CONGO - The 30th Anniversary Revisit
Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2025 12:27 pm
6.5/10
Sat down to watch this with Theo last night in the new Vinegar Syndrome 4K -- this is both a case of a watchable "guilty pleasure" that somehow or other is far less than the sum of its parts at the same time.
Overall my feelings were as they were years ago, that this was a botched missed opportunity and yet enough of Michael Crichton's concept came through to make it watchable. This in spite of indifferent direction by Frank Marshall and largely likewise miscasting, the movie completely failing to generate any star power as lead Dylan Walsh is a blank and Ernie Hudson tries hard but still comes off as overly lightweight as the black "white hunter." Tim Curry is useless with a horrendous eastern European accent. Only Laura Linney got any mileage out of this one, doing a competent job as the female lead in a part that helped launch her career. This time out, I also noticed both Joe Pantoliano AND Delroy Lindo are completely unbilled -- what's up with that?
Despite the top flight team assembled in support (DP Allen Daviau, editor Anne V. Coates, Jerry Goldsmith, whose score is actually pretty good and has held up better than the film), Marshall's direction is the big problem. His stodgy staging of action set-pieces isn't even on the level of J. Lee Thompson (yes, even the Cannon KING SOLOMON'S MINES was better choreographed!) much less Steven Spielberg. This is a "trek through the jungle" movie that needs a sense of pacing and energy, but Marshall was not up to the task, the picture's mostly set-bound look and feel playing against its premise. Marshall just had no cinematic sense of rendering set-pieces and his initial success on ARACHNOPHOBIA obviously gave off a false sense of directorial talent that was too evident basically across the few films he made thereafter.
John Patrick Shanley's script has some funny lines but why deviate from Crichton's book and original script to begin with (which apparently was perfectly decent too back in 1980 when the movie was first going to be made).
That brings me back to what this movie COULD have been:
1. Crichton tried to make the movie with Sean Connery in 1980 but decided the ape tech wasn't good enough (and he was right, because the practical ape suits in this movie are lousy too!)
2. Crichton tried again in 1987 with Connery but it fell apart...
3. Even after Kennedy/Marshall got the rights, TOMMY LEE JONES was supposed to be the lead (I'd imagine the Ernie Hudson role), but it obviously fell through (this was according to https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid= ... 63,3982752)
Any of those proposed versions held more potential than what we got here, which was still a big hit for Paramount parlaying off JURASSIC PARK in the Summer of 1995 thanks to a successful marketing campaign.
In retrospect, if there's any one of these Crichton books screaming for a re-do, it's CONGO. Yes CGI would be a big improvement over the mediocre Stan Winston gorillas in this film. A more faithful rendering of its source with decent actors could net a solid box-office return as well, making you wonder why it hasn't happened already.
BTW Michael Karoly did a great recap on the book/movie adaptation back in 2018 here:
https://andyfilm.com/mboard/viewtopic.p ... 306#p71306
This article was also a good read on the movie's long road to the screen:
https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/the-st ... 95s-congo/
Sat down to watch this with Theo last night in the new Vinegar Syndrome 4K -- this is both a case of a watchable "guilty pleasure" that somehow or other is far less than the sum of its parts at the same time.
Overall my feelings were as they were years ago, that this was a botched missed opportunity and yet enough of Michael Crichton's concept came through to make it watchable. This in spite of indifferent direction by Frank Marshall and largely likewise miscasting, the movie completely failing to generate any star power as lead Dylan Walsh is a blank and Ernie Hudson tries hard but still comes off as overly lightweight as the black "white hunter." Tim Curry is useless with a horrendous eastern European accent. Only Laura Linney got any mileage out of this one, doing a competent job as the female lead in a part that helped launch her career. This time out, I also noticed both Joe Pantoliano AND Delroy Lindo are completely unbilled -- what's up with that?
Despite the top flight team assembled in support (DP Allen Daviau, editor Anne V. Coates, Jerry Goldsmith, whose score is actually pretty good and has held up better than the film), Marshall's direction is the big problem. His stodgy staging of action set-pieces isn't even on the level of J. Lee Thompson (yes, even the Cannon KING SOLOMON'S MINES was better choreographed!) much less Steven Spielberg. This is a "trek through the jungle" movie that needs a sense of pacing and energy, but Marshall was not up to the task, the picture's mostly set-bound look and feel playing against its premise. Marshall just had no cinematic sense of rendering set-pieces and his initial success on ARACHNOPHOBIA obviously gave off a false sense of directorial talent that was too evident basically across the few films he made thereafter.
John Patrick Shanley's script has some funny lines but why deviate from Crichton's book and original script to begin with (which apparently was perfectly decent too back in 1980 when the movie was first going to be made).
That brings me back to what this movie COULD have been:
1. Crichton tried to make the movie with Sean Connery in 1980 but decided the ape tech wasn't good enough (and he was right, because the practical ape suits in this movie are lousy too!)
2. Crichton tried again in 1987 with Connery but it fell apart...
3. Even after Kennedy/Marshall got the rights, TOMMY LEE JONES was supposed to be the lead (I'd imagine the Ernie Hudson role), but it obviously fell through (this was according to https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid= ... 63,3982752)
Any of those proposed versions held more potential than what we got here, which was still a big hit for Paramount parlaying off JURASSIC PARK in the Summer of 1995 thanks to a successful marketing campaign.
In retrospect, if there's any one of these Crichton books screaming for a re-do, it's CONGO. Yes CGI would be a big improvement over the mediocre Stan Winston gorillas in this film. A more faithful rendering of its source with decent actors could net a solid box-office return as well, making you wonder why it hasn't happened already.
BTW Michael Karoly did a great recap on the book/movie adaptation back in 2018 here:
https://andyfilm.com/mboard/viewtopic.p ... 306#p71306
This article was also a good read on the movie's long road to the screen:
https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/the-st ... 95s-congo/
