User Reviews

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.

What can you say about a movie like "Congo"? Well, it's silly and underdeveloped with some pretty shabby special effects but god help me, I like it.

The plot is somewhat episodic as multiple different characters with wildly different motives converge on the Congo. One is a communications technician (played nicely by Lauara Linney) who is looking for her fiancé. Another is a Romanain nut case (played by the fabulous Tim Curry) who is looking for a mythical, lost diamond mine. And the last is a gorilla expert returning a talking gorilla back to her natural habitat. I swear, I'm NOT making this up.

The cast as a whole is OK. Linney is appealing, Curry turns in a usual fine job, and cameos from Bruce Campbell and Joe Don Baker add to the quirky atmosphere. Special mention should go to Ernie Hudson, who's roguish charm while not as polished as Harrison Ford's, makes a great Clark Gable/Indiana Jones type-explorer.

The special effects are kind of a mixed bag. The gorillas are obviously stunt-men but the hokeyness is kind of fun. The climax in the temple is also silly but still rousing. Topping all this off, the quirky Jerry Goldsmith score adds considerably to the film as a whole.

Although certainly not a classic or even 100% good, "Congo" is a cheesy, yet entertaining jungle adventure movie and is worth seeing.

Congo is the first movie on the IMDB for which I am writing a user comment. I am giving it this distinction because, although it is not the best movie I have ever seen, nor my all-time favorite movie, it is one of my personal favorites nonetheless. If I could choose only ten movies to own, or even just five, Congo would be one of them.

Because so many people dislike Congo, or are at least indifferent to it, I feel compelled to explain why I like it. I like Congo because it's different: in the seven years since I first saw it in June of 1995, I've seen countless other movies, but Congo still retains its uniqueness, I believe. Other movies have tried to duplicate Congo's juvenile sense of adventure and tongue-in-cheek humor (most notably the two Mummy movies), but none of them have surpassed Congo as one of the most gleefully preposterous and deliriously fun yarns I've ever seen.

So many people have criticized Congo in so many ways that I'm not sure which complaint I should address first. The consensus among most comments seems to be that the character of Amy, the "talking" gorilla, pretty much ruins the movie because she is annoying and unconvincing. Although I cannot deny that "Amy" is, indeed, a woman in a gorilla costume which is not quite convincing, I should also say (1) that when I first saw Congo, I thought Amy was pretty convincing, and at least acceptable; and (2) convincing gorillas in movies are rare, in my opinion. Rick Baker's work in Gorillas in the Mist and the Mighty Joe Young remake is the best I've seen; and although Amy (created by Stan Winston's team, not Baker's) is inferior to Baker's best work, she's better than some of Baker's apes in Burton's terrible Planet of the Apes remake. If I must choose between Amy, and Tim Roth in an obvious chimpanzee costume, I choose Amy.

Another common complaint is that the movie Congo is inferior to Michael Crichton's novel, upon which it was based. I read the novel in early 1995, just prior to seeing the movie, and so the book was still fresh in my mind when I saw the movie: and I thought the movie did an excellent job of conveying the essence of the book, and gave the story an offbeat style which sets the movie apart from the book. The movie also has a healthy sense of humor about itself, which Crichton's novel lacks and sorely needs.

I almost forgot the actors! Some people hate Congo simply because it lacks a Mel Gibson or Bruce Willis; nevertheless it does boast a talented and interesting cast of mostly underrated actors. Laura Linney has given good, strong performances in many movies, but I argue that her performance in Congo is still her most entertaining. Dylan Walsh gives an earnest, appealing performance as the earnest, appealing Peter Elliot, whose devotion to Amy (however laughable it is for many viewers) gives the movie some heart. Ernie Hudson gives a clever, unforgettable performance as Munro Kelly; although black, he possesses the mannered speech and condescending attitude of an authentic "great white hunter," one of the movie's best gags. Grant Heslov has little to do, but some of his delivery is terrific ("Safari? I don't even like picnics!") Tim Curry is a sheer delight in this movie, giving a campy performance as the monomaniacal Herkermer Homolka, a "Roumanian philanthropist" obviously written into the movie (the character does not exist in the novel) to correspond with Wayne Knight's character Dennis Nedry in Jurassic Park. Some people are offended by Curry's performance, and believe it's offensive to Roumanians as well. Here's a tip: anyone offended by anything in Congo takes life (not to mention this movie) way too seriously, and needs to lighten up.

