-oh stuff happens.

It's very hard to make a decent film about young kids dying horribly with any real originality, but I swear this one has an "extra" element that really and truly sinks in. In some fundamental bone-marrow way I was affected. I believed it the way I believed Blair Witch seven years ago, and a lot more than I believed the mayhem in the dozens of films I've seen along these lines.

It feels way more chilling than Severance, for instance, because it feels like much more of a serious atmospheric immersion and in no way goes for laughs, and avoids the mode of a "theatrical" film. It's one of those you-are-there deals that feels random and off-the-cuff and au natural.

Welcome to the Jungle has been directed and written by Hensleigh (The Punisher) with the actors speaking improv-y, non-scripted dialogue, in keeping with the form. The general inspiration on some level is Ruggero Deodato's Cannibal Holocaust (1979).

Four twentysomethings -- a selfish couple played by Veronica Sywak and Nickolas Richey, and a somewat nicer, more compassionate couple played by Sandi Gardiner and Callard Harris -- meet up in Fiji and then make their way to New Guinea with information about how to find Rockefeller's possibly eaten and digested remains. (Legend has it that cannibals got him during an anthropological expedition to New Guinea in 1961.)

I had some problems with a quickie review by Fangoria's "Ryan Rotten" that ran on Friday, 11.3. He approved of the horrific cannibal stuff (which is sublime as far as this sort of thing goes) but delivered some questionable judgments.

"Ryan" said most of the action is set during daylight...bullshit. There are at least two if not three scenes shot in darkness. He said it carries "that same sickening visual style that will make those prone to motion sickness retch"...nope. (Did Lars von Trier's camerawork in Dancer in the Dark give you problems? It didn't me.)

He also said that "the leads are a painfully unlikable lot who test the patience of each other as well as the audience with their incessant bantering." He wants dialogue by Jean Anouilh? We're talking relatively shallow GenY knockabouts here. In this case "inane" fits. In any case taking one's time before getting to the blood is a way of getting the audience to invest in the reality of what's happening and who these people are.

Welcome to the Jungle was shot in two weeks' time with an eight-man skeleton crew. It was shot in Namosi, known to some as a "sacred' town in Fiji's highlands in which cameras have never rolled film. Hensleigh needed permission to shoot from a local chief, and got that permission, he told me, by observing local etiquette and crawling across the mud floor of a tribal "bure" to perform a genuflection (kissing of feet) ceremony for a tribal elder.

Sywak, a 21 year-old Australian who's great at playing saucy/snappy/spunky, is the keeper. Whatever "it" is, she's got it. Hensleigh told me that ICM's Jeff Berg is either trying to sign her or already has. The latter, probably.

Will Smith love sonnets<< previous | next >>"Casino Royale" reaction

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on November 5, 2006 at 1:03 PM

comment #1

Dixon Steele says ...

Jeff, your Jean Anouilh reference made me laugh. You are now forgiven for your earlier O'Neill/Lohan gaffe. Keep up the good work.

Posted by Dixon Steele at November 5, 2006 3:20 PM

comment #2

JWEgo says ...

You mean that ANYONE would take that fat fucking criminal Martinez seriously? He failed to honor his contracts to Ayers, he is a joke

Posted by JWEgo at November 5, 2006 3:50 PM

comment #3

Circumvrent says ...

Intersting. Hensleigh really has to redeem himself after the awful 'Punisher,' and maybe this'll be the one that does it.

Jeff, did you see 'The Descent?' Is it as scary/scarier?

And what is it with all the "jungle tourism" horror lately? The summer had Scott Smith's "The Ruins" with creepy Mayan foliage. In front of 'Borat' was a trailer for 'Touristas' which seems to also be evil foliage, but with evil human aiding and abetting them, and this. I know xenophobia is so hot right now, but this is getting a little ridiculous.

Posted by Circumvrent at November 5, 2006 4:32 PM

comment #4

D.Z. says ...

Why is the film being referred to as Blair Witchy and not Cannibal Holocausty?

Posted by D.Z. at November 5, 2006 4:48 PM

comment #5

breadlymoore says ...

