Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 19 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 19
  2. Negative: 10 out of 19
Watch On
  1. 75
    The result is not a movie that is very good, exactly, but it's entertaining and funny.
  2. 50
    This is easily the worst filmed version of anything penned by the prolific author.
  3. Reviewed by: Jack Kroll
    Congo is basically the old African ooga-mooga movie brought into the P.C., high-tech age.
  4. Reviewed by: Staff(not credited)
    Congo, adapted by John Patrick Shanley and directed by Stephen Spielberg protege Frank Marshall, is not one of the better silly action pictures set in gratuitously fake jungles and featuring nefarious foreigners, threatening natives, and talking gorillas.
  5. Reviewed by: Mike Clark
    As in "Arachnophobia", director Frank Marshall can't decide whether he's making a thriller or a laff-it-up lark. [09 Jun 1995, Pg.03.D]
  6. This glib, overheated film about vicious primates delivers little suspense, nor are there signs of the 65 cited volumes and articles that turned Mr. Crichton's book into such a learning experience.
  7. 40
    Even with these high-end artists on the team, though, the movie seems thin.
  8. 40
    What begins as mildly intriguing stuff with some genuinely unsettling moments, quickly melts into a plot so confusing that it almost begins to look as though the editor was taking some mind-altering substance.
  9. Reviewed by: Brian Lowry
    Whatever John Patrick Shanley's script may have tried to do in adapting Crichton's book, it clearly feels as if the picture were edited to leave the action sequences in while removing any connecting material that might have helped them make sense.
  10. As if aware that Congo is the least interesting adventure ever filmed, screenwriter John Patrick Shanley (who once wrote a funny movie called "Moonstruck") tries to inoculate the activities with humor.
  11. But Congo leads to nothing but a fierce battle with the gray gorillas, a kind of guns vs. fangs scene; and a convenient and incongruous volcano eruption that looks as artificial as a video game.
  12. In stupidity, this movie ranks up there among the greats.
  13. One thing is certain: It's a bomb trying to be a hit, and at that it'll never succeed.
  14. Without Spielberg's technical pizazz, and with a gummy mixture of homage and spoof, Congo chokes on its own tongue in cheek.
  15. I don't know the novel, but judging from the script by Crichton and John Patrick Shanley, this must be scraping the bottom of the Crichton barrel.
  16. All I know is that something has gone terribly, drum-beatingly wrong in Congo (Paramount, PG-13), and you can sense Jungle Trouble brewing from the git-go.
  17. Not only have bothersome plot changes been made, but the entire tone of the book has been transformed from tension to tongue-in-cheek with dismal results.
  18. Reviewed by: Bruce Diones
    The director, Frank Marshall, who has produced films for Steven Spielberg, gets his own Michael Crichton book to play with—and the results are disastrous.
  19. 0
    Jawdroppingly bad, this adaptation of Michael Crichton's 1980 novel about a talking ape named Amy and a fabled lost city deep in the jungles of central Africa is as sophisticated in execution as a Jungle Jim movie.
User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 41 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 7
  2. Negative: 0 out of 7
  1. Jul 1, 2015
    This review contains spoilers, click full review link to view. This movie is a shining example of what cinema should strive to be. Set in the deep jungles of Africa, this action packed thrill ride provides moviegoers with almost 2 hours of non stop fun. One of the best characters in this movie is actually a Gorilla named Amy portrayed by renowned African actor Adewalé! Throughout the course of the movie, I always on the edge of my seat, heart pounding wondering what misfortune would befall the amazing team of actors including fish-face and many but not all of the Harlem Globe Trotters. Tyler Perry has truly outdone himself this time! I give this movie a 4.... out of "4". Full Review »
  2. May 14, 2011
    Some of these critics just need to have a nice, relaxing dump.
    Does not deserve such a rating. Not every movie needs to be a Stanley
    Some of these critics just need to have a nice, relaxing dump.
    Does not deserve such a rating. Not every movie needs to be a Stanley Kubrick masterpiece.
    Avatar was a complete hack of Dances with Wolves and Ferngully with worldwide success....yet this kind of original popcorn fun is buried.
    It's unbelievable how much some of these crotch stains love the smell of their own farts.
    Rent it. This is a classic B-movie. It's not nostalgia that's guiding my view on this. This movie is still good by today's standards.
    It's not as deep as Jurassic Park, but it's still a memorable flick.
    Full Review »
  3. Mar 22, 2011
    I have read Michael Crichton's excellent books and Steven Spielberg helped him turn one of his greatest creations "Jurassic Park" into aI have read Michael Crichton's excellent books and Steven Spielberg helped him turn one of his greatest creations "Jurassic Park" into a worldwide success in 1993. So, as you can imagine, I've never heard/seen this movie before, but what I do know is it was based on a fantastic book. With a book that good, Michael Crichton sold his film rights once again to Hollywood but it turns out that they didn't get Steven Spielberg. Instead, Frank Marshall took the project.

    I've heard that the critics gave negative reviews about this movie, so I think that this movie deserves a 5/10.

    Because the only good things that I found entertaining about this movie was those cool laser guns, the Animaltronics, and the actors Bruce Campbell and Ernie Hudson.

    The only bad things were the unexplained plot holes, the clichés, the lack and style of the plot, and the poor storytelling.

    It wasn't good and it wasn't bad. It was just very mediocre for a movie adaptation of a well-known Michael Chrichton book.

    For adults, they won't be impressed, but for kids, it definitely worth a watch.
    Full Review »