Congo - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Congo Reviews

Page 1 of 83
Super Reviewer
August 6, 2011
Wow I remember seeing this at the cinema, being released and trailers feels like eons ago!. At the time I quite liked the film but didn't think it was awesome or anything, on a rewatch I'm still quite liking the film for its good old fashioned boys own jungle adventure theme and nice character work.

I think the casting is a winner here mainly with Ernie Hudson as the smooth well spoken guide, in the old classic Hollywood silver screen sense, bordering on caddish. Alongside him is Tim Curry hamming it up quite horrendously as a Romanian philanthropist, with both characters you are never quite sure if they will turn out to be bad guys or not. Rest of the cast is a little wet but there are a few nice cameos thrown in.

Problem with this film is the dodgy looking puppet/animatronic mask work on the friendly gorillas which just doesn't quite look right. The nasty vicious grey gorillas look pretty good, spooky and scary with decent mask/makeup work, but movement for all apes concerned is obviously men in suits and just doesn't work. Looks very very cheesy, almost B-movie standards at some points, that and the obvious sets, at times the film looks awful.

Locations vary from being nice to clearly not Africa but does the job just about. The whole film is along those lines really, it does the job by the skin of its teeth. You get the thrills of an 'Indy' type adventure mixed with 'King Solomon's Mines' with everything you might expect along the way such as creepy jungles, natives, lava flows, eerie ancient ruins and statues, skulls n bones etc...a real throw back to good old fashioned daring escapades in the unknown.

It could of really sunk but just about holds its own and comes across as a fun B-movie without becoming an actual bad B-movie.
Super Reviewer
September 27, 2012
Cheesy, bad acting, and dialogue is way too scripted. Stay away.
Super Reviewer
½ July 21, 2012
Dr. Karen Ross: Are you serving that ape a martini? 

"Where You Are The Endangered Species"

Congo is another movie that was made because of the success of Jurassic Park. When Jurassic Park was such a hug success, every Michael Crichton novel had to be turned into a movie to take advantage of the market. Needless to say, this is not another Jurassic Park, but it isn't a complete failure either. It's a bad movie, don't get me wrong, but it also isn't without its fun and in the end that's all movies like Congo are trying to be. 

Eight people, all with different reasons for going, go to the Congo. The film plays itself off as a Jungle Adventure and really that's all it is. It turns into a human vs. ape story near the end. The best part of the movie for me was Amy the gorilla that can talk through technology that says what she signs. She also goes on the adventure with her trainer in order to go home to where she belongs. There's a bunch of different things the movie tries to be. Ape vs. Ape. Human vs. Human. Human vs. Ape. Ape vs. Nature. Human vs. Nature. In the end, all it is, is a moderately amusing Jungle Adventure.

The special effects aren't great to look at, and the actors aren't first rate. I wouldn't say that there's a good performance in the movie, but nobody is noteworthy bad, either. I would have liked to have seen a better lead then Dylan Walsh, but he doesn't ruin the movie completely. I wouldn't suggest this, nor would I say don't watch it. It's a movie that is going to be enjoyed by some and hated by others. I was able to enjoy it to an extent, but it isn't a movie I would ever seek out to watch again. Still, I feel compelled to say that it has been blasted way more than it really deserved. I don't know if that is because it says "From the makers of Jurassic Park" and people expected a Gorilla fueled movie that was just as good or what, but it really isn't that bad of a film.
Super Reviewer
March 5, 2012
1993. Jurassic Park is the hottest movie of the year and the film's source material, a novel written by Michael Crichton, also becomes the year's hottest book. So what does Hollywood do? It purchases the rights to many other Crichton novels and for the next six years, audiences get a film adaptation of one of his works almost every twelve months, some high profile examples being Rising Sun, Disclosure, Sphere, The 13th Warrior, and Congo. Now Congo aims to do for apes what Jurassic Park did for dinosaurs. Let's just say it fails in every aspect. I'm sure the novel is much better, but this film is as disposable now as it was upon its release.
Let's start with the effects. Clearly Stan Winston was taking a day off, because I haven't seen gorillas this fake looking since the 1976 King Kong. Amy, the sort of talking gorilla looks like a walking carpet with a dollar store mask taped over her head. It's laughably awful. The killer apes look even worse.
Now on to the story. A diamond expedition goes horribly wrong and the psychotic owner of the company sends a doctor/former CIA op/ex-daughter in law to find out what happened. Accompanied by the usual cliche of characters including a mercenary, a greedy merchant, and a scientist who wants to set Amy free in the wild, this new rescue team soon discovers what happened to the team and that the same fate is in store for them. You would think that this premise would lead to a fun-filled B-movie. Nope. The movie is hopelessly boring, and really only contains two big gorilla vs human action sequences. Both of them look cheesy, horribly edited together, and possessing so many unintentionally funny moments that you wonder how any producer could have released this into the theatres expecting people to enjoy it. A flop in its time, I'm sure Congo has broken even by now, but the 4.7 imdb rating reflects that most people still don't think much of it, and frankly, neither do I.
Marc L.
Super Reviewer
½ May 6, 2011
On the title of the poster, it says "From the creators of Jurassic Park"...Yeah right. I bet that just means they glanced over it while they were really spending all their time working on Jurassic Park: The Lost World (Which was actually really GOOD)

