Funny Pic Girl Missing in Congo Says Shes Ok
It Works on a Rainy Saturday Afternoon
Warning: Spoilers
In Congo, Charles Travis (Bruce Campbell) is testing a communication system by laser with his former fiancée Dr. Karen Ross (Laura Linney) for the TraviCom network. Charles is the son of the millionaire R. B. Travis (Joe Don Baker), who owns the TraviCom and is Karen's employer. Charles and his friend Jeffrey (Taylor Nichols) find the ruins of a lost city but are somehow killed. Meanwhile their camp is completely destroyed and then the camera is shut down by a creature. Travis discloses to Karen that his son was actually trying to find a rare blue diamond in Congo and sends her to look for him. Meanwhile, Dr. Peter Elliot (Dylan Walsh) and his assistant Richard (Grant Heslov) are testing communication with the gorilla Amy and they decide to take her back to Congo since the animal seems to miss her birthplace. However they have funding issue but the Romanian philanthropist Herkermer Homolka (Tim Curry) offers to financially assist them. In the airport, Karen provides more money and joins the expedition. In the politically unstable Africa, they meet the experienced guide Captain Munro Kelly (Ernie Hudson) that bribes Captain Wanta (Delroy Lindo) to let them go. Further, he discloses that Homolka's real intention is to find the Lost City of Zinj. Then they embark in a plane in the beginning of a dangerous adventure in Congo.
Despite the negative reviews, "Congo" is an entertaining but outdated jungle adventure movie in the style of Tarzan, with lost city, dangerous gorillas and forgotten tribe of natives. The screenplay does not develop well the relationship among Charles Travis, his apparently estranged father R. B. Travis and Dr. Karen Ross but the film works on a rainy Saturday afternoon. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): Congo"
35 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fun but not a masterpiece
Warning: Spoilers
I only read a bit of the novel, the bit when the people are killed, and it is really graphic. The film is no masterpiece,it is a bit cheesy, but it does have a sense of fun, (ie. Bruce Campbell, "Stop eating my sesame cake") and not as bad as the rating suggests. The special effects are nothing special, and I didn't get why the gorillas jumped into the lava at the end. That was the most cheesy thing about Congo. The script had its ups and downs, and the direction was a bit inexperienced. But the acting was on the whole alright. Laura Linney, who is a very good actress is a strong lead. Dylan Walsh pales in comparison but has some good delivery. Ernie Hudson is the best actor in the movie, with his easy-going charm and his grin. As for Tim Curry, at first I was put off by the accent, but hey it's acting. He was like a parallel to Dennis in Jurassic Park which is better. But I liked him here,he gave a great delivery of such classic lines. Please stop criticising him, when he was actually one of the reasons why I like the movie. He didn't deserve that Razzie nomination; that should have been Grant Heslov, whose delivery was whiny and his character was poorly written. Amy starts off well, like the movie, but grates on the nerves when the movie wears on. I am terrified of the King Solomons Mine scene, it is just very graphic, having your head bashed in like that. I know it's pretend but it felt real. The scenery was splendid, the cinematography was excellent and Jerry Goldsmith's music was good. In conclusion, a fairly watchable movie, if you don't mind too much cheese, and shouldn't be compared to Jurassic Park, the only thing they have in common were that they were written by the same author. 6/10 Bethany Cox.
37 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Memorably quirky and juvenile; unique and underappreciated
Congo is the first movie on the IMDB for which I am writing a user comment. I am giving it this distinction because, although it is not the best movie I have ever seen, nor my all-time favorite movie, it is one of my personal favorites nonetheless. If I could choose only ten movies to own, or even just five, Congo would be one of them.
Because so many people dislike Congo, or are at least indifferent to it, I feel compelled to explain why I like it. I like Congo because it's different: in the seven years since I first saw it in June of 1995, I've seen countless other movies, but Congo still retains its uniqueness, I believe. Other movies have tried to duplicate Congo's juvenile sense of adventure and tongue-in-cheek humor (most notably the two Mummy movies), but none of them have surpassed Congo as one of the most gleefully preposterous and deliriously fun yarns I've ever seen.
So many people have criticized Congo in so many ways that I'm not sure which complaint I should address first. The consensus among most comments seems to be that the character of Amy, the "talking" gorilla, pretty much ruins the movie because she is annoying and unconvincing. Although I cannot deny that "Amy" is, indeed, a woman in a gorilla costume which is not quite convincing, I should also say (1) that when I first saw Congo, I thought Amy was pretty convincing, and at least acceptable; and (2) convincing gorillas in movies are rare, in my opinion. Rick Baker's work in Gorillas in the Mist and the Mighty Joe Young remake is the best I've seen; and although Amy (created by Stan Winston's team, not Baker's) is inferior to Baker's best work, she's better than some of Baker's apes in Burton's terrible Planet of the Apes remake. If I must choose between Amy, and Tim Roth in an obvious chimpanzee costume, I choose Amy.
