Jungle

White guy in a fedora that you met yesterday in a bar says that for a mere $100, he'll take you somewhere in the Amazon jungle that's not on any map. In SOUNDS LEGIT: THE MOVIE, Frodo rides the rapids, gets foot rot, meets the natives, and dreams that he's Jesus being eaten alive by ants. Roll credits.

McLean can't find a proper tone between sounding raw - monkey is killed, eaten, Dan cuts his forehead to get rid of parasite, eats baby bird still in the egg, scares jaguar with lighter, survives quicksand and starves to the bones to earn an Oscar like DiCaprio - and moments that try to hard to combine illumination (jewish praying book given by his dying uncle, blue butterfly) and comedy (visions of meals, family and girls, including a native). Not enough jungle fever, too much stock spectacle.

I thought it was well shot and Radcliffe was a solid lead. Not much about the plot was unique or memorable though. Amazing true story, but so-so film.

(ISRAELI DEFENSE FORCE MAN)

The execution feels like someone sat down with ghinsberg for half an hour and let him ramble on while making notes like: "day 6: scene with jaguar"..." day 14: losing sanity". The result has the movie wildly skipping through time to these points of interest without connecting them in a way that makes anything relatable or emotionally engaging, except for "ooooh, that must've hurt!" or "yuk!". Any bear grylls episode will have the same impact on you. And at least he bites off frogs' heads.

Radcliffe is pretty bad, but then I'm not really sure if anyone else could sell silliness like Yossi's "Karl is friends with the Indians!" pitch (the Discovery Channel re-enactment was way more believable). Graphic though the jungle grossness is, it's amusingly unaffecting--plays like it's missing some William Castle gimmicks, gooey gummy worms and Cadbury bird eggs and excuse me I must get some candy

Poor editing job.

Ehh

Well-shot survival drama with a decent supporting cast and a strong performance from Mr. Potter. Being "based on true events", scenes are lent a certain amount of extra weight than had they merely been penned. I didn't like that the film broke perspective towards the end; and the CGI jaguar, while obscured, isn't the film's finest moment. I thought the presentation was in danger of becoming stale, but then the second half takes a neat turn in reflecting the mental state of our protagonist.

Jungle is a gripping tale of three ignorant, overzealous adventurers who follow an untrustworthy man into the Bolivian jungle. The untrustworthy man, Karl, seems much more sinister in the set-up and suspense of the adventure but he is less so after the parties separate. The photography, score, and sounds of the jungle are great. The story is interesting. It was a very suspenseful movie, having gone in with zero knowledge about the movie or the events in it. I liked the ending too.

67.5.

Watchable, but it didn't really make me feel much. Not much tension even with the struggle to survive

The editing in this film is utterly reprehensible. Aside from the constant distraction, it's punishingly average for what should be an easy formula for tension.

If you liked Castaway, you may like this one. Daniel Radcliffe is lost in a South American jungle and just wants to find his way back to civilization. An intense journey.

Acting & Casting - 9/15 Presentation and Development of Characters - 9/15 Story and Story Presentation - 10/15 Visual Quality - 8/10 Creativity - 3/5 Execution - 7/10 Pacing and Lenght - 3/5 Music and Theme - 3/5 Sound and Visual Quality, Cinematography - 6/10 Directing - 6/10

Needs more Daniel Radcliffe wandering a jungle.

Dramın dibine vuran Radcliffe'in oyunculuğu Greg McLean'in iyi yönetimi ile güzel bir film olmuş. Gerçek hikayeye dayanması cabası.

Daniel Radcliff on a tour de force through the Bolivian jungle. His performance is amazing but the movie is far from it. If you wanna see Mr. Radcliff stumble through the underbrush while he slowly looses his mind for at least 80 minutes of this two hour movie, then this is for you. Because apart from that not much happens.

didn't like it. not what I expected

Passes the time.

It alternates between mediocre and thrilling, and ultimately doesn't amount to much more than a tale of suffering that, ironically, seems more alive during the short time the story focuses on the rescuer instead of the rescued.

Dünyada gezilecek, görülecek ne kadar güzel yerler var. Gerçek hayatta ilham alınacak ne hikayeler var. Başlangıçta maceracı gezginlerin hikayesi, sorunlar başlayınca birbirlerini tanimadiklarini farketmeleri ve nihayet hayatta kalma mücadelesi! Bazı sahnelerde mideniz kalkacaktır, bazılarında gerileceksiniz. Görselliği, gerilimi, güzelliği ve yansıttığı gerçek insan psikolojisiyle kesinlikle izlenmeyi ve tavsiyeyi hakeden bir film. İyi seyirler olsun.

Pulpy, for an adaptation of a true memoir, and true, there's an artificiality to the way it jumps from one gross-out rainforest incident to the next. Still not nearly as bad as claimed by some critics, and should satisfy seekers of survival-adventure film that aren't too picky. Certainly nowhere near as bad as "The Darkness" or "Belko Experiment". What bothered me most was Radcliffe's crappy excuse for an Israeli accent.

Radcliffe has done a good job distancing himself from Harry Potter by taking on strange and eccentric roles, that allows him to act. This is no different, even if the story is a little boring at times.

If it weren't based on a true story it would be much more excting. Pretty boring!

my god Radcliff is a weak actor. fascinating story but I'd rather watch the "I shouldnt be alive"-version.

Seen: 2x

One cliche adventure survival movie, with Daniel Radcliffe. Just like Swiss Army Man with more realistic and serious theme. Doesn't really work well actually. Still enjoyable.

I'll jump right in and pull my pin and go with youu