 |
| A cool, well-composed poster for Frank Marshall's Congo |
QUICK REVIEW:
A diamond mission disappears in the Congo, and the greedy father of its leader sends a new mission off, which partners up with a scientist with a talking gorilla. ... - But the jungle keeps a murderous secret: SPOILER Grey killer gorillas!
Congo is an adaptation of a Michael Crichton (Jurassic Park (1990)) novel. It is essentially a trashy lowbrow story (that, as is often the case with such fare, also contains a super laser!), but this one is lavishly produced by Kathleen Kennedy (Lincoln (2012)) and Sam Mercer (Things We Lost in the Fire (2007)).
Congo features enormous sets, set pieces that wooed me, impressive gorillas by effects and creature whiz Stan Winston (Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)) as well as a killer cast:
Laura Linney (Hyde Park on Hudson (2012)), Delroy Lindo (The Cider House Rules (1999)), Joe Pantoliano (The Sopranos (2001-04)), Joe Don Baker (The Living Daylights (1987)), a screaming Bruce Campbell (Evil Dead II (1987)), Grant Heslov (Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005)), who is funny as a slacker American with no real purpose in the film, and finally Tim Curry (It (1990), TV miniseries) as a Romanian diamond maniac. - Yes...!
Congo is one of the four films directed by 5-time Oscar-nominated producer Frank Marshall (Arachnophobia (1990)). It is written by John Patrick Shanley (Doubt (2008)), who has supplied it with lots of goofy lines, - but what of it? - They seem entirely appropriate here in Congo, a highly entertaining, amusing, wacky 90s ride of a movie.
 |
| Tim Curry has a loony part in Frank Marshall's Congo |
 |
| SPOILER (sorry...) - This happens! In Frank Marshall's Congo |
Watch the corny trailer for the film here
Cost: 50 mil. $
Box office: 152 mil. $
= Box office success
[Congo was a summer release, fresh in the tracks of the spectacular and spectacularly successful Jurassic Park (1993). It opened #1 in the US with 24.6 mil. $. It ended up making 81 mil. $ domestically (53 % of the total gross). The gorillas were not CGI, because hair could not be rendered credibly artificially yet, which reportedly disappointed some of the fans of the book, (although it was a good job and undoubtedly the right thing to do.) Congo received generally negative reviews, but Roger Ebert got it and gave the film 3 out of 4 stars (equal to Film Excess' 4 heart rating here) and called it 'hilarious'.]
What do you think of Congo?
No comments:
Post a Comment