Another common complaint is that the movie Congo is inferior to Michael Crichton's novel, upon which it was based. I read the novel in early 1995, just prior to seeing the movie, and so the book was still fresh in my mind when I saw the movie: and I thought the movie did an excellent job of conveying the essence of the book, and gave the story an offbeat style which sets the movie apart from the book. The movie also has a healthy sense of humor about itself, which Crichton's novel lacks and sorely needs.
I almost forgot the actors! Some people hate Congo simply because it lacks a Mel Gibson or Bruce Willis; nevertheless it does boast a talented and interesting cast of mostly underrated actors. Laura Linney has given good, strong performances in many movies, but I argue that her performance in Congo is still her most entertaining. Dylan Walsh gives an earnest, appealing performance as the earnest, appealing Peter Elliot, whose devotion to Amy (however laughable it is for many viewers) gives the movie some heart. Ernie Hudson gives a clever, unforgettable performance as Munro Kelly; although black, he possesses the mannered speech and condescending attitude of an authentic "great white hunter," one of the movie's best gags. Grant Heslov has little to do, but some of his delivery is terrific ("Safari? I don't even like picnics!") Tim Curry is a sheer delight in this movie, giving a campy performance as the monomaniacal Herkermer Homolka, a "Roumanian philanthropist" obviously written into the movie (the character does not exist in the novel) to correspond with Wayne Knight's character Dennis Nedry in Jurassic Park. Some people are offended by Curry's performance, and believe it's offensive to Roumanians as well. Here's a tip: anyone offended by anything in Congo takes life (not to mention this movie) way too seriously, and needs to lighten up.
Many people hate Congo simply because it's cheesy. But considering the story (assorted oddballs journey to a site in the African jungle which may be the legendary mines of King Solomon), how could the movie not be cheesy? Did people really expect a movie called Congo to be realistic, believable and compelling? Surely such a movie would be even more cliched and misconceived than the one that was made. John Patrick Shanley's script may be crude and smug, but at least it's fun, and certainly a model of efficiency: Shanley trimmed the novel of subplots (such as a rival expedition, and attempts to decipher the gray gorillas' "language") which would have made the movie longer, slower and more pretentious. He added lots of pithy dialogue and made the whole affair an exercise in high camp. The result is a quintessential juvenile adventure that improves upon more bombastic and elaborate efforts like Armageddon. And Frank Marshall's straightforward, low-key direction nicely contrasts with the inherent absurdity of the storyline; a more intense and heavy-handed director would not have been a good choice to helm a movie like Congo.
Congo isn't nearly the terrible movie that many people believe it is. It isn't a movie for everybody or even a movie for most people: but it was created with a certain audience in mind, and many people are simply too serious and high-minded to belong to that audience. Congo and movies like it are cartoons for adults: if you don't like movies with colorful visuals, ridiculous plots and juvenile characters, you should not watch Congo. But if you do like movies with those characteristics, then I submit that Congo is one of the best movies of that kind that I've ever seen.
184 out of 231 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's B to the core, but for some reason I love it
Don't get me wrong, this is not Oscar worthy in the least, nor does it stand as a particularly entertaining popcorn flick.
I love this movie because of it's incredible cheesiness, from the talking gorilla to Tim Curry's greedy diamond chaser to the absurd diamond laser plot line. I've read Crichton's book and it's quite good, the movie however, misses a lot of the time.
That being said, I still love watching it, I can't explain it, I guess it's so bad that it's good for a laugh whenever I see it, and watching people devoured by psychopathic gorillas never gets old.
If you've got friends over, pop this one in and give it the MST3K treatment, you'll have a blast I'm sure.
Like I said, no redeeming value to be had here but if you like watching bad movies just for the heck of it, this may be one to check out.
P.S. Joe Pantoliano's cameo is golden.
83 out of 106 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie is not as bad as its rating suggests
Congo is rarely mentioned in any discussion about film. It seems like a forgotten artifact, abandoned like King Solomon's mines, discovered only by only those who maintain some fundamental interest; what you find is going to depend on how open you keep your mind. Rest assured, those of you who would rather ignore it aren't going to be missing a diamond, but I'd say an arrowhead isn't out of the question.
I'll dispense with the metaphors: Congo is not a bad film. I watched it many times in my youth and just watched it again yesterday, and the biggest complaint I have is that the original song 'Sounds Of Africa' is awful. I won't summarize the plot or analyze the film in explicit detail, but I will say that it is briskly paced, sharply written, and features solid characterizations, or as solid as they can be in an adventure epic. As an example, Tim Curry has been dismissed too often as the comic relief when he is actually central to the plot and turns in a deliciously dense performance, above and beyond the limitations of his character. Considering the slightly campy tone, the special effects are well above what anyone could expect. Just don't come prepared to judge them based on modern standards or Jurassic Park. Personally, I find physical effects more endearing than CGI anyway.