Many people hate Congo simply because it's cheesy. But considering the story (assorted oddballs journey to a site in the African jungle which may be the legendary mines of King Solomon), how could the movie not be cheesy? Did people really expect a movie called Congo to be realistic, believable and compelling? Surely such a movie would be even more cliched and misconceived than the one that was made. John Patrick Shanley's script may be crude and smug, but at least it's fun, and certainly a model of efficiency: Shanley trimmed the novel of subplots (such as a rival expedition, and attempts to decipher the gray gorillas' "language") which would have made the movie longer, slower and more pretentious. He added lots of pithy dialogue and made the whole affair an exercise in high camp. The result is a quintessential juvenile adventure that improves upon more bombastic and elaborate efforts like Armageddon. And Frank Marshall's straightforward, low-key direction nicely contrasts with the inherent absurdity of the storyline; a more intense and heavy-handed director would not have been a good choice to helm a movie like Congo.

Congo isn't nearly the terrible movie that many people believe it is. It isn't a movie for everybody or even a movie for most people: but it was created with a certain audience in mind, and many people are simply too serious and high-minded to belong to that audience. Congo and movies like it are cartoons for adults: if you don't like movies with colorful visuals, ridiculous plots and juvenile characters, you should not watch Congo. But if you do like movies with those characteristics, then I submit that Congo is one of the best movies of that kind that I've ever seen.

I love this movie. It's so simple and presented nicely. Do not compare it with other movies. Just enjoy the trip and feel the adventure.

Almost a usual adventurous movie and maybe that's the reason many people find it too usual.

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.

Though it did manage to draw in audiences, "Congo" plays like an old John Agar flick from the 1950s, a manipulative, special effects-laden co-feature straight off the assembly line. Motley expedition team in Africa (which includes a "talking" gorilla) come upon murderous gray apes guarding a lost fortune in diamonds. Adaptation of Michael Crichton's bestseller (by John Patrick Shanley, of all people) has strong talents involved, yet no one can disguise the fact this is a hoary premise culled from the late-late show, full of stock characters, clichés and unsurprising action. However, Amy the Talking Gorilla is a sweet new ingredient, giving the stale plot some much-needed lift. ** from ****

Congo is rarely mentioned in any discussion about film. It seems like a forgotten artifact, abandoned like King Solomon's mines, discovered only by only those who maintain some fundamental interest; what you find is going to depend on how open you keep your mind. Rest assured, those of you who would rather ignore it aren't going to be missing a diamond, but I'd say an arrowhead isn't out of the question.

I'll dispense with the metaphors: Congo is not a bad film. I watched it many times in my youth and just watched it again yesterday, and the biggest complaint I have is that the original song 'Sounds Of Africa' is awful. I won't summarize the plot or analyze the film in explicit detail, but I will say that it is briskly paced, sharply written, and features solid characterizations, or as solid as they can be in an adventure epic. As an example, Tim Curry has been dismissed too often as the comic relief when he is actually central to the plot and turns in a deliciously dense performance, above and beyond the limitations of his character. Considering the slightly campy tone, the special effects are well above what anyone could expect. Just don't come prepared to judge them based on modern standards or Jurassic Park. Personally, I find physical effects more endearing than CGI anyway.

As many reviewers have said, it's a film of a bygone era, a lost world story treated as an adventure epic. Clearly it's not Indiana Jones and the tone tends to waver a bit, but it's never boring, and if it had been adapted from the book directly, it would have been. I can't imagine someone watching the airplane SAM scene without being excited by the action, or watching the group's border crossing struggles without at least sporting a grin.

So, check your ego and check your critical faculties; this is no Citizen Kane and it doesn't pretend to be. Those that harshly criticize it, by my estimation, have a lot to learn about having a good time at the movies.

"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 than what they give. Grant Heslov plays the neurotic sidekick that he usually plays (see "True Lies"), and it is pretty welcoming.

I don't understand why this flopped at the box-office. Perhaps because it had to live up to the reputation of "Jurassic Park," which is more than can be expected of any film.

