TheWildGoose This was an opportunity for some truly biting satire, but it was instead a rather pedestrian and forgettable bit of fluff. Reading a description of the plot- "An ethically-challenged anthropologist concocts a completely fake tribe and fools the whole world"- it should be a brilliant send-up of the goofier aspects of anthropology. Perhaps a digression is in order.Anthropology is a strange field. In their zeal to become as "objective" as the scholars of the natural sciences, anthropologists have sometimes forgotten that their subject of study is homo sapiens, a species which frequently frustrates attempts at "objective" scientific analysis (except where quantitative measurement is possible). Because of this, anthropology, during its long history, has seen more than its share of hoaxes, frauds, and rank nonsense (George Psalmanazar, Vilcabamba, the Tasaday, Margaret Mead and the Samoans, "The Third Eye", etc). Sometimes anthropologists are taken in by the wild tales of tribesmen playing a grand practical joke on gullible foreigners. Sometimes anthropologists exaggerate local peculiarities, ignoring the great similarities between the locals and Westerners- or, trying to prove that differences are only skin-deep, they do the opposite, ignoring obvious biological differences in favor of cultural explanations. At other times, anthropologists are taken in by complete fraudsters whose elaborate nonsense confirmed those anthropologists' preconceptions.Undergirding and feeding nearly all such hoaxes is one constant- Western observers who project their own fantasies and pet theories onto strange and distant peoples about whom they have insufficient information. Whether it is Rousseau with his "Noble Savage", credulous 20th-century advocates of "free love", communitarian socialists, earnest anti-racism crusaders, or people desperate to explain away the differences between men and women as nothing more than "culturally constructed", anthropological frauds always find a fertile market among people who are more concerned with critiquing their own societies than with learning about strange ones. (None of this, by the way, is meant as a dismissal of the work of serious and sober anthropologists who study and analyze the human animal).This constant is exactly what is missing in "Krippendorf's Tribe", and its absence means that the satire never bites or cuts, but only gently prods. As far as the film is concerned, the only thing driving the popular interest in "Krippendorf's Tribe" is simple prurience- part of the equation, no doubt, but only one aspect of a much larger issue in real-life frauds.A better approach would have been to highlight the way that intellectuals could use a phony tribe to serve as a justification for their own crackpot theories about human society and human nature. "Krippendorf's Tribe" dances around this slightly, but we don't see much of it. Part of the problem is that Krippendorf himself remains more or less fully in control of whatever information comes out about his concocted tribe, the "Shelmikedmu". He only invents things on the spot, based on aspects of his own life. It would have been more pointed to see the Shelmikedmu tribe taking on a life of its own, with other hucksters, fraudsters, and over-zealous academics contributing their own (equally bogus) information and theories about the Shelmikedmu. Surely, someone with experience of backbiting and jealousy in academia could have helped sharpen the rather dull-edged satire here.Another part of the problem is the film's attempt to manipulate us into looking at Krippendorf as a sympathetic character, despite his lies and fraud. The movies uses most of the classic techniques- his wife died, he was under stress, and one lie just snowballed into another in true Fawlty Towers fashion, until other, more sinister people started manipulating him into bigger and bigger lies. We have seen all of this before, and it's not very convincing. A better approach would have been to portray Krippendorf as an unalloyed con artist, morally dissolute and positively eager to tell any whopper to keep the fraud going. This would have opened up many more opportunities for the kind of first-rate satire that this film should have had in spades, but didn't.At any rate, one does not wish to judge the film too harshly. The sexual jokes are crude and not nearly as funny as the filmmakers seem to think, but in most other respects, this film is adequate entertainment for a rainy afternoon in front of the TV.

NxNWRocks It should be obvious from the outset that this is one of those one-joke movies that will struggle to stretch the laughs out to feature-length proportions. It has the same effect as watching one of those Saturday Night Live sketches that seem funny at first but get dragged out way past the point where the humor has been exhausted and what remains is a sense of embarrassment for the actors.The biggest problem is the huge suspension of disbelief required to accept – even at a basic, unrealistic level - the preposterous central idea. Although there have been real-life academic and journalistic shams, this film never pretends to be rooted in any kind of realism, but the material is so weak that even wringing slapstick out of it is a challenge, resulting in some kind of unfunny vacuum for the most part.It's a shame that all concerned didn't attempt to do anything a little more serious with it. Scattered here and there in the script are some telling comments on the clash of cultures and relative benefits and drawbacks of two types of civilization – the hurried lives of cosmopolitan America and the more basic, living-with-nature life in rural South America. Even those few scraps are a wealth of depth compared to the awfully shallow "Jungle 2 Jungle."The greatest mystery may be how such a quality cast was lured to such a substandard production. Dreyfuss does his best to carry the film – and this is a good exhibit for his merits as a comic actor, for few others could coax laughs out of such patchy material. Those around him do as well as can be expected, most notably some great lines from Phil Leeds in a cameo towards the end, which is one of the very few rewards for sticking with it to the closing credits.

brelsa I laughed a lot at this film! I have always loved Richard Dreyfus, and Jenna Elfman plays her role in this movie with a Lucille Ball-like zaniness. Like Dreyfus she has the ability to play drama as well as comedy. I can't understand how some of the other reviews are so harsh. Maybe you need to know what to expect when you sit down to watch this movie. Don't try to take the story too seriously. For example, if you're an anthropologist in real life, don't try to compare it to reality. Separate yourself from your day job, and don't take the jokes personally. It is a wild and crazy movie that is no more about the real life field of anthropology than "Scrubs" is about medicine. Lighten up, have a beer, relax, and you will enjoy this movie. Slapstick comedy has its place in the entertainment field. Don't spoil it for the rest of us who still enjoy this genre.

Paul I was an anthropology major in college, and so was especially insulted by the field's infantile representation here. The idea that an anthropology professor could fool one person for one second with the ridiculous B.S. he makes up here is ludicrous. I believe this travesty of a movie has probably done irreparable harm to the field of anthropology. The overriding theme of anthropology is escaping ethnocentrism -- the belief that one's own culture is superior to another -- and by dressing up white kids in blackface and stereotypical costumes and having them run around chasing chickens, this movie is not helping. Now, all this could be forgiven if the movie was actually funny. Then it could be thought of as a comedic send-up of anthropologists, or whatever you wanna call it. But there are maybe two funny moments in the entire running time. Awful. Everything about this movie is disgusting -- From the bathroom humor to the cookie-cutter characters and formulaic script. Everyone involved should have turned down the money and stayed home -- no paycheck is worth being a part of this disgrace.