Movies-TV

"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.

um bongo

Not since the last Spielberg effort have I seen such a badly scripted, cheesily acted, risible, cliché-ridden piece of old muff. I loved it! Imagine Twister without any twisters and a completely different plot/cast/location and you've pretty much got the whole story. You know the kinda thing: Laura Linney goes to the pantry looking for a Blue Riband and upsets a rare group of apes when she knocks over their teapot. Carnage ensues. Practically. Who cares if it looks cheap and makes no sense. It's fun and fast-paced and the lead actor has curly hair! At least it's not some dreary old British film making you wince every time you miss the bonus ball. "Cricklewood" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

You'll believe an ape can sign.

Enjoyably terrible

"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.

Good Clean Adventure

After years and years of filthy language and bare boobs and bottoms it is refreshing for someone like myself to find a traditional adventure movie that is not insulting to my sensabilities and fun to watch. Too bad that these types of films are scarce. Most script writers can write a line without the " F" word in it and love can't be conveyed by them without nudity, but this movie was a treat for me.

You have got to be kidding!!

I enjoy movies. I even enjoy the occasional bad movie, I can usually find something redeeming even in the worst films. Ah, but in Congo I met my match. Plot holes you could drive a train through, and that stupid gorilla! Having a cigar and a martini in the plane! They had Bruce Campbell, so they could have made a credible comedy, but they killed him off in the first 5 minutes. This is my standard by which all bad movies must be measured. As in, "Sure it was a little silly, but it was no Congo!"

The worst movie I have ever seen.

Congo is the only movie that I have almost walked out on. It was horrible. The special effects were embarrassing, and those ape suits looked like they bought them from a bargain-basement costume shop. This movie should have stayed a book. Read the book, and avoid the movie like the plague.

nothing special

I don't know what the book was like, but the movie is just average. The special effects aren't very impressive, the gorilla Amy is extremely irritating at times, and the characters are one-note. It seems like the writer just resorted to lots of noisy action and senseless violence (Note: the gruesome and bloody violence of those ugly gray gorillas) Still kind of watchable. 2/4

Great Film

I don't care what anybody says. I thought it was a well thought-out storyline and the characters were awesome. Everyone had to love Herkama. He made the whole show. Besides, I've seen a lot worse be treated to Academy awards simply because of directors and the movies weren't that great.I don't think what the creator was attempting to capture special effects buffs as much as it was telling a basic concept of greed.If you like a good story and can grasp the concept of what it is telling you about the wisdom of Solomon then watch this movie with new insight. If not, you deserve Million Dollar Baby!

It should have been marketed as a comedy.

I'm sorry to have to say that as my honest impression, when I know the film makers were serious about what they were doing, but I just couldn't stop laughing by the end of this movie, and neither could my wife. It was so bad it was just bad. I have to give it one star for making me laugh so hard, but that's all.

Get out Mr.Crichton! Get out while you still can!

Congo. A "film" some might call it. I had got stuck seeing this when I was ten with some ill-mannered brat I don't like. I was too busy keeping myself from stuffing popcorn in his every air hole so I didn't pay attention to the movie very much. I went home and forgot all about it.Four Years Later...I pick up the book Congo in the library and read it. Brilliant! But then again, what Crichton book isn't? The day after I finish it, I rent this deposit of doubtful dialouge. How the hell do the people at Paramount pictures talk? Old Johnny Boy better have a good explanation for taking this wonderful book and transforming it into this atrocity. As soon as the credits finished I cried. I couldn't believe that the likes of Bruce Campbell, Jerry Goldsmith, Industrial Light & Magic, and Stan Winston were involved in this pile. Ol' Ash should've just got out his trusty chainsaw and decapitated Frank Marshell. Ugh, I really hope this and The Lost World get remade some day. Maybe by Brian de Palma and George Lucas. Yeah,....*sigh*

Why do bad things happen to good books?

Now, it's probably just a testament to Michael Crichton's in-depth writing style that his books translate poorly to film, but this one was just pathetic. Lost World and Sphere were bad, this was painful.

CONGO-AWAY!!!!

