Really wish it was as good as the book. Good actors though.

I'm going to keep this short – you can read all about Congo all over the internet. I just have a couple of comments – First, Congo's biggest problem is that the movie is all over the place with useless plot threads piled on top of useless plot threads. It tries to do too much. The movie lacks focus. With everything else going on in Congo, the big, bad gray apes have so little screen-time that it's astonishing. The movie was billed as being about killer apes, but they're on screen for a few seconds at the beginning (well, they're sort of on screen) and for about 15 minutes at the end. In between, there's so much nonsense going on that, in reality, has nothing to do with the apes. The whole bit about the assassination of the African leader and all the garbage that happens as a result is a complete waste of time. Congo really needed more ape madness.Second, if you read most of the stuff on the internet about Congo, you will no doubt read negative comments about Tim Curry's performance. While I agree that it's over-the-top, it's one of the few things I found enjoyable. He's hysterical. Maybe I'm laughing for all the wrong reasons, but entertainment is entertainment. And really, what were you expecting from Tim Curry? He's an over-the-top ham in everything he ever did – not just Congo.

Wait. Was Nicolas Cage not available for this? Was Tim Curry a last minute replacement?I remember seeing Congo in its initial run in summer 1995 and not liking it much. Fast forward almost 20 years, and yeah, it's still bad.Now, was it the worst movie? Hell, the worst Michal Crichton adaptation? Nope. But it was neither memorable, well plotted, fun, exciting or worth a second viewing.In fact, I would have never, ever, given this a second viewing after 19 years had the gang at the How Did This Get Made studios not added this to their list of movies I needed to see before I listened to their fantastic take on this movie.I see where this movie, plot, script and idea was headed. And it could've gotten there, to a great, mysterious and fun place. Nope. It decided to go into 50 different directions and never focus on one main objective for use to care.OK, allow me to spend 15 seconds on a movie's synopsis, I've only seen twice, the most recent of two decades within the last month: Someone wants to find gold, someone wants to find fortune, someone wants to find Bruce Campbell and something wants to find home.What made this 2nd and last viewing enjoyable was: I truly love the performers: Bruce Campbell, Laura Linney and Ernie Hudson. While this movie was terrible, they still made it fun.No, don't see this. Unless you want to watch it like I did in order to listen to the How Did This Get Made podcast. There's no real reason. It's so all-over-the-place, it's not worth it.* * * Final thoughts: Yeah, just watch and read Jurassic Park. That's all Michael Crichton is huge for. God rest his soul, but his other movies, with the exception of Disclosure…eh.

"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