"Why is the film being referred to as Blair Witchy and not Cannibal Holocausty?"

Go outside of your basement to a place where many people gather (a mall or library). Proceed to ask 27 of them if they've seen CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST.

If one of them says yes, the world is ending.

On the other hand, all will have seen BLAIR WITCH.

Posted by breadlymoore at November 5, 2006 8:20 PM

comment #6

Devin Faraci says ...

The "general inspiration" on "some level"?

This is essentially a remake of CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, or, if you're not being kind, a complete rip-off. I was told it even has the infamous body on a stick scene. Also, Deodato did the "Blair Witch" thing about twenty years earlier.

And breadlymoore, what does it matter what the "average" moviegoer knows?

Posted by Devin Faraci at November 5, 2006 9:00 PM

comment #7

The Winchester says ...

"Intersting. Hensleigh really has to redeem himself after the awful 'Punisher,' and maybe this'll be the one that does it."

Punisher had some decently directed moments in it, but the story was for crap.

This film sounds intersting, and it's pretty cool to see Hensleigh do something "indie".

Posted by The Winchester at November 5, 2006 9:29 PM

comment #8

breadlymoore says ...

"And breadlymoore, what does it matter what the 'average' moviegoer knows?"

You do understand that Hollywood is a business, right?

Well, you do write for Chud...sometimes I'm shocked you guys even know how to turn a computer on...so maybe you need this:

Hollywood is a business. To keep moving forward, it needs to make money. They just fit the "art" part in when there's free space, or when a suit takes a sick day.

How do you make money these days? Convince the audience that the experience they're about to get is like the experience they once loved.

That's why the smart company would suggest BLAIR WITCH - ya know, the once omnipresent phenom - over a threadbare cult film from the cocaine-n-tits era of Italian disco-horror cinema.

Posted by breadlymoore at November 5, 2006 11:16 PM

comment #9

D.Z. says ...

breadly: "Go outside of your basement to a place where many people gather (a mall or library). Proceed to ask 27 of them if they've seen CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST."

I'm not sure about the exact number at the New Beverly screening a few months ago, but it'd probably almost be 20.

"If one of them says yes, the world is ending."

If you mean the world of "homages" masquerading
as "indie" films is ending, then I'm all for it.
This Tarantino shit has got to stop, or we'll continue to get crap like Sky Captain and Serenity.

"On the other hand, all will have seen BLAIR WITCH."

And most of them didn't like it.

"You do understand that Hollywood is a business, right?"

And you do understand that Michael Bay's being sued for his Island "homage" to Clonus, right?

"That's why the smart company would suggest BLAIR WITCH - ya know, the once omnipresent phenom - over a threadbare cult film from the cocaine-n-tits era of Italian disco-horror cinema."

You mean the smart company which gave us follow-ups like Van Wilder and Dirty Dancing 2, subsequently folded and became a part of Lion's Gate?

Winchester: I don't see how you can expect much of a story out of a film about a vigilante with a skull on his shirt, but I thought it was fine. Not as creative as Boondock Saints, but not as annoying as A History of Violence.

Posted by D.Z. at November 5, 2006 11:36 PM

comment #10

jeffmcm says ...

This thread is crazy, yo. Like a movie-geek steel cage match.

Posted by jeffmcm at November 6, 2006 12:14 AM

comment #11

The Winchester says ...

D.Z. - As a fan of the comic, I expected something at least on par with the storylines presented in the books. At least something a little more involving than what was presented, which sadly, was a lot less intersting than the plot of the Cannon released Dolph Lundgren version. And when Lundgren is better than Travolta's mugging, something's wrong.

That being said, the scene where Jane's family is murdered is brutal as hell, and I'd like that kind of intensity out of this film.

Oh, and as witty as your comment about Artisan (the "smart company" that released Dirty Dancing 2 and Van Wilder) was, and that's not being sarcastic, it really has nothing to do with what Breadly was referring to.

Posted by The Winchester at November 6, 2006 1:14 AM

comment #12

Devin Faraci says ...

breadly, lovely personal attack aside, I still don't get your point. Are you saying that Jeff Wells is running the advertising campaign for this film? That this piece was bought by the filmmakers? What does the advertising of the film have to do with Wells' little piece accurately reflecting the genesis of this film?