ONCE AGAIN, I CHECK OUT A MOVIE, HAVING A REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT IT WILL BE ENTERTAINING, ONLY TO BE DISAPPOINTED TO THE POINT OF NO RETURN. WHERE SHALL I BEGIN? WELL LETS START OFF WITH THE FACT THE GORILLA AMY, HAD MORE LINES THAN THE ACTUAL ACTORS IN THIS MOVIE..AND MORE TALENT TOO.IE> THE RED EYE SHE PAINTED. I KEPT EXPECTING SOME BIG FINALE WITH THE (EVIL) GORILLAS,..ONLY TO SEE THEM FOR THE LAST 5 MINUTES OF THE MOVIE..I DID BECOME A FAN OF THESE UGLY GORILLAS ONCE THEY KILLED OFF MOST OF THE CAST MEMBERS. THIS WHOLE MOVIE TURNED INTO A RIDICULOUS FIASCO THAT BUILT YOUR INTEREST UP JUST ENOUGH TO MAKE YOU WISH YOU COULD GET BACK THAT ONE HOUR AND 30 MINUTES YOU'VE JUST WASTED IN YOUR LIFE. I AM HAPPY THAT I DID NOT WASTE A BAG OF POPCORN ON THIS ONE, AS THAT WOULDVE BEEN A COUPLE OF BUCKS I COULDNT GET BACK EITHER, THEN AGAIN, THAT WOULDVE BEEN THIS MOVIES ONLY SAVING GRACE. BUT I WOULD RATHER JUST EAT THE POPCORN AND GO SEE A GOOD MOVIE INSTEAD. IF YOU ARE HURTING TO SEE MONKEYS, GO BUY GORILLAS IN THE MIDST..THAT WAS A GOOD MOVIE,..LEAVE THIS ONE ALONE, IT IS AN HOUR AND A HALF OUT OF YOUR LIFE, FOR NO GOOD REASON.

A fun movie, a fantastic DVD

I preface all of my DVD reviews with the following note: There are more than enough film reviews on Amazon.com and, quite frankly, it's a bit ridiculous. A person can scroll through scores/pages of reviews without reading a single sentence about the quality of the DVD. If you want to review or discuss a film, go to IMDB. If you're reviewing the DVD, speak to the qualities (or lack thereof) of the audio and video; mention your opinions of the plot, acting, etc. but please don't write an essay!


Now, on to my review of the Congo DVD.

VIDEO (A): If you browse the reviews here on Amazon or read independent reviews elsewhere on the Web, you'll find that the general consensus is that Congo on DVD is near-perfect. Black levels and colors are deep and rich, yet realistic. The transfer has no perceptible flaws; it's clear and smooth and exhibits no grain. It isn't quite as detailed as I'm used to (compared with other Paramount DVDs of early-1990s films, like Clear and Present Danger), but softness is certainly never a problem. I'm just really glad we got a stellar transfer, especially since the film didn't receive much love from critics or the public.

AUDIO (A+): The DD 5.1 track positively shines. The music and dialogue are well-mixed, clear, and expressive. This movie has one of the best soundtracks ever, and thankfully it is taken advantage of throughout the movie/DVD. The excellent sound effects are exploited as well, placing you in the middle of the jungle and action.

FILM (A+): Again, one of many irrelevant escapist films in my collection. As with Speed 2: Cruise Control, people take this film way too seriously, even though it's obvious the film does not aspire to be anything more than a harmless diversion. Hudson and Curry really bring life to this film, and the cast works well in general. Corny jokes, impossible situations, and silly lines, Congo has it all, and it's a wonderful thing. This movie actually has that certain charm seen in jungle-adventure films decades ago; The Ghost and the Darkness is the only film that has come after Congo to give the audience that romanticized "feel" of Africa. The opening minutes of the film blend beautiful shots/scenery with the great Goldsmith score, and the same formula is used in the ending. Kudos to the director for making the audience feel like they are part of the experience...a real audio/visual treat.

