Congo

This movie is a great litmus test. It can be used to separate your friends and family into two categories: fun people vs elitist snobs. The type of people that hate this movie are the same ones that want to argue about mise-en-scene in Argento films and the iconography of Bergman.

Congo is a throw back to the days of the drive-in movie. In those simpler times, movies about lost cities, diamonds and killer gorillas were considered fun. Sometimes, movies are just meant to be fun. Tim Curry gets it, why can't you?

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.

I've never read the Crichton novel despite being a fan but this film adaptation is pretty fun. I know it's been criticised heavily but I enjoyed the background to the story and Crichton's exploration of cutting-edge science and research as always. The cast members are likeable, Ernie Hudson in particular, and the Bruce Campbell cameo is a nice touch.

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.

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.