Skip to main content

Congo (1995)

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Congo. Feature film. (1995, 109 mins) IMDB

...Why is CONGO such a bad movie?...

T

he question isn't: is this good or bad film? The question to answer is: why is this a bad film? It struck me very early in watching it, that I wasn't going to have fun watching this film and I didn't.

There are two elements to consider. The dialogue and plot.

On the plot, it's paint by numbers. Because three diverse groups have to hook up as one to make a trek from the US to the darkest part of Central Africa, the story creates these ridiculous scenes. Does Dr. Ross really have to plead to get onboard a charter flight leaving the US? No, but the film wants them together and so that's what happens. That's just one of many examples.

The ending makes no sense. The climax happens well before the end and they escape in a hot air balloon!

So much of the story makes no sense, isn't the least bit believable and truly ridiculous. It's painful to think about it.

Then there is the dialogue. It's filled with boring exposition. In an attempt to liven it up, melodramatic conflict is added. Errrrr!

One bright spot was Joe Pantoliano's small role as a hustler at the airport. Too bad he didn't have a larger role.

I still haven't answered my question. Why is CONGO a bad film? It's based on a book by Michael Crichton. That's a good start. The screenplay is credited to John Patrick Shanley. He's a top notch playwright and screenwriter, but I suspect his strengths aren't with action-adventure movies and it's difficult to know how much of what he wrote ended up in the screen. How much did the producers, director, studio execs and actors change or have changed?

Here's the other twist. There are lots of special effects movies and action-adventure movies with weak dialogue and ridiculous plots, but there's a certain level of entertainment in them that make them enjoyable--not great films, but enjoyable. CONGO is neither.

At this point, I'm only guessing at why it's such a bad movie. Too many characters with hero potential. Stick to one. Perhaps. No clear objective--at least one that's worthy of being in a film. The story should have been designed better with a clear focus on Dr. Ross.

I can't pinpoint it and maybe that's it. There are many wrong elements in this film, not just one.

The other question: how did this script get made? I can understand wanting to make a film based on Crichton's book, but why this version?

Posted 2009/03/10 at 19h25ET in Movie Commentary.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Please, Please, Please, No More

Saturday, October 8, 2011 ... what is the best way to start your novel ... C ount them. One. Two. I downloaded two thriller e-books from amazon.com, both published by the author, and they both started the same way: the character waking up and going about some morning ritual. Both books were in the top 100 bestsellers of Mystery & Thrillers Fiction. Both had many positive reviews. Those facts seemed encouraging, but once I read the opening scene, I stopped. I did not continue. But James that seems harsh? Perhaps, yes, but the writer is sending a signal with such an opening. It says, I have more to learn about writing thrillers for today’s audience. Why do I say that? Because a waking-up scene is mundane. It’s ordinary. It happens to us everyday. We don’t read thrillers for the mundane and ordinary. We read them for the extraordinary. We read them to live vicariously through the characters. We read them to be entertained. There is nothing in those waking-up scenes th...
2 comments
Read more

If Only We Could Agree

Monday, June 11, 2012 ... have you been accused of misspelling a word you know is correct ... S usanne O’Leary wrote an interesting article on her experience with the variations of the English language in different countries. You know the obvious ones like colour with or without a “u” but less obvious ones like travelled versus traveled. Growing up in Sweden she learnt English in school—the UK variation. In publishing her books, she read reviews where she was criticized for improper spelling. False accusations as it turns out. While I write tire and cozy, it’s not incorrect to write tyre or cosy. Same language. Both accepted. Just different. You can read her write-up here along with the numerous comments posted by readers. I found it interesting, but that’s me. As a Canadian I deal with this issue everyday. I feel her pain when she’s criticized for something based on ignorance. No fun. I was told by a boss that “data are” isn’t correct. It should be “data is.” Read...
2 comments
Read more

Analysis of Amazon E-book Fiction Bestsellers (Week #1)

Sunday, October 30, 2011 ... trying to make sense of the amazon bestsellers and pricing for e-books ... E ach hour Amazon updates its bestsellers lists. I have taken a daily snapshot of the top 20 bestsellers in the e-book fiction list for the past week. See here . What can be learnt from these data? 1. 4 out 5 of the bestsellers are from print or traditional authors. Most are brand-named authors who dominate the print bestsellers. 2. Almost all of the authors have multiple titles to their credit. The author of The Help is a notable exception. 3. The e-book prices of indie authors are substantially lower than print authors. For the most part, their titles are priced at $0.99. 4. The books on the list fall into four categories: (i) pre-release from brand-named authors, (ii) new or recently released titles (iii) long-term bestsellers (greater than one year), (iv) backlist titles. Indie authors fall into (ii) and (iv). 5. The indie authors includes authors who ...
2 comments
Read more