As many reviewers have said, it's a film of a bygone era, a lost world story treated as an adventure epic. Clearly it's not Indiana Jones and the tone tends to waver a bit, but it's never boring, and if it had been adapted from the book directly, it would have been. I can't imagine someone watching the airplane SAM scene without being excited by the action, or watching the group's border crossing struggles without at least sporting a grin.
So, check your ego and check your critical faculties; this is no Citizen Kane and it doesn't pretend to be. Those that harshly criticize it, by my estimation, have a lot to learn about having a good time at the movies.
102 out of 125 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Congo (1995)
Directed by Frank Marshall. Starring Laura Linney, Dylan Walsh, Ernie Hudson, Tim Curry, Joe Don Baker, Grant Heslov, Joe Pantoliano, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Delroy Lindo, Bruce Campbell. (PG-13)
A team sent by a telecommunications company disappears in central Africa while searching for a rare blue diamond; Linney tags along on a primatologist's (Baker) expedition to return a gorilla to the wild so she can find out what happened to them. Laughable jungle adventure isn't even close to being a good movie, but it's not usually a boring one either; instead, it's a sneaky comedy that can be laughed at with the sort of relish that many other bald-faced laffers fail to inspire. Here we have a person in a gorilla suit wearing a "glove" that lets it speak when using sign language; also finds time to skydive, drink martinis and smoke cigars. If this doesn't spark interest, stay far away, but for all others, rest assured there's plenty more. A diamond-focused laser saws through killer apes; Curry trots out a ridiculous Romanian accent and goes nuts with it (he says "lost city of Zinj" about a half dozen times, always with tremendous brio, always hysterical); a poor sap literally gets scared to death looking at a gorilla; Linney uses a flare gun to blow up an incoming anti-air missile; and cold-hearted CEO Baker, when asked if he's human, gets to loudly retort, "I'll be human later!" The only one who gets to have fun while keeping his or her dignity is Hudson, who brings a droll, Ronald Colman-esque zest to his jungle guide role. A movie that's indefensible on any intellectual or artistic level, but why would anyone have expected otherwise? It's adapted from a Michael Crichton book, after all.
53/100
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Think Indiana Jones crossed with Jurrasic Park and add a dash of Star Wars
What can you say about a movie like "Congo"? Well, it's silly and underdeveloped with some pretty shabby special effects but god help me, I like it.
The plot is somewhat episodic as multiple different characters with wildly different motives converge on the Congo. One is a communications technician (played nicely by Lauara Linney) who is looking for her fiancé. Another is a Romanain nut case (played by the fabulous Tim Curry) who is looking for a mythical, lost diamond mine. And the last is a gorilla expert returning a talking gorilla back to her natural habitat. I swear, I'm NOT making this up.
The cast as a whole is OK. Linney is appealing, Curry turns in a usual fine job, and cameos from Bruce Campbell and Joe Don Baker add to the quirky atmosphere. Special mention should go to Ernie Hudson, who's roguish charm while not as polished as Harrison Ford's, makes a great Clark Gable/Indiana Jones type-explorer.
The special effects are kind of a mixed bag. The gorillas are obviously stunt-men but the hokeyness is kind of fun. The climax in the temple is also silly but still rousing. Topping all this off, the quirky Jerry Goldsmith score adds considerably to the film as a whole.
Although certainly not a classic or even 100% good, "Congo" is a cheesy, yet entertaining jungle adventure movie and is worth seeing.
17 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A fun, scary adventure flick
"Congo" is a lot of fun as long as you don't take it seriously. Because they share the author of the books they are based on, it is perhaps inevitable that in any review of "Congo" the film "Jurassic Park" will come up sooner or later. Yes, "Jurassic Park" vastly surpasses "Congo" in quality, but seeing as how the former is debatedly THE best example of a summer action flick, making that statement doesn't necessarily mean that "Congo" isn't worth watching.
In fact, "Congo" is a breathtaking thriller, probably only marred by its budget which causes some of the effects to look rather cheap, and descend into the B-movie territory. That being said, director Frank Marshall still manages to not only create a film that not only succeeds as an action film, but at times the tension grows so high that it almost could be labeled as a horror flick (though I highly doubt that that was the intent).
Yet there is some justification in labeling "Congo" as a horror film (at least in part). There are definitely some moments, particularly in the latter half of the movie, that are actually quite frightening. While the killer gorillas don't necessarily "look" scary up close, the savagery in which they attack and brutally murder people is pretty scary. In addition, the gore level is pretty high, especially for a PG-13 rating. The efforts on the part of the filmmakers to avoid an R rating is at times obvious, such as in some of the more brutal gorilla attacks, the picture is fuzzy and in slow-motion (these changes are not successful, and hurt the movie). Even as it is, the levels of terror and gore are high enough to make one wonder whether the PG-13 rating is appropriate.