Posted by Devin Faraci at November 6, 2006 5:08 AM

comment #13

The Movie Man says ...

The Punisher better or less annoying than A History of Violence? Boondock Saints a creative film? We can always count on our pal D.Z. to rile up the movie lovers with his ballsy embracement of mediocrity and annoying predilection for 1500 word posts that quotes every single prior post over again.

Though I'm willing to go with you on the Serenity and Sky Captain sucking comment.

Posted by The Movie Man at November 6, 2006 7:41 AM

comment #14

JoeGreenia says ...

I had to leave Dancer in the Dark, couldn't take it. Same thing with Blair Witch and Bloody Sunday. I barely made it through the last Bourne movie.

Posted by JoeGreenia at November 6, 2006 8:17 AM

comment #15

D.Z. says ...

MovieMan: "The Punisher better or less annoying than A History of Violence?"

Yep.

"Boondock Saints a creative film?"

It's creative enough for the Wachowskis AND Kevin to borrow elements from it for The Matrix and Dogma. Sorry, Kev, but that, "I wrote Dogma around the time Clerks came out" comment doesn't cut it for me. You HAD to have read at least some of Duffy's script, because Dogma was more unsually action-oriented compared to the rest of your work.

Posted by D.Z. at November 6, 2006 9:15 AM

comment #16

MASON says ...

The Boondocks Saints has a puzzling amount of fans. Never read the script -- it had to be better than the movie.

Whatever happened to Troy Duffy? Overnight must have really done him in.

Posted by MASON at November 6, 2006 9:20 AM

comment #17

The Movie Man says ...

Totally off topic but "Dogma" was far and away the best thing Smith has ever written, strong story and action, good dialogue with a nearly epic scope; this should have been Smith's defining movie, a summation of what he was up to that point, but the film was clunky and ugly, only working in fits and starts, to me "Dogma" is exhibit A in the "Smith is a limited director" camp, and he hasn't really been relevant since that disappointment. Don't really see the Boondocks thing though.

Posted by The Movie Man at November 6, 2006 9:55 AM

comment #18

hatchetface says ...

breadlymoore: why the hostility and asshole-ry?

Faraci's right - awareness of CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST isn't really asking that much on a site where people discuss films. It slipped by Jeff, okay.

In this grossly massive wave of remake-hysteria it's important to remember roots, no matter how shitty they might be to watch, and CH's quality aside, its found-footage hook spawned an entire sub-genre of fake horror docs.

Posted by hatchetface at November 6, 2006 9:59 AM

comment #19

Dixon Steele says ...

D.Z., everyone's entitled to their opinion, so here's mine.

Anyone who prefers BOONDOCK SAINTS over A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE is a moron.

Over & Out.

Posted by Dixon Steele at November 6, 2006 10:06 AM

comment #20

D.Z. says ...

Dixon: Yes, why watch an original action-thriller, when you can see some jerk-off social commentary in the vein of American Beauty and Elephant instead? You'd have to be stupid to prefer the former film.

Posted by D.Z. at November 6, 2006 10:13 AM

comment #21

Dixon Steele says ...

Then how do you explain the critical & commercial success of HISTORY as opposed to the derivative and obsolete BOONDOCKS?

Posted by Dixon Steele at November 6, 2006 10:18 AM

comment #22

D.Z. says ...

Dixon: Um, History of Violence WASN'T commercially successful. Unless you count making your money back a sign of success.

Posted by D.Z. at November 6, 2006 10:22 AM

comment #23

The Movie Man says ...

I find it interesting that D.Z. always has a negative word for Tarantino but one of several in a wave of Tarantino knockoffs (Boondocks) is original and acceptable. I actually agree about the "jerk-off social commentary" of American Beauty (though I think there's a surreal, eerie quality that redeems Elephant's pretensions)and I agree that a no bullshit genre film is preferable to something that thinks its a lot more than it is.

