Skip to main content

Stop eating my sesame cake!


Congo
(1995)

I doubt that Congo would be top of anyone’s list of Michael Crichton adaptations. Indeed, the Golden Raspberries  (generally a boorishly literal arbiter of quality) gave it the dubious honour of seven nominations. I don’t think it’s nearly as bad as that rotting garland might suggest, although neither is it especially good. The picture’s one saving grace is a sensibility usually quite foreign to Crichton’s self-important storytelling; it sets out to have a bit of fun.


Post-Jurassic Park, there was renewed interest in the author’s work (the ‘80s were significant for producing only under-achieving directorial efforts from Crichton himself), and the prospect of utilising the CGI that brought dinosaurs to life was seen as the key to realising the apes of Congo. This stumbled when hair was found to be tricky (even the King Kong remake, 10 years later, renders a very definitely CG creation for all its detail; even with Rise of the Planet of the Apes, for my money suits and animatronics are less distracting). Kathleen Kennedy sequestered Stan Winston to make ape the suits, which are pretty good for what they are, and brought in hubby Frank Marshall to direct. As I understand it, Crichton wasn’t overly impressed with the results and wished he’d been consulted. I don’t think that would have helped matters, as a big part of the picture’s problems derive from his source material.


Crichton was inspired to write a King Solomon’s Mines-style adventure, and pitched it as a film even before he’d written the novel (which was published in 1980). So this is a tale of lost cities, valuable diamonds, strange tribes, exploding volcanoes and hitherto undiscovered animal species. And, being Crichton, cutting edge technology. In the novel, the diamonds were required for boring old semiconductors. The movie changes this so they now power communications lasers. Much sillier and zappier, and therefore appropriate to the general tone. Also to be learnt from Congo; African countries in a state of political upheaval are a whole a lot of fun! Did I mention the talking ape, Amy? I guess she’s the key attraction. I’ve never really seen the appeal of monkey movies, Planet of the Apes excepted. Their underling anthropomorphic tendencies don’t draw me in, and having one talk in a computerised girly voice derived from sign language does nothing to persuade me otherwise. But this is element makes it abundantly clear; the only way to adapt the novel without throwing out half the plot is to embrace its essential silliness. With a talking ape you can’t even rely on a sub-Indiana Jones semi-seriousness.


Having said that, Congo probably has more merit than the most recent Indy movie (it’s a close call, but at least Congo makes me laugh in places). The production actually bothered going to Africa to film, while Spielberg and Lucas showed stayed at home. If Crystal Skull looks like it was filmed entirely on sound stages (even the bits that weren’t), the joins in Congo are readily apparent, particularly during the lost city climax. That seems appropriate, however. I can’t imagine any version of this movie not being cheesy. If it had been made during the ‘70s it would have featured Doug McClure.


As such, Frank Marshall is exactly the right guy for the job. Spielberg’s long time producing partner has only directed four features but could have directed 10 for all I knew. He’s so anonymous that I confuse him with another of the Spielberg family, Joe Johnston. Marshall debuted with Arachnophobia, trumpeted to be Jaws for spiders to public indifference. I suspect it was too formulaic in its adventure-comedy styling, aware that a determined effort to make spiders scary would be a tougher sell than it seemed. He followed it with plane crash cannibalism, Alive. He’s competent, but so bland. You could interchange his with Johnston’s work on the same year’s Jumanji and I doubt that anyone would notice the difference.


Confusing the key personnel seems to be a running theme for me with this movie. I had the vague recollection that Chris O’Donnell was the lead. Remember O’Donnell, the least memorable would-be young star of the ‘90s? I guess devotees of NCIS: Los Angeles will respond in the affirmative. I’ve never troubled myself with it, and I doubt I am missing out. Having also never bothered with Nip/Tuck, I had no idea who actual lead of this picture was even on seeing his name.  The visage of Dylan Baker only drew blanks. Was this the slightly less shlubby older brother of Seth Rogen? What had the director seen in him? What had the director seen in the script? Michael Crichton’s name in bold letters, probably. Baker’s ape fancier is as unengaging as Marshall’s direction, so they suit each other perfectly.


It could have been so different. Bruce Campbell, who appears in the prologue as the leader of the lost expedition that ignites the plot, was up for Baker’s role. Instead he received the consolation prize of a character that is offed in the first five minutes. He’s a blast during those few minutes, coming on great guns and with lines like “This whole place does the shimmy!” you’d think he was adlibbing. The makers add insult to injury by dangling the carrot that he might be still alive (Laura Linney’s motivation for going in search) only for his (or an extra’s) corpse to show up during the third act.