The special affects in this movie are down right god awful. They are basically just people dressing in gorilla suits! No CGI, no animatronics, nothing! At least Baby Geniuses tried.And do I even have to get started on the albino gorrilas?

The acting was horrible. Not one of the actors did a good job. Not even Ernie Hudson. And I LOVE Ernie Hudson. But the worst acting clearly belongs to Tim Curry, who's over the top preformance as the irratating Romanian whatever is enough to kill half of your brain cells. And that accent? Down right TORTURE!!!

I didn;t get the whole "tickle amy" thing with the Gorilla. I just found it uncomfortable, and kind of disturbing.

Don't be fooled by the trailer. There is almost no action, and the only fighting scene comes at the end and it isn;t even good. It lasts 2 seconds, and has some of the worst fight choreography you will EVER see.

This is a horrible movie. It had potential to be a 50% movie, but now they would be happy with just that. Very VERY bad!
Super Reviewer
April 10, 2011
Congo is very much a guilty pleasure. I mean it is. I love this film and found it quite entertaining. What I liked about the film was that it had the feel of a classic adventure story, something we rarely see nowadays. The film is at times silly, but it's nothing to be too concerned about. The story is still exciting and interesting. I find the adventure story set in jungles are very entertaining and some of the best ideas for an action adventure film. Though Congo offers the essence of the jungle adventure story, this is a disappointing adaptation from Michael Cricton's original work. Though I enjoyed the film, I found the book to be better of course. They kept the bare ideas and reinvented the story. Which offers an interesting, and entertaining film that does have a B movie feel to it. Spielberg Collaborator Frank Marshall directs this version of Congo with a good eye for what makes a good jungle adventure action film. But considering the book is terrific, this is still disappointing. There is lots of room for improvement. But for what it is, Congo is an entertaining film of a long lost genre of film. There are more good things to enjoy than bad. Congo can most definitely be seen as one of my guilty pleasures. Though flawed, and a tad disappointing, Congo still is an entertaining film.
Super Reviewer
½ April 22, 2007
I've always been ambiguous about this movie until I picked up a for a couple of bucks used. I used to catch quite often on HBO in the mid 90s and always enjoyed watching it. Later on, I thought it was all in my head - until I watched it again when I got it home. Okay, so it isn't a masterpiece by any means, but it does have a lot going for it. First of all it was directed by Frank Marshall (Arachnophobia, Alive), had mechanical and animatronic effects by Stan Winston, carries a Jerry Goldsmith score and also a shockingly great cast with lots of familiar faces. Unfortunately, it doesn't really break any new ground story-wise or visually. It just seems run-of-the-mill story of the week. Personally, I enjoy it but I do see its flaws. It's mediocre, but enjoyable mediocre.
Super Reviewer
February 22, 2010
Buddy Holly, Ben Hur, space monkey, Mafia,
Hula Hoops, Castro, Edsel is a no go

U2, Syngman Rhee, payola and Kennedy,
Chubby Checker, "Psycho", Belgians in the CONGO!