Directed by Frank Marshall. Starring Laura Linney, Dylan Walsh, Ernie Hudson, Tim Curry, Joe Don Baker, Grant Heslov, Joe Pantoliano, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Delroy Lindo, Bruce Campbell. (PG-13)

A team sent by a telecommunications company disappears in central Africa while searching for a rare blue diamond; Linney tags along on a primatologist's (Baker) expedition to return a gorilla to the wild so she can find out what happened to them. Laughable jungle adventure isn't even close to being a good movie, but it's not usually a boring one either; instead, it's a sneaky comedy that can be laughed at with the sort of relish that many other bald-faced laffers fail to inspire. Here we have a person in a gorilla suit wearing a "glove" that lets it speak when using sign language; also finds time to skydive, drink martinis and smoke cigars. If this doesn't spark interest, stay far away, but for all others, rest assured there's plenty more. A diamond-focused laser saws through killer apes; Curry trots out a ridiculous Romanian accent and goes nuts with it (he says "lost city of Zinj" about a half dozen times, always with tremendous brio, always hysterical); a poor sap literally gets scared to death looking at a gorilla; Linney uses a flare gun to blow up an incoming anti-air missile; and cold-hearted CEO Baker, when asked if he's human, gets to loudly retort, "I'll be human later!" The only one who gets to have fun while keeping his or her dignity is Hudson, who brings a droll, Ronald Colman-esque zest to his jungle guide role. A movie that's indefensible on any intellectual or artistic level, but why would anyone have expected otherwise? It's adapted from a Michael Crichton book, after all.

53/100

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.

Steven Spielberg took a preposterous Michael Crichton novel about resurrecting dinosaurs from DNA samples and gave us "Jurrasic Park", a thrilling, exciting adventure/thriller that still holds up today despite the advances in CGI effects since then. The producers of "Congo" did the exact opposite, they took an interesting adventure story and turned it into unwatchable dreck.

If watching people in shabby gorilla suits pretending to be gorillas and failing miserably, while bad actors chew abysmal dialog in a ludicrous plot is your thing, then this is the movie for you. Me? I'll take "Jurassic Park" over this crap any day of the week. Life is too short to waste on moronic drivel like "Congo".

Some reviewers argue that "Congo" is a juvenile movie that's not to be taken seriously, and that it should be enjoyed as the preposterous silly movie that it is. They might have a point if "Congo" was actually watchable. To get to those moments of juvenile glee you have to sit through hours (well, its only minutes but it seems like hours) of dull, lifeless set-up... or you can just fast forward to the funny stuff. That does not a good movie make, that's just a few worthwhile moments of comedy in a bad movie.

Watch this garbage at your own risk.

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.

One of the best lines of the movie . . .

I actually got a kick out of this movie. Heck yes, the effects and the gorilla suits were horrible even for the 1990s, but "Congo" was kind of fun to watch. I'm sure it was supposed to be more serious than the average viewer took it to be, but it had some good moments. Amy was awful from the word "go," but the interaction between her and Ross on the plane was great.

Ernie Hudson was terrific all the way through the movie, although I think he lost his accent a bit at the end. Like so many, I would have loved to see more of Bruce Campbell and a little less of Dylan Walsh. Congo isn't a great movie, or even a good one, but it wasn't a bad way to spend an afternoon recovering from a 13-hour car trip and a long night waiting for a dog to deliver puppies. Five of ten, just because it made me laugh out loud a couple of times.

I remember watching 'Congo' in the cinema back in 1995 and I loved it! It was only afterwards did I realise how much other people (and when I say 'other people' I generally mean the critics!) absolutely hated it. And, although I obviously don't agree, I can see why - from a certain point of view.

In 1993 'Jurassic Park' was epically adapted from a Michael Crichton novel and... well, the Box Office and impact on films and popular culture spoke for itself. Therefore, when 'Congo' was pitched from another Crichton novel, it was 'sold' to the masses as 'Jurassic Park with gorillas.' Yes, if you saw any of the trailers or marketing material around the time of its release, you'd get the impression the human stars were going to be going up against hordes of savage, mutated gorillas in the jungle. And, although that does happen, it can hardly be described as the 'main' portion of the film. In fact... would it be a 'spoiler' to say that the 'bad gorillas' only come into the story in the final act?

