Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Honkey ‘Congo” Bungles In The Jungle

Nathan Mauger Ferris

The buzz is that “Congo” could be THE movie of the summer. The hype surrounds the Indiana Jones meets “Jurassic Park” type plot, with plenty of adventures set deep in the jungle. The film also boasts incredible special effects and startling sets.

All of this hype does give the impression that “Congo” is the “Raiders of the Lost Ark” of the ‘90s, an impression that will be shattered once people see the film. Sure, “Congo” will boast an impressive first two weeks at the box office, until word of mouth gets around.

The most obvious problem with “Congo” is that it is about as exciting as a Saturday morning cartoon. The film doesn’t set up an atmosphere of danger, and everything is too hokey to be frightening. Michael Crichton’s book of the same title (which the film is based on) contained all the pitfalls of a cheesy safari adventure (killer hippopotamuses, erupting volcanoes and natives who sing American pop hits), but he still made it a ferocious book filled with raging action and a technological theme. But the film version has been drastically rewritten into a completely fantastic adventure in the tradition of the 1985 bomb “King Solomon’s Mines.”

“Congo’s” storyline has a conglomerate communications company sending an expedition deep into the jungles of Zaire to find a diamond. But this is no ordinary diamond; this one will revolutionize laser communication. The first team is slaughtered by a mysterious grey beast. So the second party, led by the capable Dr. Ross (Laura Linney), has plenty of firepower and a seasoned guide named Monroe (Ernie Hudson). To ensure their passage into Zaire, the front for the mission is a gorilla named Amy, who can speak sign language. The official reason for the expeditions is to release Amy into the wild. Along for the ride is the doctor (Dylan Walsh) who has spent years studying Amy and a mysterious philanthropist (Tim Curry).

As this team treks further into the jungle, they encounter more than a few hardships, and it becomes apparent that nearly everyone has an agenda of their own.

The action scenes, which should be the highlight of a film like this, are not even suspenseful. The killer apes, which are more or less what the second half of book centers on, don’t even show up until the last half hour or so of “Congo.” And they are used too sparingly; their only big scene is in a shootout near the end.

The special effects are not that spectacular. Amy, which is actually a person in a gorilla suit, looks fairly real. but the grey apes look like people in gorilla suits and resemble grey Bigfoots or any other hairy movie monsters. There are several effects that are interesting, but none are spectacular.

The filmmakers chose not to put any big names into the cast (although Curry and Hudson have been in their share of roles). That’s a wise choice. It is nice to see new faces, but the faces here are only faces; they can’t act convincingly. Linney is the worst, she seems to be waiting for a signal to begin reading her lines from a cue card off screen. Hudson overacts with unparalleled zeal, Curry puts in a performance in the same vein, and David Hasselhoff look-alike Walsh seems very, very inexperienced.

Another big problem is the direction by Frank Marshal and the script. Marshal does not know how to set up a suspenseful situation or execute an action scene. And the script pace is boring and payoff is lacking.

Nothing in “Congo” lives up to its reputation. It’s a silly story made sillier by the “talent” involved in “Congo.” The acting, direction, writing and special effects are all unfitting to a “big” summer movie: they’re B movie quality.

Grade: D-