But Boondocks certainly thinks its a lot more than it is, and while there is a certain have your cake and eat it too quality to History of Violence (it wants the bang bang satisfaction of pulp and the conscience of an IMPORTANT film) it is still a masterfully made thriller from a legitimately great filmmaker. Boondocks Saints is poser hipster crap for the college dorm crowd.

Posted by The Movie Man at November 6, 2006 10:30 AM

comment #24

Walter Sobchak says ...

Allow me to saw through the substance and speak superficially for a moment. Regarding the cast photo above, I would hope that the buzz is around the blond girl on the right. She has a younger, more electric but less insane Anne Heche thing going on. I hope she's the one mentioned above creating the buzz. The guy on the left seems slightly interesting. The couple in the middle are a yawn. (although she's undeniably hot), they look like every other actor/actress in every other geared-for-teens horror movie.

Posted by Walter Sobchak at November 6, 2006 10:42 AM

comment #25

Walter Sobchak says ...

I was redundant above. Apologies. However, on further review, I don't think my comments were that superficial afterall. Point being, every single damned horror movie to come out in the last ten years have all felt the same. One of the reasons for this is the casting. Always the same look. Hip, skinny, headshot types. zzzzzz

Posted by Walter Sobchak at November 6, 2006 10:48 AM

comment #26

The Movie Man says ...

Going along with Walter's point, it would be nice to see a horror film with middle aged or even older adults, it opens the genre up to different things, but then again different things do not usually return $100 million on a ten million for pretend body parts investment.

Posted by The Movie Man at November 6, 2006 10:53 AM

comment #27

The Winchester says ...

DZ- I read a copy of Dogma in 1996, way before Boondock Saints was a glint in Troy Duffy's pants, and it was pretty much the same movie. With a lot more Star Wars dialogue, but it was prety much as is.

Movie Man- remember Bubba ho-Tep? About an aging Elvis and Ossie David as JFK fighting a mummy in a retirement home? Great flick, but nobody would see it until it came to video. When there are yummy nubile blondes willing to be soaked in Karo syrup for my amusement, producers will go where the money is.

And while I agree with the common assessment of History Of Violence, and Tarantino rip off etc., what's with the Serenity hatred?

Posted by The Winchester at November 6, 2006 1:42 PM

comment #28

D.Z. says ...

TheMovieMan: "I find it interesting that D.Z. always has a negative word for Tarantino but one of several in a wave of Tarantino knockoffs (Boondocks) is original and acceptable."

Once again, you can't call something a kock-off, if what it's cashing in on is a knock-off, too. Also, the reason I find Boondock Saints to be original is it doesn't feel like a remake.

"But Boondocks certainly thinks its a lot more than it is,"

Well the director does, anyway. But the film seems to have fun with the material.

"and while there is a certain have your cake and eat it too quality to History of Violence (it wants the bang bang satisfaction of pulp and the conscience of an IMPORTANT film) it is still a masterfully made thriller from a legitimately great filmmaker."

I don't consider pausing before shooting to be very thrilling.

"Boondocks Saints is poser hipster crap for the college dorm crowd."

And AHOV isn't, because...?

Winchester: "DZ- I read a copy of Dogma in 1996, way before Boondock Saints was a glint in Troy Duffy's pants, and it was pretty much the same movie."

Fair enough.

"And while I agree with the common assessment of History Of Violence, and Tarantino rip off etc., what's with the Serenity hatred?"

I just think it's egotistical to believe that a Sci-Fi Channel movie would make money theatrically. Plus if you're going to do a hybrid,
at least make it seem like it has something new to offer. Don't just promote it as a bunch of cliches in one package.

Posted by D.Z. at November 6, 2006 2:35 PM

comment #29

The Movie Man says ...

The Winchester-I've seen "Bubba ho-Tep", I didn't love it, its one of those movies where I respected the intention more than the actual result, but Campbell and Davis were wonderful.

D.Z.-We'll have to just agree to disagree about the whole History vs. Boondocks thing, but I would be interested in hearing how a knockoff of a knockoff is somehow not a knockoff.

Posted by The Movie Man at November 7, 2006 6:10 AM

comment #30