|
|
Post by janntosh on Jun 26, 2020 1:24:45 GMT
  haven't seen it. But it is considered one of the worst blockbuster movies ever made. Which is amazing considering how much talent is involved in this movie -based on a book by Michael Crichton (Jurassic Park, Andromeda Strain, Westworld) -directed by Frank Marshall, known for his work with Steven Spielberg (founded Amblin Entertainment with Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy), produced films such as the Indiana Jones films, Back to the Future films, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Poltergeist, The Goonies, and Gremlins. Was a 2nd unit director on films like ET, Indiana Jones, and Roger Rabbit, and made his directorial debut with the super fun Arachnophobia. - -produced by Kathleen Kennedy who produced Jurassic Park as well as the other films mentioned above. -screenplay by John Patrick Shanley (Moonstruck, Doubt) - practical special effects by Stan Winston, who did the live action special effects for Jurassic Park as well as movies like Aliens, Terminator 1 and 2, Predator 1 and 2 etc) -cinematography by Allen Daviau (ET, The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun, Bugsy) -edited by Anne V Coates (Lawrence of Arabia, Becket, 1974 Murder on the Orient Express, The Elephant Man, In the Line of Fire) - a score by the legendary Jerry Goldsmith (Star Trek movies, Planet of the Apes, Chinatown, The Omen, Poltergeist, Gremlins, Alien, The Sand Pebbles, The Secret of NIMH, Rambo films, Hoosiers, Totall Recall, Basic Instinct, Rudy_ - a great cast (Laura Linney, Dylan Walsh, Ernie Hudson, Tim Curry, Joe Pantoliano, Bruce Campbell, John Hawkes, Joe Don Baker) so how do so many talented people come together and make what is supposedly a huge dumpster fire? Lol |
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Jun 26, 2020 1:33:00 GMT
Stop eating my sesame cake!
|
|
|
|
Post by rudeboy on Jun 26, 2020 1:33:35 GMT
Most of the names you mention have been involved in bad movies too.
i haven’t seen Congo since the mid 90s but I remember it being pretty bad, although perhaps entertainingly silly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ass_E9 on Jun 26, 2020 1:54:23 GMT
Bad but entertaining, like Tim Curry's accent.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 26, 2020 1:58:16 GMT
I have mixed feelings about it. It’s just okay but I was left with a feeling of wasted potential. There is ironic fun to be had since the ape costumes really aren’t that convincing, the Amy gorilla’s voice when she’s signing is very childish, and some of the acting is very cheesy. Good old Tim Curry taking the cake with his “Romanian” philanthropist/fortune hunter. Btw he’s not in the book.
The backstory is interesting. Everyone pretty much expected it to be like the next Jurassic Park. I think they wanted a Spielberg-lite vibe since they hired Frank Marshall as director. I did read the book and it was actually very good. A bit dated due to the Cold War setting but still a page turner. Despite this, apparently the film’s screenwriter made changes to the plot.
For example, Laura Linney’s part is a stone cold bitch in the book but tough and cunning;like a Charlize Theron/Linda Hamilton type. The movie makes her rather whiny. Even if she does vaporize some Apes with a laser gun at the end. As for the Apes, Michael Crichton gave them this whole history in relation to the lost city of Zinj and pseudoscientific explanation for their behavior.
Being a Crichton story, the book’s tone is pretty serious; think if Raiders was a technothriller. But the movie is more comedic. My suspicion is that they wanted the movie’s tone to be more like Marshall’s earlier movie Arachnophobia which was a horror-comedy that became both a critical and box office success.
There was a few things I liked. Ernie Hudson is legitimately cool as this black riff on Indiana Jones. Some of the other performances are fun if cartoony like Curry and Joe Don Baker. The musical score isn’t bad either. As bad as the ape effects are, the climax with the laser gun and a volcanic eruption is not that badly done. I would like an updated remake that follows the book proper though.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 26, 2020 1:58:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 26, 2020 2:35:13 GMT
I have mixed feelings about it. It’s just okay but I was left with a feeling of wasted potential. There is ironic fun to be had since the ape costumes really aren’t that convincing, the Amy gorilla’s voice when she’s signing is very childish, and some of the acting is very cheesy. Good old Tim Curry taking the cake with his “Romanian” philanthropist/fortune hunter. Btw he’s not in the book. The backstory is interesting. Everyone pretty much expected it to be like the next Jurassic Park. I think they wanted a Spielberg-lite vibe since they hired Frank Marshall as director. I did read the book and it was actually very good. A bit dated due to the Cold War setting but still a page turner. Despite this, apparently the film’s screenwriter made changes to the plot. For example, Laura Linney’s part is a stone cold bitch in the book but tough and cunning;like a Charlize Theron/Linda Hamilton type. The movie makes her rather whiny. Even if she does vaporize some Apes with a laser gun at the end. As for the Apes, Michael Crichton gave them this whole history in relation to the lost city of Zinj and pseudoscientific explanation for their behavior. Being a Crichton story, the book’s tone is pretty serious; think if Raiders was a technothriller. But the movie is more comedic. My suspicion is that they wanted the movie’s tone to be more like Marshall’s earlier movie Arachnophobia which was a horror-comedy that became both a critical and box office success. There was a few things I liked. Ernie Hudson is legitimately cool as this black riff on Indiana Jones. Some of the other performances are fun if cartoony like Curry and Joe Don Baker. The musical score isn’t bad either. As bad as the ape effects are, the climax with the laser gun and a volcanic eruption is not that badly done. I would like an updated remake that follows the book proper though. Do you sort of agree with Roger Ebert that the silliness of the movie is intentional? |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 26, 2020 2:46:49 GMT
moviemouth to a point I think they were intentional;again, I really think they wanted another Arachnophobia. But Frank Marshall is not Spielberg so he couldn’t rein it in as well as with that movie. There’s a good amount of humor in it but the spiders are still creepy and there’s enough unsettling moments to balance out the comedy. I think with Congo, the Ape effects are a letdown so they wind up being goofy instead of scary.
