Rating: 
Summary: Crichton deserves better.
Review: The story has enough promise: A zoologist wants to return a captive gorilla to Africa. Along the way his expedition gets taken over by a communications expert (or is she?), runs into an international war, hostile wildlife, etc. While there's enough action, the script and story suffers. Cases in point:1) The gorilla uses a special glove that translates sign language into spoken words. Unfortunately there's only one glove and you can't communicate sign language using only one hand. Also, the gorilla (or, the performer, as the case may be) just basically waves their hand about. One gesture means about ten different words. 2) The special effects were produced by Stan Winston. If you can't get ILM, Stan is the next best thing. But he could have done better. The gorillas aren't very convincing. And the matte work looks like it was done twenty years ago. 3) Many attempts at humor in the script just don't fit in with the general script. It's as if the adapter threw one-liners in haphazardly to lighten everything up. If this movie peaks your interest, definitely rent it first.
Rating: 
Summary: THE WORST FILM EVER MADE
Review: (...) This film is terrible-it is in fact, in my opinion, the worst film ever made.
The reason for this is simple-it could have been so good. A brilliantly entertaining novel by Michael Crichtion as the foundation, Marshall-a Spielberg producer and protege of sorts, coming off the recent success of telling a good story with "Alive"- the photography of Allen Daviau-these three men should have at least garunteed a halfway decent film. But of course not.
(...) perhaps be as good as Jurassic Park was in theatres. How wrong I was.
The only people who deserve credit on this film are Paramount's advertisement people who managed to put together 30 second spots that actually made it look like the film had a chance.
(...) Some films (especially in the past two years) have come close, but none has been able to take this one off the mantel of the worst film ever made.
Don't spend a dime on this.
Rating: 
Summary: A Big Budget "B" Movie Not Without Its Moments
Review: Not having read Michael Crichton's book of the same name, I don't have the burden of comparing the novel to the film. However, I can say that "Congo" is no more dumb in plot or simple in characterization than that other Crichton adaptation, "Jurassic Park." Essentially a "B" movie with an overblown budget, "Congo" rehashes the first half of "King Kong," only this time instead of a giant ape, there's a bunch of smaller--yet deadlier--apes guarding a lost city of gold. Primatologist Dylan Walsh heads an expedition into the Congo to return his prodigy, a talking ape named Amy, to her home; along for the ride are the veddy British Ernie Hudson as a mysterious but friendly arms merchant, the characteristically slimy Tim Curry as a Romanian con artist; and the icy Laura Linney as a skulking CIA operative, who's really there to find what happened to an earlier expedition that disappeared. Director Frank Marshall keeps things breezy, and the movie feels like Spielberg "lighter," with lots of imitative camerawork and focus on the "gee whiz" of it all but with less attention given to making the characters more than stock. Anyone expecting a hard sci-fi film will be sorely disappointed, but those of us looking for a few hours of Saturday matinee escapism--uncluttered by the pretentious darkness of so many films of the 1990s--may be pleasantly surprised. High points include a nice score by Jerry Goldsmith, decent special effects, and some genuine moments of warmth and humor; low points include Linney's painfully flat acting, a visually impressive but narratively ho-hum climax, and a few scenes of unnecessary violence that keep it from being kid-friendly.
Rating: 
Summary: Why are these folks so critical, was the book so good?
Review: I did not read the novel and while I won't say it's the best movie ever made (It's probably a four and a half in my opinion) I found it perfectly entertaining. Admittedly, I have read a lot of SF and like well made SF and adventure movies (Aliens 2, Matrix, even Bakshi's LOTR) but I also enjoy any genre of movie that is created with attention and art if possible and not with lowest-common-denominator formulaic design or for contract obligations. True, if your looking for dramatic acting, go watch "Boys Don't Cry", or "Men Don't Leave" (Movies, not a Four Seasons greatest hits compendium) Congo lacks the special effects of the newer Godzilla movie, but I enjoyed it more than the latest Star Wars movie (Phantom Menace) Congo, which I have watched twice on VHS and will most likely pick up on DVD, has, as one of the other reviewers noted, a Saturday morning adventure feel. It was tense and the gorillas were well done for monster movie make-up. The characters all unobtrusively played out their archetype roles. I recommend this movie to those who can keep thier minds open and who have a taste for adventure in a E. R. Burroughs vein.
Rating:
Summary: Another Movie maker couldn't do it right.
Review: Frank Marshall also struck out when he tried to adapt one of Michael Crichton's novels for film.There are so many things wrong with this movie from the below average acting of Laura Linney, Tim Curry, and Joe Don Baker (who played Waid in Goldeneye). To the weak plot of killer apes and a lost city. To a sub-plot of a talking gorilla who saves a young scientist's life to...well you get the idea. I can see why adapting good books for the movies has never had a good track record.