What 'Congo' is about is a bit of a 'mish-mash.' You have a scientist (Dylan Walsh) who's trained a gorilla to use sign language and to 'speak' through the help of a virtual-reality glove, returning her to the film (in the 'Congo' - surprise!), teaming up with an ex CIA operative (Laura Linney) who's looking for her ex fiancé because he disappeared while searching for a new form of diamond for a telecommunications company. Throw in an eccentric Hungarian (Tim Curry) who's looking for a lost city in the jungle and a suave British local guide (Ernie Hudson) and you generally have a lot going on. Is it any wonder that the film-makers simple figured it would be easier just to sell it as 'Jurassic Park with gorillas?'

However, despite having a lot to cover plot-wise, it's actually pretty good. It's not so much about 'man versus mutant gorilla,' rather the group versus everything you'd expect (and more!) to find in that area of the world. You have the local tribes, the harsh elements, corrupt military and hungry, hungry hippos (yes, seriously). First of all, it's an adventure film. The bad gorillas are simply one part of a much bigger film.

It's no dramatic masterpiece. In fact, Laura Linney and Dylan Walsh are two pretty uninspiring leads. The true outstanding performances come from Ernie Hudson and Tim Curry who - probably - should have been the two leads as their bantering and performances is what makes the film (in terms of human leads).

The other notable 'cast members' are the gorillas themselves. Although computer effects did wonders at bringing dinosaurs back a few years earlier, the technology still wasn't there to make furry gorillas look realistic, so animatronics and practical effects were used instead. These were masterminded by Stan Winston and, although they aren't perfect, they are as pretty close to holding up today as any film made in 1995.

If you're expecting a wall-to-wall action film where man must survive against great big, nasty gorillas who are picking them off one by one, then you won't find it here. If, however, you're looking for a good old fashioned action/adventure film that could be watched by all the family on a Saturday afternoon, then this will certainly kill a couple of hours.

"Congo" takes place in (err) Congo, where we follow an expedition with a bunch of people with different motives into the jungle. Two of them wants to take a talking(!) gorilla back to the jungle where she was once born. A scientist is looking for a diamond that her company badly needs, and she´s also looking for her lost co-worker and ex-boyfriend, who disappeared in the jungles of Congo. With them are also a greedy Romanian (with a very peculiar accent) who wants diamonds for his own. To protect them from various dangers, they´ve hired a sleezy mercenary, who´s got a group of soldiers (who later are revealed to be pretty useless when it comes to fighting). In the jungle they encounter lots of dangers such as bad weather, a spooky indian tribe and a crazy hippo, before they finally face their worst opponent yet: murder gorillas!

"Congo" has everything a classic B-movie should have; a silly plot, B-actors, unconvincing special effects, lots of logical gaps in the script and talking gorillas. The movie feels a bit like a roller-coaster at Universal Studios or something, however it´s not a very funny one.

It begins with an exciting scene in the jungle, but we only get a glimpse of what will come. But after this "Congo" soon becomes boring and stupid, with weapons made of diamonds and an irritating gorilla. And in the end everything just collapses and becomes a shoot-em-up flick. The movie has some beautiful sceneries of the African nature, but this doesn´t help the movie much.

The actors are okay, but Laura Linney and David Hasselhoff-look alike Dylan Walsh are far to pale in the leading roles. Instead, "Congo" belongs to the mercenary, played by Ernie Hudson, and the Romanian scoundrel, played by the delightful Tim Curry. These two have some funny moments, and almost makes this a comedy. Since you´ll be laughing out loud when you hear the stupid lines and see the crappy effects, you might actually believe that "Congo" is intended to be a comedy. I was also very surprised to see unbilled performances by the two great actors Joe Pantoliano and Delroy Lindo. I mean, what are THEY doing in this mess? Bruce "Evil Dead" Campbell has a very small role, but it´s funny to see him in a movie, since we get to see far to little of this great actor, I think.

It seems to me that those who has read the book "Congo" by Michael Crichton were very disappointed with the movie, and really hated it because the book was so much better. I haven´t read the book, so I can´t comment that, but I think that the movie is pretty harmless and if you don´t think too much about it, it´s not THAT bad.

** out of *****

"Congo," based on Michael Crichton's novel, was a fair hit in the summer of 1995. I didn't get to see it at the time, but I've seen it twice since 2009 and enjoyed it greatly.

THE STORY: Laura Linney, Dylan Walsh, Tim Curry and Ernie Hudson star in an unlikely expedition into deepest, darkest Africa where they discover King Solomon's secret diamond mine and the killer gorillas bred to guard it. Along for the ride is a female gorilla who's been trained to use sign language which activates a speech synthesizer.