"Congo" is not without its flaws. As I said before, the budget constraints make some of the effects look cheap, and at times lower the film to the B-level range. Also, the film takes a little too long to begin gaining momentum, which at times cause the film to drag (though the payoff in the latter half of the movie is well worth the wait). Finally, it is quite clear that Amy is a person in a gorilla suit (which given the complexity of the character was unavoidable). The killer gorillas don't suffer from the same fate, but they don't look particularly frightening (actually, they look rather sickly, however their actions quickly quash that notion).
Frequently, acting is not a strong point for most action-adventure films, unless the characters are rather unique (as in "Pirates of the Caribbean"). However, "Congo" is an exception. It features not one, but two standout performances. Tim Curry is great as Herkermer Homolka, the jewel-obsessed "Romanian philanthropist" (you can almost see his eyes take the form of diamonds. It's a typical Tim Curry role, but he avoids overdoing it and becoming annoying (which I guess he is, but in a good way).
But perhaps the biggest surprise is Ernie Hudson as the sarcastic, and ever so slick Monroe Kelly. It's all in the delivery, and Hudson delivers his lines with enough wit and bite to make him easily the most appealing actor in the movie. Had this movie been more popular, it would be reasonable to suspect that Hudson could have been up for an Oscar, as most of the nominees of the said award win for inferior performances. Laura Linney and Dylan Walsh are adequate, but given the staple hero characters they are given, it is probably unfair to expect more than what they give. Grant Heslov plays the neurotic sidekick that he usually plays (see "True Lies"), and it is pretty welcoming.
I don't understand why this flopped at the box-office. Perhaps because it had to live up to the reputation of "Jurassic Park," which is more than can be expected of any film.
30 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Stop eating my sesame cake....
Warning: Spoilers
A megalomaniac C.E.O. sends his son into the dangerous African Congo on a quest for a source of diamonds large enough and pure enough to function as powerful laser communications transmitters.
When contact is lost with his son and the team, his sometime daughter- in-law is sent after them.
She is a former CIA operative and, accompanied by gee-whiz gadgetry and a few eccentric characters and sets out to rescue her former fiancé.
What they all discover is that often what we most want turns out to be the source of our downfall.
yes, the film was basically selling itself as the new Jurassic Park, and while it's nowhere near as good as that behemoth, it still has it's moments.
Despite the poor script, there are some good characters here who really make you want to like the film more. Curry as always is the one with a secret, Linney plays the straight woman, but most of all, it's Hudson here who really steals the show.
With his tongue firmly in cheek, he spouts his lines with cheesy glee stealing the thunder from anyone else.
Effects are not the best, but i think it adds to the films silly charm.
Not to be taken seriously, just a big silly movie.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Another, albeit not bad, movie about King Solomon's Mines
Warning: Spoilers
Congo is a modern day Indiana Jones, or more specifically, a modern day King Solomon's Mines. It's a great movie with everything you would expect to be in an adventure movie: monsters, lost cities, a war in the background, and a group of daring adventurers. What sets this movie apart are the personalities of the adventurers. The party is made up of four groups. There is the communications corporation which is sending a team deep into the Congo to find out what happened to a previous team. The corporation wants some flawless diamonds for its laser and will do anything to get it. There are the scientists that are going into the Congo to return an ape to her natural environment, there is the archaeologist that is searching for the lost city, and then there are the mercenaries.
The groups are interesting for the scientists are very open with what they want. Their ape, Amy, wants to return to the jungle so they are taking her. The mercenaries are being paid so they are happy. The secrets come in with the communications corporation and the archaeologist. They both refuse to reveal the true reason for their journey, and the truth has to be drawn out from them, which the mercenary leader manages to do.
The original story is by Michael Crichton, so one can expect a little social comment in it. Once again the comment is about man playing God. The ancient city genetically created a breed of killer apes to guard the diamond mines. The apes were so vicious and uncontrollable they turn on their masters and killed them. Now nobody can go to the city because the apes will kill them. The subtle point is that the scientists are teaching the ape, Amy, to talk. What we see in the movie is the beginning of the experiment, and the end result. The ancients did what the scientists are trying to do and ended up creating a monster that they could not destroy.
Congo seems to also reveal the true power of nature. Though there are lots of threats from humanity, such as the war in Zaire and the apes, they are also threatened by nature. The volcano that the city is built on is rumbling and ready to explode. This is the more obvious note. We also are confronted with other creatures, such as the Hippo and the Silverback Gorilla. The hippopotamus (greek for River Horse) may seem like a placid creature, but in the wild they are brutes. When I first saw the movie I thought that they were crocodiles until I realised that they were really hippos. Then there is the Silverback. When they are confronted with it, one suddenly realises that that creature could rip a full-grown man apart. Not something to trifle with.
Congo is a great little adventure movie with everything one would expect in such a movie. The action keeps on coming and the characters are all interesting. The best thing is, they didn't kill of my favourite character in the end. But then again, you would expect him to know a little bit about staying alive.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's where they drink Um Bongo.