Rating:
Summary: Geez
Review: Rarely have I been so dissapointed by a book to film transfer. The movie does everything in its power to betray the genius of the book, from introducing new and unimportant characters to a complete reworking and butchering of the main character, a.k.a, the mission and purpose of the movie. The man that made this, and thought it was an improvement on the book should be dragged out in the street and beaten many, many times.
Rating:
Summary: GOOD FOR KIDS.
Review: I didn't read the book, but I'm pretty sure it was more interesting than the movie. You see, the message, which is that technology can not tame nature, has been lost in a movie that's is more about getting ready- they get ready to board the plane, get ready to run through the jungle, ready to be scared, ready to run from lava... We mostly watch the characters preparing for the next scene-literally- which kills the element of surprise. There are a few funny scenes, but all else is so pretentious that we feel we are on a ride in a theme park , instead of in the middle of the jungle, surrounded by real dangers. Because of well known formulas, we know Laura Linney, or Amy-the gorilla- or her master will not die. So we go along for the ride to see what will happen next, but it's all telegraphed to us. The use of technology in this movie is just as ridiculous as a fly placing sticky paper on a Wall Street sidewalk just to se if the stock brokers will step on them. They place a laser activated alarm system in the middle of the jungle to;1- make sure they can grab a rifle before being eaten or 2-to give the "heads up" or 3-just to show they had this equipment? Third one gets the cigar! Then there is the invasion, and killing, by the humans, of the apes, which where just minding their business in their neck of the woods. The idea-presented in the film -that the jungle is filled with danger, is reasonable, but what was the message? Animals are bad , people are good? The plot is just an excuse to send some people out to the jungle, and visually it lacks the attention to detail of earlier movies of the same genre. The temple crumpling at the end looks like what it really is- painted foam blocks. I'm sure Mr. Crichton wasn't happy with the end product, it's ok , it's not your fault Mr. Crichton. Most viewers know that sometimes too many changes by too many people can kill a good book adaptation.
Rating: 
Summary: Hello??? Its a MOOOVIE
Review: Apparently the people who reviewed this before me wanted this film to be the next Titanic or something and win millions of Oscars. Well it wont and i like it even better that way. If you can believe that it really is a baby gorilla that can sign and there are killer Albino Gorillas then you will like this movie just fine. Cameos by Delroy Lindo and Joe Pantoliano are very enjoyable to watch. Also notable, is the fine performance by the underrated Ernie Hudson. He is joined by his OZ costar Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje. Also along for the ride is Oscar nominee Laura Linney. Lighten up and enjoy a good adventure flick with a few thrills thrown in. Besides it is a Michael Crichton movie it has to be good!
Rating:
Summary: Enjoyably terrible
Review: "Congo" was once a novel, and a pretty damn good one at that. It was written by master science-fiction novelist Michael Crichton, who also wrote "Disclosure", "Rising Sun", and the legendary "Jurassic Park", all of which have been translated to film with varying degrees of quality ("Park" remains the best). The book was absolutely thrilling, with terrific sci-fact to shore up the sci-fi, and plenty of believable characters that you wouldn't have a problem rooting for. Published in 1980, it was a prime candidate for a film adaption, and in 1995, after fifteen long years, this is what we get. Shoot me. You'd think that after all that time, Hollywood would concoct a thrilling adventure epic with great actors and chilling scenes of gorilla attacks. You were wrong. What we get is a contrived, cliched Saturday matinee with less originality, worse acting, and fewer genuine scares than many Roger Corman movies I've seen. The two leads are wooden and unconvincing, but not as unconvincing as the animals themselves, which are either obvious computor forgeries or obvious animatronics or obvious actors in gorilla suits. Everything here is formulaic, without a hint of creativity or imagination. Does that mean it's all bad? Not necessarily. As in all movies, "Congo" works better during the quieter moments, when the action isn't a main concern and the characters are fleshed out a bit more than normal. Ernie Hudson, the token black Ghostbuster (not that I'm dissing that classic comedy), is the sole savior of the cast, who brings charm and intelligence to Munro, the field guide. In a circus of deplorable performances, Hudson shines even brighter. Also, the fact that they keep the killer apes from view until later on helps build a teeny tiny bit of suspense (though the pay-off is a disappointment). Best of all, while the movie is essentially lousy, it's still watchable, and even enjoyable at times. This doesn't make it a good movie, but it keeps it from being the worst movie ever. The final word: "Congo" is a weak adaption of a terrific novel, so don't expect much from it. But if it's a boring summer night, and your neighborhood Blockbuster is all out of "Jurassic Park", this is worth a one-time peek for the curious.
Rating:
Summary: Explores what could still lie in the most unexplored region
Review: One thing about Congo was that Michael Chrichton explored the idea about the mysterys that still await us in the vast untouched Virunga region of the Congo. Many believe that we know no more about the life in the Congo today then we did 100 years ago. Who knows what could still be lying hiding in the thick vast rainforests awaiting to be discovered by twenty first century man.
|
