I’ve begun collecting Killer Tomatoes toys after finding and procuring a complete Phantomato, one of the insanely rarest ones in the line. I’ve never seen one in person, so it’s a pretty exciting day for me as a toy collector.
I sadly did not keep my collection from childhood, unlike most of my toys, which sucks because I had all six base tomatoes and their humans. And because I never saw a bodied tomato like Phantomato, Ultimato, or Missing Tomato Link, I had assumed they were all as big as the jumbo tomato toys like Zoltan and Mummato, but he’s surprisingly small!
Phantomato comes with a removable mask to hide his ridiculous face, and like all the other ‘maters, he’s made of vinyl and can gnash on things if you squeeze his sides. He comes with one of the best human sculpts, Whitley White, San Zucchini’s obnoxious TV reporter.
So apparently Congo is a bad movie. I never understood this.
i wouldn’t call it great. It’s not Planet of the Apes. But they set out to make a cheesy tribute to old jungle adventure films, and that’s exactly what they did.
Was it bad because of the ape suits? How realistic were they supposed to be in 1995? Even the dinos in Jurassic Park, while amazing, were still obviously fake. The apes in Congo aren’t far beneath those dinos quality-wise, and they didnt rely on cg at all. The apes move like they should and have terrifically expressive faces. Did none of the critics who blasted those suits see Tarzan and the Lost City? THOSE were bad ape costumes. Getting real apes would be impossible and Crichton knew it. Between that and the fact that he was making a throwback to a genre that was cheesy and fake to begin with, i don’t get what his problem was OR the pretentious critics.
It couldn’t be the acting that puts people off. All the performances range from competent to wonderful. Tim Curry is a bad guy straight out of those old pulpy adventure flicks, and Ernie Hudson steals the show. I can’t imagine a Congo with Sean Connery instead of Hudson.
Is it because it’s not true enough to the book? I don’t see how that’s anything but an improvement. All of Crichton’s characters are unrelatable, unlikable shitheads. His female characters are hardcore inhuman bitches, cos apparently anything less is sexist and weak. I actually like most of the characters in the movie with the exception of the ape whisperer and his nonexistent learning curve. And Amy’s voice wasn’t unbearably annoying. Get over it.
I went into Congo expecting a killer ape flick and was surprised when i got a huge adventure instead. All kinds of crap happens in this movie and it’s almost never boring, with plenty of scenes with Hudson and Linney being badasses.
Maybe I’m just not as enlightened as a film critic. All i know is, anyone who went into this movie expecting high art is an idiot. Congo accomplished what it set out to be: a fun adventure pulp movie.