But, imagining Campbell as the lead, the movie suddenly makes sense. You can see him trading ham with Tim Curry, Delroy Lindo and Ernie Hudson. And the grating cuteness of the gorilla expert and his ape companion takes on a whole new dimension of self-awareness. The picture instantly becomes a camp classic, making a virtue out of all its deficiencies. The point where Baker, the animal lover, pulls out a gun and starts killing angry apes becomes hilarious if Campbell replaces him.


In the final film it is spectacularly misjudged. A movie that, if it has any message, is about man messing with nature rather than preserving it (a hot Crichton theme that, interfering with the natural order) climaxes with the protagonists blasting the aberrant new species into extinction. And we’re presumably supposed to go along with this? I mean, it is funny because it’s such an oblivious choice. And the sight of Laura Linney laser-zapping the crazed creatures is spectacularly silly ("Put them on the endangered species list!"). The novel speculated that these apes where gorilla/chimpanzee hybrids or gorilla/human hybrids. The latter is unsurprisingly dropped as this is very much a kids’ movie, but thematically it makes sense; the interaction between Baker and Amy verges on Max Mon Amour tenderness.


So be grateful for the trio of Curry, Hudson and Lindo. Linney is game, but her role doesn’t allow for much exaggeration; Grant Heslov, Joe Don Baker and Joe Pantoliano all make an impression, and there’s an early role for Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje. But none of them are blessed with the opportunities for scene-chewing that these three wholeheartedly seize. Curry plays a “Romanian philanthropist” complete with an outrayyygeous accent that wouldn’t sound out of place on an episode of ‘Allo”Allo. I’ve never paid much attention to Hudson’s career; he’s the most boring part of Ghostbusters, so I didn’t expect him to be so funny. His accent is that of a posh English toff and his cheerful bravado towards adventure is a consistent high note; “Monroe Kelly; I’m your… great white hunter for this trip. Though I…  happen to be black”. Hudson is having a great time. “I’m black, I should have luggage on my head” he says, as explanation for a tribesman’s surprise that he is head of the expedition. Lindo is only on screen for a few minutes, but his heavily accented (they’re all at it!) Captain Wanta manages to steal a scene from Curry (no mean feat) as he screams at him “Stop eating my sesame cake!”)


If it weren’t for Timeline, Congo might even hold the dubious distinction of being the worst Crichton adaptation. Unlike Timeline, Congo was a moderate hit. It made the Top 10 of the summer of ’95 to the tune of $150m (inflation-adjusted). I don’t think anyone’s going to claim Marshall did the novel a great disservice. You can’t make a silk purse out of a gorilla’s ear. And for the first two-thirds the picture splutters along in a likably silly fashion. Come the lost city, however, and the director is engulfed with substandard clichéd action heroics and plot developments. The earlier sections had a bit of fun with the familiar tropes, but by the end they just become tiresome.

**



Popular posts from this blog

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 1 (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Get away from my burro!

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) (SPOILERS) The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is beloved by so many of the cinematic firmament’s luminaries – Stanley Kubrick, Sam Raimi, , Paul Thomas Anderson and who knows maybe also WS, Vince Gilligan, Spike Lee, Daniel Day Lewis; Oliver Stone was going to remake it – not to mention those anteriorly influential Stone Roses, that it seems foolhardy to suggest it isn’t quite all that. There’s no faulting the performances – a career best Humphrey Bogart, with director John Huston’s dad Walter stealing the movie from under him – but the greed-is-bad theme is laid on a little thick, just in case you were a bit too dim to get it yourself the first time, and Huston’s direction may be right there were it counts for the dramatics, but it’s a little too relaxed when it comes to showing the seams between Mexican location and studio.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls… dyin’ time’s here!

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985) Time was kind to Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome . As in, it was such a long time since I’d seen the “final chapter” of the trilogy, it had dwindled in my memory to the status of an “alright but not great” sequel. I’d half-expected to have positive things to say along the lines of it being misunderstood, or being able to see what it was trying for but perhaps failing to quite achieve. Instead, I re-discovered a massive turkey that is really a Mad Max movie in name only (appropriately, since Max was an afterthought). This is the kind of picture fans of beloved series tend to loathe; when a favourite character returns but without the qualities or tone that made them adored in the first place (see Indiana Jones in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull , or John McClane in the last two Die Hard s). Thunderdome stinks even more than the methane fuelling Bartertown. I hadn’t been aware of the origins of Thunderdome until recently, mainly because I was