After the mega-success of Spielberg's Jurassic Park in 1993, I imagine that producers were all over author Michael Crichton's back catalogue in search of another potential box-office hit; featuring untamed wilderness, a cute talking gorilla, some far less appealing killer apes, a laser weapon, King Solomon's lost diamond mines, and an exploding volcano, exotic, jungle-based adventure Congo was a natural choice for the block-buster approach.
Directed by Frank Marshall, the film made a healthy profit, but the critics tore the film apart, clearly of the opinion that this heady concoction of action, horror, industrial intrigue, drama and warfare was no match for Mel Gibson in a kilt or a talking pig. But then what do critics know anyway?
This might not be a superlative piece of cinema—John Patrick Shanley's screenplay conveys no meaningful message, Frank Marshall never advances the art of film-making with his direction, and one needn't bother looking for any Oscar-worthy performances—but Congo still proves to be hugely entertaining nonsense, a whole lot of cheesy, big budget fun, with cool creature effects (the gorilla suits were by FX legend Stan Winston), impressive set design, some decent action set-pieces, a wonderfully camp performance from Tim Curry as Romanian treasure seeker Herkermer Homolka, a neat cameo from Bruce Campbell, lovely Laura Linney and her delightful dimples, and some truly manky monkeys (OK, so technically they're apes, but for the purpose of alliteration, they're monkeys!). And that's got 'entertaining' stamped all over it as far as I am concerned.
13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This film is special to me.
I remember being only six years old when my older brother and his friends rented this one night. I watched it with them and now that I am seventeen years old, I feel that this was one of my most cherished memories. Of course i fell asleep near the end of it then, but it was still a really good memory, to watch CONGO with them. And now I have viewed this film fairly recently without falling asleep and have read the Michael Crichton(Jurassic Park, The Andromeda Strain) book. I for one find this film to be very entertaining. Of course it goes without saying that this film is not completely accurate to the book. They have added new characters and added more gory death and less technology and actual factual feeling. The creators could have made this film an interesting sci-fi adventure feature, but instead they have made a B movie. Although the film feels like the former, and did when i was six. This film has enough technology and factual feel to be interesting, but not quite believable. And yet, this for once, is not at all a bad thing. The film is pretty convoluted. It is about a primatologist and a friend who have a talking gorilla(via electronic headset) and decide to go to it's birthplace to see what its like and discover what happened to a team that went their a little while earlier to find a treasure in which Tim Curry randomly appears in a fake accent and pretends to be a companion who is searched for by a stereotypical soldier looking dude who turns out not to be a friend and, yeah. I don't really know how to exactly explain the plot, suffice to say that somehow, the gorilla named Amy and her friends, for some reason, must escape from a helicopter because they are shot at and end up in the jungle, not alone, with all of their crew mates and stuff. And from there on, they must try to avoid danger from snakes, hippos, and a wild pack of mutated monkeys that intend to eat their flesh and kill everyone. I know that this film sounds completely ridiculous and stupidly pointless, but that is really part of the fun. Usually movies are either thought provoking and interesting, or entertaining. This film is very entertaining and funny. This film also has a high body count, with a lot of characters meeting their end in gruesome ways. It takes itself seriously, but not seriously enough to make it not fun. I liked this film as a kid because it was funny and fun. It still works for me.
38 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rote, old-fashioned formula from curious modern talents...
Though it did manage to draw in audiences, "Congo" plays like an old John Agar flick from the 1950s, a manipulative, special effects-laden co-feature straight off the assembly line. Motley expedition team in Africa (which includes a "talking" gorilla) come upon murderous gray apes guarding a lost fortune in diamonds. Adaptation of Michael Crichton's bestseller (by John Patrick Shanley, of all people) has strong talents involved, yet no one can disguise the fact this is a hoary premise culled from the late-late show, full of stock characters, clichés and unsurprising action. However, Amy the Talking Gorilla is a sweet new ingredient, giving the stale plot some much-needed lift. ** from ****
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
campy high adventure
A team from a communication company is in Congo on an expedition. They discover a lost city and are massacred. Karen Ross (Laura Linney) is an ex-CIA agent and goes in search of the lost group. She and philanthropist Herkermer Homolka (Tim Curry) fund an expedition of Dr. Peter Elliott (Dylan Walsh) and his assistant Richard (Grant Heslov) from Berkley. They have taught a gorilla named Amy how to sign and with a glove and computer backpack, she can speak. The group is joined by local guide Munro Kelly (Ernie Hudson). At the Lost City of Zinj, they are confronted with a species of gray gorillas.