One Of Crichton's Lesser Novels; One Of the Lesser Crichton Films

"Congo" is based on the best-selling novel by Michael Crichton, which I thought lacked Crichton's usual charm, smart characters and punch. Well, sorry to say, but the same goes for the film.Here's the plot:Greed is bad, this simple morality tale cautions. A megalomaniacal C.E.O. (Joe Don Baker) 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 transmitter (or is it laser weapons?). When contact is lost with his son and the team, his daughter-in-law (Laura Linney), a former CIA operative and computer-freak, is sent after them. On her quest, she is accompanied by gee-whiz gadgetry and a few eccentric characters (including a mercenary (Ernie Hudson), a researcher with a talking gorilla (Dylan Walsh), and a a nutty Indiana-Jones-type looking for King Solomon's Mines (Tim Curry). After some narrow escapes from surface-to-air missiles and some African wildlife, they all discover that often what we most want turns out to be the source of our downfall. The actors in this movie were not talented. Dylan Walsh acts like a pathetic crybaby, especially at the end; Ernie Hudson is unconvincing (is it no wonder he went on to star in TV films?) and Laura Linney is nothing special. I think I can safely say the only talented actors in this film had very small roles: Joe Don Baker and Tim Curry, an always enjoyable actor (although sometimes scarred for life by constantly being reminded of his "Rocky Horror Picture" days). This movie also had some other problems, including awful direction style, cheesy dialogue and a just-plain-boring plot, which was completely hashed when compared to Crichton's novel. Not even Stan Winston's creature effects could save this movie from being a disaster. I am deeply disappointed in this movie; there was not even a campy quality to redeem itself with. It was just plain awful, cheesy, boring and ridiculous, and proves to be one of the worst Crichton book-to-film productions.2/5 stars -John Ulmer

THE WORST FILM EVER MADE

(...) 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.

Hello??? Its a MOOOVIE

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!

If you liked Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Trek, or Stargate...

If you like either science fiction, or serious action movies, then you'll like this one.Every once in a decade there's a movie made that does not catch the eye of the Academy Award judges, but which will have a lasting influence on how, and what, movies are made in the following ten years.This movie started out as "just another action flick". Turns out that they got it right, in so many things. It's almost as what happened to the Terminator, which started out as a B (or actually a C) movie. And we all know what then happened.While this movie is not science fiction as such, anyone who likes to watch science fiction will want to see it. And anyone who likes action movies (with or without a message, be it political, social or philosophical) will like this one.What is similar to the Terminator (I), is the economy of story telling. Every 15-second scene tells you something that the average movie would spend 5 minutes on. All crap, slack, and non-essential stuff is cut out. What is left, is just the action, the background, the socio/political background/issues of our time, and what is needed to carry the story forward.I could go on and on, but suffice it to say, this is one excellent way to spend your Friday or Saturday night.

Congo

Ok, do yourself a favor and read the book. Now you can watch the movie! And you find out, after reading the book, that the movie is horrible. Ok, do yourself a favor: Don't read the book, because books are often a lot better/different than movies. So, just go RENT (I could not stress the word rent anymore) it and watch it. It's also terrible. The way I see it: you can't get to like this movie. If you want to see it just because you've read the book, rent it, although believe me, it's a BIG let-down. Or if you're just looking for a good action-adventure, Jarrasic Park-style movie: don't look anywhere near this. The gorrila is absolutely the most annoying thing that has ever graced the Silver Screen. (Yes, even surpassing good,old Jar Jar!) The acting is bad. The special affects are bad. (Plus, there wasn't any reason to put them in the movie, but someone thought it'd be a good idea... shame on that person.) There is a lazer gun that can shoot satellites & looks oddly like bad sci-fi. A big let-down, and pretty much a waste of time. Unless, of course, you're the director of this movie, and want me to be in one of yours: in which case, I found the movie very good and enlightening!

I'm going to add 2 hours to your life:

It cost me $7 and two hours of my life to learn what I give to you now as a gift. DO NOT even CONSIDER watching Congo. The monkey costume was truly sad (SAD!). A child could have created a more realistic gorilla than this, the story line made no sense, and the dialog was terrible. There is no chance to include spoilers in this review - the movie was spoiled to begin with.It might have been better as comedy, but this utter mess is no joke. This is future fodder for MST3K.My favorite scene of the movie was the credits. Better special effects, acting, more intellectually stimulating than the rest of the film combined. Most importantly, the thing (hate to call it a movie) was OVER.You have been warned.(If you can buy it cheap enough it might make a good blank tape for recording late night Info Commercials)

lighten up

I just watched the DVD version of this movie years after I first saw this movie at the theater. I liked it better with the second viewing. While it is true that most books are better than the movie it is not always so. This book and Sphere were both rotten in my opinion and the movie "Sphere" would get a 5/10 from me. However this movie was entertaining and not boring so it gets a 7/10.
I don't understand how anyone can justify giving any serious movie a 1 or 2 rating unless they are trying to pull the rating down so one of their favorites is higher rated.
I do not agree with a lot of the reviews posted here. Amy never annoyed me and the special effects were not bad. Even the acting was not so bad. Lighten up everybody and enjoy the movie.