Killer Apes, Belgian Crepes, Gorillas stormin' Africa
Curry's Dead, Crushed in head, this movie sucks i'm going to bed.
Super Reviewer
August 15, 2009
Many people compare "Congo" to "Jurassic Park" because both are adaptations from books by the same author, Michael Crichton. However, the two movies are nothing alike in any way. While "Jurassic Park" is about man vs. dinosaurs, "Congo" is about a talking gorilla and a few people that go on an expedition to the Congo of Africa to find diamonds that are good enough to function as a laser weapon. The explorers are unaware of it, but they'll have to survive a few twists and turns along the way.
I thought "Congo" was a pretty good movie although parts of it are predictable. I was real impressed with some of the special effects toward the end of the movie. Luckily, it should be interesting enough to keep you from getting bored while watching it, so I recommend giving it a try. NOTE: This was my Amazon review from the year 2000. It seemed like all the rage for some reason to compare Congo to Jurassic Park back when it was new, which is unfair. Congo's not as good no, but worth owning and watching from time to time.
Super Reviewer
½ January 26, 2007
This ONLY made it to a three star because of Ernie Hudson and Tim Curry's dialog. NOT BECAUSE OF FREAKING AMY! I hate that monkey...
Super Reviewer
January 25, 2007
pretty entertaining movie about crazy killer monkeys who live in a castle and have lots of money
Super Reviewer
½ February 18, 2007
It's a pretty good movie that describe the wildness of Africa... I even shocked knowing that Laura Linney played in this movie... The whole movie wasn't bad, but not outstanding too... The Gorillas were scary, looks like they can kill a man so easily... Good job I think, knowing that it's a little difficult to make a movie that takes place in Africa...
Super Reviewer
May 5, 2007
Not quite the abortion I was led to believe it was, this dimwitted action film adapted from a dimwitted book by Michael Crichton is so absurd it is impossible to take seriously. A motley crew of scientists, naturalists, hunters and treasure seekers end up in Zaire finding a talking apes family/discovering a lost diamond mine/getting attacked by killer apes, all at the same time. And if that's all a little too subtle for you, throw in a volcanic eruption and a laser gun. Daft rather than offensive, but hardly a classic.
Super Reviewer
June 27, 2007
Not a very interesting story. The characters were going into the unknown, in search of something unknown. They needed more of a goal. I LOVED the theme "Spirit of Africa" which the movie did not deserve. It was nowhere near the greatness of Jurassic Park, which what I was expecting.
Super Reviewer
½ June 19, 2007
Good adventure and breaktaking action of a group and I was surprised to see a cute female gorilla could use sign languages while wearing a technical glove.
Super Reviewer
½ April 29, 2007
This was an OK movie. First off, Frank Marshal has directed better movies (Arachnophobia) before he did this and second, there was a Michael Crichton movie adaptation before this as well(Jurassic Park). You can see that I was hoping for good things from this movie.

The story did seem really condensed (which is expected in a book adaptation) and although there were a number of recognizable actors in this, the acting is nothing to cheer about. The only exception is the performance of Tim Curry. He was probably the best part of the movie in my opinion.

If you are in the mood for a safari movie with a few action scenes, then go ahead and take a chance with this. Otherwise you aren't missing anything special.
Super Reviewer
½ January 31, 2007
Really crappy take on the novel that was pretty good.
Super Reviewer
½ June 3, 2006
A talking gorilla and then some killer gorillas. Congo may seem to take itself seriously, but there is some quick witted humour deep down. Especially Lindo's cameo talking about his men being seen in an American movie. An interesting, not exactly A list cast give good serious performances in a film that is nothing more than enjoyable, camp stupidness.
Super Reviewer
½ July 10, 2014
Michael Crichton's techno-thriller Congo leaps off of the page and onto the big screen in this fun adventure film. In order to get into the Congo and search for a lost expedition team, a telecom security agent joins a group that's releasing a gorilla into the wild. The film has a rather interesting cast that includes Laura Linney, Ernie Hudson, Tim Curry, and Bruce Campbell. Also, the ape performers are pretty good; the ones who do Amy especially, as they make her feel like a real character. Additionally, the action scenes add a lot of energy and excitement to the film. Congo may be one of Crichton's lessor works, but it's still an entertaining ride.
Super Reviewer
½ February 6, 2008
This movie really tried to butch Laura Linney up too much and didn't have the same allure as Jurassic Park. Though for a movie made in 1995, not too terrible.
Page 1 of 83