This is such an odd movie. It isn't quite quirky enough to be funny. Yet it can't be taken seriously especially with Amy around. It probably needs a comedian to do the comedy and I don't think Tim Curry is quite right. He's too weaselly. The action adventure doesn't really work because none of it seem real. The sets all look fake. I don't mind the gray gorilla group's look. They could look more menacing. Amy is too fake. She's intended as one of the lead characters but she doesn't look good enough. I might like it better if the movie fully embraced its campiness.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Legends of the Hidden Temple" with intelligent gorillas and science
OK, this movie is best watched on a rainy day or when you're pretty bored. The fake looking gorillas were obviously not very well-made, whereas the 1993 film Jurassic Park had familiarized audiences with CG dinosaurs. In fact, CGI was originally planned for the grays, but the technology had not yet been developed to the point where realistic hair could be created. While smooth skinned dinosaurs were possible, hairy apes would have looked inappropriately cartooned. Therefore, animatronics, masks and puppetry had to be utilized. So that was kind of a damper on the special effects as well as Tim Curry's bad acting. The movie could have been a lot better, but it was viewable. If you got over the gorilla puppets and Tim Curry's accent, you have a pretty decent movie. I thought the story was good. It's not Jurassic Park, but it's Michael Crichton. Congo wasn't very realistic, but neither was Jurassic Park. It was like that show "Legends of the Hidden Temple" with intelligent gorillas and science. There was action and a plot. So I could sit and watch it. I'll give it (barely) 6 stars.
42 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Oh 1995 and your movies
Warning: Spoilers
Frank Marshall is more known as a producer than a director. After all, he was in that role for movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark, Poltergeist, The Color Purple, Back to the Future and so many more films, but he didn't direct until 1990's Arachnophobia. He also helmed Alive and Eight Below, as well as this film. Again - he's much better known as a producer, as he's since executive produced the Jason Bourne and Jurassic Park films.
Speaking of Jurassic Park, a Michael Crichton novel also inspired this film, which had a long history before it finally played cinemas.
After the success of The First Great Train Robbery, Crichton wanted to write a movie for Sean Connery, as the character of Charles Munro, who he saw as an analog to Allan Quatermain. Ironically, that's the character that Connery would play in his final screen role in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
Crichton pitched the idea to producer Frank Yablans - the same guy who brought us The Fury, Mommie Dearest and Kidco - who liked the idea so much that he - without Crichton's authorization thank you very much - sold the film rights to Twentieth Century Fox in 1979, a year before the book was published.
Once Crichton learned that he could not use a real gorilla to portray the character of Amy, he left the project. The film was offered to Steven Spielberg and John Carpenter before years later, Marshall came on board. That all came to pass because, during the making of Jurassic Park, Crichton was impressed with Stan Winston's work. Producer Kathleen Kennedy suggested that Winston could make the apes for Congo, talked to her husband - yep, Frank Marshall - about the project and Yablans came back on board again.
However, the final film is only loosely based on the Crichton script, with John Patrick Shanley (Moonstruck) taking over the writing duties.
While testing a communications laser in the Congo, TraviCom employees Charles Travis (Bruce Campbell!) and Jeffrey Weems discover the ruins of a lost city. However, it looks like everyone dies as the company watches the exploration via satellite by Karen Ross (Laura Linney), a former CIA operative and also the former fiancee of Travis, whose dad R.B. (Joe Don Baker!) owns the company. Man, talk about run-on sentences.
There's also primatologist Peter Elliott (Dylan Walsh), who has a mountain gorilla named Amy, who can speak via a special glove that translates sign language to audio. She's been drawing jungles and intricate gems, which means that Peter thinks she should go back home to Africa. He funds that trip via Karen and TraviCom, as well as Romanian philanthropist Herkermer Homolka (Tim Curry).
They're led by the greatest hunter of all time, Captain Monroe Kelly. You know what they always say: if you can't get Sean Connery, get Ernie Hudson. Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje - Killer Kroc from Suicide Squad - shows up as Munro's second-in-command Kahega. And hey - there's Joe Pantoliano as another merc! And John Hawkes (Eastbound & Down) is also here, as well as Delroy Lindo and Kevin Grevioux from the Underworld movies.
Between native tribes, gorillas being used to guard diamond mines and Tim Curry getting killed by a pack of those gorillas - not to mention a subplot that has Dr. Elliot upset when Amy ends up getting raw dogged (raw aped?) by a silverback and leaving humanity for the jungle, this movie literally looks like studio notes on film. There's everything for somebody, I guess. Curry and Hudson are having a blast, however. Hudson is almost in a totally different movie than anyone else and has called out Congo as the best time he ever had making a movie. It shows.
1990's kids had Kenner on hand to help them recreate the story of the Lost City of Zinj with Congo action figures. You could grab Peter, Karen, Kahega, Peter and Amy for the good guys - well, I guess protagonists, maybe, but who wants to tell kids that they are protagonists versus good guys? And then for the apes, you have Blastface, Mangler, Zinj Apes and the deluxe Bonecrusher. There were also two vehicles, the Net Trap and Trail Hacker. They fit into the Kenner aesthetic, just like their RoboCop and Jurassic Park figures. Seriously, Kenner made figures for every movie it seemed like - they made Waterworld figures, after all!
Speaking of Jurassic Park, my feeling on this movie has been that everyone wanted to will another series of films much like Crichton's novel into existence. This whole thing was vaporware, based on a story that the author never really finished made by people who didn't have any real concern with the source material, which never really existed in the first place. Millions were dumped into it and it actually did pretty well - $152 million worldwide on a $50 million budget - but no one really remembers it.
