Congo (1995) Reviews

• It Works on a Rainy Saturday Afternoon

  claudio_carvalho2015-09-29

  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 Despite the negative reviews, "Congo" is an entertaining but outdated jungle adventure movie in the style of Tarzan, with lost city, dangerous gorillas and forgotten tribe of natives.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"

• Memorably quirky and juvenile; unique and underappreciated

  PhilipJames19802002-04-19

  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.

• This movie is not as bad as its rating suggests

  TheBryanWay2008-08-08

  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.

• "Legends of the Hidden Temple" with intelligent gorillas and science

  Allmanjoy152007-06-22

  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.

• It's B to the core, but for some reason I love it

  canadasbest2005-08-24

  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.