Congo (1995)

When a movie opens with a Bruce Campbell cameo as a fanny-pack-sporting explorer you know you are in for a goofy good time. Throw in Tim Curry, Joe Don Baker, a talking gorilla, a volcano, and more fake monkeys than Saturday morning TV in the 70s and it's a party. All this with a Michael Crichton plot and big budget special effects. Thank goodness Spielberg didn't get his hands on this or it may have never turned out to be such ridiculous good fun. If you are are in the mood for a so-bad-its-good/accidentally funny flick, then break out the pop corn and enjoy!

Fmovies: 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!

"Congo" is a lot of fun as long as you don't take it seriously. Because they share the author of the books they are based on, it is perhaps inevitable that in any review of "Congo" the film "Jurassic Park" will come up sooner or later. Yes, "Jurassic Park" vastly surpasses "Congo" in quality, but seeing as how the former is debatedly THE best example of a summer action flick, making that statement doesn't necessarily mean that "Congo" isn't worth watching.

In fact, "Congo" is a breathtaking thriller, probably only marred by its budget which causes some of the effects to look rather cheap, and descend into the B-movie territory. That being said, director Frank Marshall still manages to not only create a film that not only succeeds as an action film, but at times the tension grows so high that it almost could be labeled as a horror flick (though I highly doubt that that was the intent).

Yet there is some justification in labeling "Congo" as a horror film (at least in part). There are definitely some moments, particularly in the latter half of the movie, that are actually quite frightening. While the killer gorillas don't necessarily "look" scary up close, the savagery in which they attack and brutally murder people is pretty scary. In addition, the gore level is pretty high, especially for a PG-13 rating. The efforts on the part of the filmmakers to avoid an R rating is at times obvious, such as in some of the more brutal gorilla attacks, the picture is fuzzy and in slow-motion (these changes are not successful, and hurt the movie). Even as it is, the levels of terror and gore are high enough to make one wonder whether the PG-13 rating is appropriate.

"Congo" is not without its flaws. As I said before, the budget constraints make some of the effects look cheap, and at times lower the film to the B-level range. Also, the film takes a little too long to begin gaining momentum, which at times cause the film to drag (though the payoff in the latter half of the movie is well worth the wait). Finally, it is quite clear that Amy is a person in a gorilla suit (which given the complexity of the character was unavoidable). The killer gorillas don't suffer from the same fate, but they don't look particularly frightening (actually, they look rather sickly, however their actions quickly quash that notion).

Frequently, acting is not a strong point for most action-adventure films, unless the characters are rather unique (as in "Pirates of the Caribbean"). However, "Congo" is an exception. It features not one, but two standout performances. Tim Curry is great as Herkermer Homolka, the jewel-obsessed "Romanian philanthropist" (you can almost see his eyes take the form of diamonds. It's a typical Tim Curry role, but he avoids overdoing it and becoming annoying (which I guess he is, but in a good way).

But perhaps the biggest surprise is Ernie Hudson as the sarcastic, and ever so slick Monroe Kelly. It's all in the delivery, and Hudson delivers his lines with enough wit and bite to make him easily the most appealing actor in the movie. Had this movie been more popular, it would be reasonable to suspect that Hudson could have been up for an Oscar, as most of the nominees of the said award win for inferior performances. Laura Linney and Dylan Walsh are adequate, but given the staple hero characters they are given, it is probably unfair to expect more tha

Congo fmovies. 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.

After the mega-success of Spielberg's Jurassic Park in 1993, I imagine that producers were all over author Michael Crichton's back catalogue in search of another potential box-office hit; featuring untamed wilderness, a cute talking gorilla, some far less appealing killer apes, a laser weapon, King Solomon's lost diamond mines, and an exploding volcano, exotic, jungle-based adventure Congo was a natural choice for the block-buster approach.

Directed by Frank Marshall, the film made a healthy profit, but the critics tore the film apart, clearly of the opinion that this heady concoction of action, horror, industrial intrigue, drama and warfare was no match for Mel Gibson in a kilt or a talking pig. But then what do critics know anyway?

This might not be a superlative piece of cinema—John Patrick Shanley's screenplay conveys no meaningful message, Frank Marshall never advances the art of film-making with his direction, and one needn't bother looking for any Oscar-worthy performances—but Congo still proves to be hugely entertaining nonsense, a whole lot of cheesy, big budget fun, with cool creature effects (the gorilla suits were by FX legend Stan Winston), impressive set design, some decent action set-pieces, a wonderfully camp performance from Tim Curry as Romanian treasure seeker Herkermer Homolka, a neat cameo from Bruce Campbell, lovely Laura Linney and her delightful dimples, and some truly manky monkeys (OK, so technically they're apes, but for the purpose of alliteration, they're monkeys!). And that's got 'entertaining' stamped all over it as far as I am concerned.

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.