All they do remember is that there was a scene where one of the Zinj gorillas uses a laser. That scene doesn't exist in the movie, but that hasn't stopped people from remembering it in a Mandela Effect moment.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Superior Story, Average Action, Great Atmosphere. All In All, A Good Creature Feature!
Warning: Spoilers
Predictable? Perhaps a bit, but not near as much as most of the other "monster" movies I've seen. And, while John Patrick Shanley's adaptation of Michael Crichton's novel is about as bad as the adaptations of Stephen King's novels, the movie (when not held in comparison to the original literary work) is quite good. It stands alone, though it really should have been a "based on" and not an adaptational work.
Amy is a seven-year-old gorilla from the Verunga Region of the Congo, taken captive and sold to a university for study. Dr. Peter Elliot (portrayed so very well by Dylan Walsh) is the primatologist who has full charge of Amy and her development. In a "lonely impulse of delight," he has taught his ward to speak through the use of sign language and technology, but Amy is having problems.
She is experiencing nightmares, based on her past as a very young gorilla, and a deep longing to return to the jungle.
In his love of Amy, Dr. Elliot endeavors to return her to the place of her birth, with the assistance of philanthropist Herkimer Homolka (one of Tim Curry's best roles in my opinion, as a serious actor and not a character actor, he is quite believable) and the well-equipped Dr. Karen Ross (wonderfully portrayed by Laura Linney), an ex CIA agent who is now an executive with Travel-Com; a corporation in desperate need of a flawless diamond from the Congo to power its next "Cash-Cow."
(SUB-PLOT): Travel-Com's megalomaniacal CEO/CFO has sent his son and another team to the Congo to search for the diamond so desperately needed by the corporation. But when the expedition fails and Travel-Com loses contact, the psycho insists that Dr. Ross take over the Amy expedition in an attempt to discover what happened with the first team, and his son. (/SUB-PLOT)
(ALTERNATE SUB-PLOT): When they finally arrive near the last leg of their trek to the Verunga Region, they discover that Mr. Homolka has a hidden agenda; he is in search of the lost city of Zinj, and the diamond mine purported to be hidden within its walls. He compares the one artifact of which he was in possession; a ring with the single eye emblazoned upon it, with the drawings of Amy's which were published in a scientific magazine, and concludes that Amy and Amy alone has knowledge of Zinj's true location. (/ALTERNATE SUB-PLOT)
But the Congo is neither easy to get to, nor easy to navigate and their party is beset by problems.
The cinematography and photography of this movie are astounding.
The scenery is absolutely breath-taking and the direction is superb. I love this production. The story is a wonderful adventure, the acting is quite professional, the effects are top ROW and the sets and scenes are extraordinary. The character development is above reproach as by the time they reach the Congo, you KNOW the characters and care what happens to them. All in all a very wonderful adventure, and with the added "monster" factor, this makes for one excellent artistic work.
I love this movie, and watch it often.
It rates an 8.2/10 from...
the Fiend :.
15 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lotsa Hype, But Little To Show For It
This was a highly-hyped movie prior to its release, but turned out to be a dud. I never talked to one person who ever liked this movie. I agree: I didn't like it, either. Perhaps one big reason it wasn't a box office success was that it had nothing but unappealing characters in the story.
For awhile there - I don't know if this is still true - I hadn't any movie in which Laura Linney or Dylan Walsh played anything BUT annoying characters.
That, and a stupid story, make this film a big disappointment, especially considering that big buildup. Did the filmmakers, with dialog this dumb, really think this was going to be a hit?
14 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
frustration
For a Romanian, the first motif to not be real enthusiastic about this film is the bizarre Homolka. his name could be Czech but not Romanian. the second - a well known story who has not the most inspired adaptation. because "Congo" has the ordinaries sins of adventure films but not the virtues. it is eccentric, chaotic, fake and reduced at good intentions. and, unfortunatelly, this is all. not exactly a bad film. but one perfect choice only for the fans of genre. and this is the basic motif to not be satisfed - because it could be, it must be better.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fun, No Matter What Critics Might Say
When an expedition to the African Congo ends in disaster, a new team is assembled to find out what went wrong.
I saw this film in the theater and recall liking it. It had action, adventure, some horror elements. A great cast. Even Bruce Campbell, who I liked at the time. But watching it again now (2015) twenty years later, I didn't really remember very much, it seems, beyond the killer gorillas.
I had no recollection, for example, of just how bad the gorilla costumes were. Amy (the good gorilla) in particular looks awful. Now, I would rather have a bad suit than bad CGI. So that's good. But it still makes the movie sort of cheesy and has probably caused its stock to decline in recent years.
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An okay flick...
