Congo Film Analysis

954 Words2 Pages

Congo is a bad and deficient movie Congo is known as a parody, which failed to make the audience curious, also by adding some lackluster parts the result gives a heavy loss towards direction. Each viewer have different perspective towards the movie, it’s a typical jungle adventure story and mocking movie which was based on Michael Crichton’s works, he also wrote Jurassic Park which was count in his great hits. Congo movie betrays the playful attack on stereotypical; covering the gender and race roles which show the racist/sexist in 1930s-1940s. Anyhow, the movie had great influence over the one who is locked with love of apes and believes that they also have equal rights as human. The evaluation is that movie is not praise-worthy and has …show more content…

But in contrast Ebert concludes “Since it is impossible to imagine this material being played for anything but laughs, maybe he should be grateful”. Both of claims interface on the substance where some acts was inappropriate but as Travers concludes rightly that on some stages it wasn’t making scene. On the other hand, Ebert concludes took it as in laugh way but movie doesn’t have guts to make their audience laugh that’s how it doesn’t supports his …show more content…

It’s a nifty gimmick, especially when Amy –in her 8 years old girl voice-orders a martini as fortification for her flight to Africa.
Mostly everyone know under ape costume there is an human is knows how to act which job was done smoothly, but it doesn’t make sense that showing an ape which easily get into every atmosphere as well reply to everyone and smoking and flying the plane sounds awkward. In result to make it funny they should go in-depth and use some funny dialogue. Congo is a parody movie but wasn’t granted as a parody; they make the fun of sexist and racist and let us know how it works in 1930s and in 1940s. This idea is not taken as in funny way which makes movie towards failure; they also failed to make their audience laugh because they were way behind to go in depth while it was concern as a mocking movie. This movie concludes the idea of Ebert, Berardinelli, and Travers claims where they were trustworthy and supported their position correctly. Overall the movie was not funny but was adventurous and sums up as not a praise-worthy, some clip and content in the movie was tally as insignificant with

Open Document