|
|
|
|
Post by mstreepsucks on Jun 26, 2020 3:30:47 GMT
Seems like a must own, imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jun 26, 2020 3:35:02 GMT
I haven't seen it in possibly 20 years, but I used to enjoy it enough to watch it occasionally.
|
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Jun 26, 2020 4:02:44 GMT
I actually always really enjoyed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jun 26, 2020 4:32:03 GMT
I haven't seen it in 20 years.
I remember Laure Linney and the talking ape, that's all.
Anything with Crichton's name on it was "ooh another Jurassic Park!"
I.e. Twister.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 26, 2020 4:38:39 GMT
The biggest problem with the movie is a lot of it doesn't actually have to do with killer gorillas (which is how the movie was marketed), in fact a big chunk (for whatever reasons) seems to be about African warlords and political instability.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Jun 26, 2020 7:03:52 GMT
Like a lot of other posters here, I haven't watched it in years and years. I remember it being OK, but not great. I was a lot younger then though, so may well have a lower opinion of it were I to re-watch it today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jun 26, 2020 12:25:43 GMT
moviemouth to a point I think they were intentional;again, I really think they wanted another Arachnophobia. But Frank Marshall is not Spielberg so he couldn’t rein it in as well as with that movie. There’s a good amount of humor in it but the spiders are still creepy and there’s enough unsettling moments to balance out the comedy. I think with Congo, the Ape effects are a letdown so they wind up being goofy instead of scary. Also, you don't open the film with a Bruce Campbell scream if you're making a 'serious' movie. Great call on the Arachnophobia comparison. I love Congo. It has a ton of problems and you can tell the finished product isn't what they intended to make; but it's entertaining and the characters are enjoyable. Mostly I think I like it for its potential rather than what ended up on screen. I wouldn't argue that it's a 'great' movie, but it isn't terrible, either. And yeah if they remade it, I'd like to see the more serious thriller version, closer to the book. |
|
|
|
Post by janntosh on Jun 26, 2020 12:34:44 GMT
I think I read somewhere Spielberg ghost directed some parts of Arachnophobia, which could explain why it worked so well
|
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jun 26, 2020 15:31:47 GMT
I like it as an old fashioned B-movie. Sort of felt like an homage to sci-fi horror films of the 60's.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jun 26, 2020 20:10:40 GMT
In his print review, Ebert wrote:I agree. While this movie is one of my guiltiest pleasures (no, it’s not exactly “good”), I think it’s a delight—entertaining, charming, funny, with Ernie Hudson giving a magnificent performance as the “great white hunter who happens to be black.” (He is Gablesque. No need for Gene Siskel’s scoffing.)
Tim Curry at his most bizarre is great as well, if not up to Hudson’s level, and Siskel’s claim that the humor is unintentional is inexplicable: just think of the sesame cake!
The script is by John Patrick Shanley, whose Joe Versus the Volcano (1990) was equally witty and surprising—and underrated by critics at the time. Shanley is a man of the theater and, like fellow playwright David Mamet (and Stephen Sondheim), seems to believe that surprise is the very lifeblood of drama. Even when Shanley writes a conventional scene, he puts an unconventional twist on it and thus gives us the impression that he’s one step ahead of us. See, for example, the scorpion scene.
It has flaws, absolutely—many of the performances (other than Hudson and Curry and, weirdly, whoever’s in ape costume) are weak, Bruce Campbell and Joe Pantoliano get nothing to do, the ending is a huge anticlimax (perhaps unintentionally? The movie apparently had a difficult production)—but all in all it’s just so entertaining. Honestly, it’s a flick to be savored.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Jun 27, 2020 0:24:41 GMT
Saw it and theaters would have came out. I remember thinking wasn't very good, but not awful either. But then again, I was like 11, so who knows what I'd think of it now.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 27, 2020 0:36:23 GMT
In his print review, Ebert wrote: Tim Curry at his most bizarre is great as well, if not up to Hudson’s level, and Siskel’s claim that the humor is unintentional is inexplicable: just think of the sesame cake!I don't think Gene Siskel was implying that nothing in the movie is intentionally funny, just that a lot of it is. |
|
