ironhorse_iv
No, it wasn't because the movie ate my sesame seed cake! It was cause by how mediocre, this horror movie was. Loosely based on Michael Crichton's novel of the same name, Congo is a movie that really slip on its banana peel concept and fell hard on its ass. Directed by Frank Marshall, the movie tells the story of a group of explorers, trying to find the Ancient Lost City of Zinj, in hopes, of finding a very rare diamond that can be used as a weapon. Without spoiling the movie too much, I found the complex story to be a little bloated. Not only was the expedition for the rare diamonds, but also a quest to recover, what went wrong with the first, doomed expedition. While also, trying to return a domestic annoying primate, back to her troop in the jungle surround the city. Come on, that's a little too much for what's supposed to be simple B-movie plot. I just, glad, they didn't add, the American expedition competing with a German-Japanese consortium to reach Zinj that came from the novel, because the film run time, would be way, too long. I know that Crichton wanted to do a modern day retelling version of King Solomon's Mines, but you can't ignore this 800 Pound Gorilla in the Room, even if you want to. I'm better off, just stating it out, right now. I have to say, most of the films problems, came from its source material. This blood diamond metaphor novel was pretty bad! Not only that, but, most of it was plagiarize. It's a bit odd, that Congo has a strong similarity with the 1935's short story Jewels of Gwahlur, by author Robert E. Howard. Among the similar plot elements are a quest to find a hidden treasure consisting of valuable gems, concealed in an ancient lost city, deep in the African jungle, guarded by highly intelligent grey-ape-like creatures with super-human strength. Second off, I felt like Crichton, barely did any work, making this book, somewhat intelligent. It really lacks any realistic science, compare to his other works. Come on, Crichton, knew, better than to say, that small explosive devices can set off a volcano eruption. Even the film had some really dated data being spill here. First is the statement that a 'worldwide network enabling billions of computers to communicate with each other' is theoretically impossible. Wow, just wow! Just think about that for a second. The film came out in 1995, during the rise of the internet! Other out-of-date information that the movie was forcing on people, was that gorilla are not dangerous and cutting down the forest doesn't affect global warming. Because of these misleading information, the movie really had to work hard, to make sure, that author Robert E. Howard's estate wouldn't sue, and also make the outrageous plot of unknown mutant gorilla that for generations defended a lucrative diamond mine in the heart of the Congo jungle seem logically and different from Howard's work. Sadly, they didn't pull this off. Significant cause of disappointment among the novel's fans was that, of the gorillas. They were obviously costumed humans and puppets with noticeable fur mask gaps on the necks, whereas the 1993 film Jurassic Park had familiarized audiences with CGI dinosaurs. CGI was originally planned for the gray gorillas, but the technology hadn't yet been developed to the point where accurate hair could be created. While smooth-skinned dinosaurs were possible, bushy apes would have looked unfortunately silly. Animatronics, masks, and puppetry had therefore to be used, created by Stan Winston in a last ditch attempt to save the film. It really didn't work. Another problem with the film is the characters. In the book, most of the characters were mostly heartless jerks with little to no character development. Because of this, the film had to rewrite, most of the characters, just to get people to watch them. I like how the main character, Karen Ross (Laura Linney) obtains a more humane objective, rather than keeping most of her heartless attitude that came from the book. The film also removes some of her more immoral actions, like trying to blackmail people to go along with her, or her ambition to blow things up, like the volcano. Surprising, Laura Linney isn't a bad actress in this film. She was pretty alright in the role. Her co-star, Dylan Walsh, not so much. He was pretty forgettable, as Dr. Peter Elliot. His pet gorilla, Amy (Voiced by Shayna Fox) was somewhat annoying with her repetitive sayings. Tim Curry as their benefactor, the Romanian philanthropist Herkermer Homolka was so over the top in his role. The Russian accent, he was trying to pull, was hilarious. Their other backer, R.B Travis (Joe Don Baker) was such a one-dimensional angry-boss. Joe Don Baker plays him, way over the top. All, he does is yell and scream! He's very annoying. Bruce Campbell as Travis's son, Charlie Travis was mediocre at best with his hokey acting. His role in the film was way too short. Ernie Hudson as Captain Munro Kelly, their guard was wonderful. He really pull off, the charm, very well. In the novel, Munro Kelly is a mixed-race Scotsman named Charles Munro, described as the son of a Scottish noble adventurer and his handsome Indian housemaid. In the film, he is a British man of African descent. By far, Hudson was best actor in this film. While, most of the acting wasn't good, at least, the film locations were somewhat exotic. The use of ILM's matte paintings, miniatures and animation are good. I like how they use real diamonds. The movie also really good action scenes! While, it makes no sense, why a volcano would suddenly erupts, collapsing the mine into molten lava. The ending was pretty intense. Overall: The film is not that good, but it's watchable. It could had been better.
sharpobject2424
It doesn't deserve any special attention, obviously not for any redeeming qualities but nor is it particularly bad either. Don't take me wrong, it does miss the mark almost entirely, although the budget can be clearly seen throughout from the star-studded cast to the various and elaborate set designs. The special effects are OK too; what this movie lacks is any kind of imagination or shred of originality to lift it up from it's generic trappings that most mediocre movies fall victim to. A movie about killer apes, it's gotta be at least kind of cool, right? There is maybe about fifteen minutes of screen time that even involves said killer apes, let alone shows them, and it is (of course) wedged somewhere in to the latter portion of the third act. There is a friendly gorilla who is a consistent character throughout the movie. Amy, the "talking gorilla", is about the only thing (besides Tim Curry) that won me over, but after about the first hour, it actually begins to feel like a movie about people with a gorilla character, not a movie about gorillas. You know the kind of bad movie in which after a long while, you notice it's just been different scenes of the characters talking to each other the whole time, well after it should have started to deliver? Yeah, if you've seen a lot of movies, you know what I mean. Congo could have easily had about twenty minutes shaved off, being stuffed full of useless and distracting development. My review (if accepted, after I write this) will likely be wedged somewhere in the back, never to be read by anyone else who grew up with the name Congo in the back of their mind and are curious about that 90s blockbuster about killer apes, and will be put behind the apparently favored "it's fun to watch" reviews, but let at least one person tell you; it's silly, it's convoluted and pointless, it's disappointing. It just kind of insults your intelligence and for the time period that it came out, it could have been at least a little better.
