Jungle (2017)

The accessible page does not reveal the critic’s verdict. It describes the film as a survivalist drama-turned-thriller but provides no specific praise or complaint.

The article is identified as a review, but its verdict cannot be verified from the inaccessible page. Its specific praise or criticism is likewise unavailable.

Smith gives the film a middling rating, presenting it as a nervy adventure-thriller. The available description singles out its tense Amazon survival premise and notes that it avoids the gruelling horror associations of the director’s earlier work.

Lodge finds the film engagingly taut at first, but increasingly muddled as its protagonist becomes isolated. He praises the polished direction and vivid cinematography, while faulting the script’s thin characterization and unilluminating hallucinations.

Windsor finds the film a middling survival thriller, weakened by rushed scenes and unconvincing embellishments. He praises Daniel Radcliffe’s committed performance and singles out the film’s vivid, gruesome survival imagery.

Abele finds the film an earthbound slog that lacks momentum and psychological depth. He praises its cinematography and Daniel Radcliffe’s convincing physical performance.

Dyer finds the survival adventure drawn out and unable to build real tension. He praises Daniel Radcliffe’s convincing performance and the film’s vibrant jungle cinematography.

The review finds the film muddled and too reverent toward its protagonist’s ordeal. It criticizes the bland substitute landscapes and flat cinematography for draining the jungle of power.

Buckmaster finds the film shallow, contrived and weighed down by its pulpy approach. He praises the lush cinematography but says the natural beauty is undermined by the direction.

Stewart finds that the survival scares fail to convince, though the film’s gross-out moments deliver a different kind of horror. He praises Daniel Radcliffe’s intense physical performance but criticizes the intrusive score and the film’s weak storytelling.

The review finds the film serviceable but held back by generic setup and weakly directed action. It praises Daniel Radcliffe’s gruelling performance, which makes the survival-focused third act considerably stronger.