Warning: Spoilers
Congo is another multi-milion dollar adaptation of Crichton's works. Like Jurassic Park, The Lost World, Sphere, etc, the film raped the book of its true meaning and essence. I'll make this short and to the point. The scenery is beautiful. The actors, well it's the best they can do. The script? Try congesting hundreds of pages into an hour and half movie. You get a mess in the end but how neat of a mess is what counts and Congo falls somewhere below that. There were some silly moments, like why did the killer gorillas decide to jump into the lava? And Amy, raised by humans, surrounded by humans, yet can intimidate dozens of killer apes around her? What sort of twist of common sense is that? Which brings me to this. If there was an annoying character in every movie, Amy ranks of one here. You see Amy is this naive little female ape who can talk with a special backpack and harness strapped to her. Neat idea, but it gets annoying after awhile hearing her talk. Congo is worthwhile to see, and not deplorable, but certainly not a memorable film either.
23 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Less than enthralling
gcd70 22 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Another hi-tech Michael Crichton novel has found its way to the big screen, following hot on the heels of Spielberg's romping "Jurassic Park" and Barry Levinson's thrilling "Disclosure". The unproven Frank Marshall (director of "Arachnaphobia" and long time executive producer for Steven Spielberg) helms on this occasion, but unfortunately only presents a less than enthralling show.
"Congo's" main downfall is its adapted screenplay from John Patrick Shanley ("Moonstruck") which is appallingly two dimensional, unable as it is to hide the obvious conclusion, it also fails to properly develop many pivotal relationships (such as the rapport between 'talking ape' Amy and primatologist Peter Elliot - Dylan Walsh - and the growing respect between Peter and "Travicom" agent Karen Ross) and most of the characters lack depth. A real shame considering we're probably missing much of the real intrigue that Crichton's novel would have possessed.
The story is a potentially fascinating one about three searches, one for the ancient, mythological Zing (King Solomon's fabled city which was believed to house "a diamond mine of incredible bounty"), another for the legendary killer ape, and finally for a diamond of such purity and clarity that it could herald an enormous laser communications break through. Sadly neither Shanley nor Marshall are able to reflect any of this in their movie.
Dylan Walsh and Laura Linney (agent Ross) are solid while Tim Curry is enjoyable as obsessive Hungarian Fortune explorer Herkermer Homolka. Yet by far the most rewarding turn comes from Ernie Hudson, as great white hunter Monroe Kelly, whose tongue in cheek acting is a delight.
Another surprising disappointment is the special f/x and art direction, both being only reasonable. Thank goodness for Jerry Goldsmith's score, Allen Daviau's awesome cinematography and Stan Winston (the "Terminator" films), who produces some frighteningly convincing apes!
Sunday, August 27, 1995 - Waverley Pinewood Cinema
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I have a soft spot for this movie, but...
The idea is great, the book was a good read, and the film ought to have been great as well. I was disappointed, but I still have a soft spot for this story. They expected Congo to be the next King Kong and there were a good deal of toys, action figures, books, stickers, etc. to sell to the expected hordes of fans. The fans did not materialize and the action figures are an easy buy on the internet.
The legend of the city of Zinj is a phenomenal idea to work with for a film. Evolved apes is a sure seller. But this movie did not deliver. There were so many missed opportunities and examples of poor writing. For me the ape researcher on the expedition is a bit goofy to be credible. And he is one of the central characters! We are not given much to believe his knowledge or utility to the expedition or to Amy for that matter. This spoils that character. I liked the African actors in the film and was willing to go along with the hunter and his somewhat distracting phony English accent. But somehow, the film did not deliver what it could easily have delivered: action plus thought-provoking story about animal intelligence.
31 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Who's Kafka?!
One of the best lines of the movie . . .
I actually got a kick out of this movie. Heck yes, the effects and the gorilla suits were horrible even for the 1990s, but "Congo" was kind of fun to watch. I'm sure it was supposed to be more serious than the average viewer took it to be, but it had some good moments. Amy was awful from the word "go," but the interaction between her and Ross on the plane was great.
Ernie Hudson was terrific all the way through the movie, although I think he lost his accent a bit at the end. Like so many, I would have loved to see more of Bruce Campbell and a little less of Dylan Walsh. Congo isn't a great movie, or even a good one, but it wasn't a bad way to spend an afternoon recovering from a 13-hour car trip and a long night waiting for a dog to deliver puppies. Five of ten, just because it made me laugh out loud a couple of times.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Congo is a great adventure!
Warning: Spoilers
Minor Spoilers Congo is such a good movie.I love the tagline Where you are the endangered species!Such a great beatutiful movie with fantastic music by the legendary Jerry Goldsmith and Congo has a great cast aswell including Bruce Campbell,Joe Don Baker,Tim Curry,Ernie Hudson,Dylan Walsh,Laura Linney,Delroy Lindo,Peter Jason and many others!I really don`t know why people don`t like this movie.It has action,great stars,great visuals,and so much more! I love Congo!
10 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112715/reviews
0 Response to "Funny Pic Girl Missing in Congo Says Shes Ok"
Post a Comment