The film plays out like a less-goofy Indiana Jones flick or "Jurassic Park" without dinosaurs or kids and with a better cast.

Laura Linney is a believable female protagonist; She's good-looking but not smokin' hot (e.g. Megan Fox). Dylan Walsh is a likable addition to the cast as the primologist. To the story's credit Linney never has a hot spring scene and there is no real love story in the mix. Not that I would have minded either; it's just refreshing that the film avoids such clichés, maybe because the rest of the story is full of well-worn material. For instance, Tim Curry as the diamond-obsessed creep and the volcano-erupting, temple-colapsing climax.

The best castmember is Ernie Hudson as Monro Kelly, who takes the reigns of the expedition and refers to himself as "a great white hunter who happens to be black" (hee, hee). I don't remember seeing Hudson in any other film or TV show but he's stellar here. He effortlessly commands the safari and responds to the string of dangerous encounters with a confident, bemused detachment.

The stellar filming locations include Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Costa Rico and the Los Angeles County Botanic Garden.

With the exception of "Raiders of the Lost Ark," which is in a league of its own, "Congo" is on par or better than the other Indiana Jones flicks. I actually like it better. Although the hackneyed ending will make you roll your eyes (as well as thrill you), "Congo" fits the bill if you're in the mood for a modern jungle action flick. Just keep in mind it's not "Apocalypse Now" and was never meant to be.

The film runs 109 minutes.

GRADE: B

Comments here are general so as to not reveal any plot or character details of the actual movie. Anyone that has read the book should understand them well enough to know what is being referenced.

This movie bears only a general resemblance to the Michael Crichton book. Beginning, middle, and end... it's all at considerable odds with the original tale.

There isn't anywhere near the setup or explanation of what the expedition is for, or why it's happening. The journey is at odds with the story, as are most of the characters (either in personality, presence/absence, and so on). All things considered, I would say that this movie just BARELY qualifies as being 'based' on the book by virtue of being about an expedition that travels to the Congo with a gorilla.

If you have any expectation of this movie being anything like the excellent Crichton story, you're in for a BIG disappointment.

Still, it's a tolerably decent movie; I'd have given it a higher rating if they hadn't hijacked an otherwise good story.

Congo is one of my childhood favorites so I decided to check it out to see if this lowly rated film was as good as I remembered it. I actually watched this in Kenya, with Kenyans. They could even understand the Mzungu tribe people in white. We all thought Congo was badass and entertaining. They don't make movies this cool anymore. A talking gorilla that leads a ragtag crew through the jungle in Congo to find a hidden city with diamonds? What's not to like? Get over yourself and appreciate Congo for what it is.

The idea is great, the book was a good read, and the film ought to have been great as well. I was disappointed, but I still have a soft spot for this story. They expected Congo to be the next King Kong and there were a good deal of toys, action figures, books, stickers, etc. to sell to the expected hordes of fans. The fans did not materialize and the action figures are an easy buy on the internet.

The legend of the city of Zinj is a phenomenal idea to work with for a film. Evolved apes is a sure seller. But this movie did not deliver. There were so many missed opportunities and examples of poor writing. For me the ape researcher on the expedition is a bit goofy to be credible. And he is one of the central characters! We are not given much to believe his knowledge or utility to the expedition or to Amy for that matter. This spoils that character. I liked the African actors in the film and was willing to go along with the hunter and his somewhat distracting phony English accent. But somehow, the film did not deliver what it could easily have delivered: action plus thought-provoking story about animal intelligence.

This is one of the worst blasphemies of Michael Crichton's work to date. The book was a wonderful, intense piece with exceptional characterizations and a delightful story. Very high level and a delight to read.

The movie on the other hand was a complete waste of money. I'm still not convinced that the person who wrote the script actually took the time to read the book. The movie plays out as though he skimmed the dust jacket and then started writing.

It's only redeeming feature was the cameo by Bruce Campbell at the beginning of the film. After his character gets killed off, don't bother to watch the rest. It isn't worth the time.

If you've seen this movie PLEASE read the book. There is no sense in letting this crappy film detract from one of Crichton's best novels.

For reference, I give this movie a 1 rating, and that is probably being generous.