Is Congo really as bad as everyone is saying?

Is Congo really as bad as everyone is saying?

Attached: michael-crichton.jpg (700x700, 189K)

...

What about Disclosure bros?

What's with all the Crichton posting the last few weeks? Some Zoomer YouTuber start mentioning him?

I've masturbated a lot to that scene, but never actually watched the whole movie.

Attached: image1_temp-735.jpg (1918x800, 129K)

Books excellent. Movie’s cheesy good fun. Great performances even from all the side characters.

Based Tim Curry

Based Bruce Campbell

Lazor cutting evil gorillas in half

Based evil gory gorilla kills

African tribal soundtrack kino

Based Great White Hunter whom is black

Amy Good Gorilla

Attached: FFB2778A-B057-4C5B-91F4-AADEB5DA71D9.gif (375x211, 2.86M)

book was legitimately good, but the movie was made without any involvement from Crichton and didn't have much in common with the book at all, and it was awful. Ernie Hudson and Tim Curry were alright in it at least but everything else especially the "gorillas" were just horrible

>Based Bruce Campbell
he's in the movie for like two minutes

I've never read the book, but the movie is ok. As a kid, it genuinely terrified me. The gorillas were the scariest thing in the world to me. As an adult, I still think they're effectively creepy and cool but the movie doesn't hold up that well. Entertaining, but nothing special. Jurassic Park is his best book by far and the only one to get a genuinely great film adaptation.

I read sphere when I was in third grade and it made me the /sffg/fag I am today, along with Magician: Apprentice

And you're gonna try and tell me its not better for it? Is that what you're fuckin’ implying, eh?! EH?! I’ll fuck you up, mate!

The book was okay from what I remember. The thing is, I remember Crichton building up the characters very well, then the big adventure goes nowhere. They don't really gain or learn or discover anything
The movie had that retarded gimmick of the talking gorilla (in the book she just used sign language) which made it terrible.

Yes

based

I think schools these days have the zoomers read Crichton books

congo is pretty fucking bad, borderline unwatchable bad. theres still some fun, corny 90s cheese, but overall not worth watching imo.
i used to be scared of the evil monkeys though

They had to have a device that registered and spoke for Amy’s sign language. I found it an ingenious solution from the studio/creator of the film. It was practical and something that can be done today for people woh sign language.

You think having her just sign the entire film with scientist man translating everything would have translated well to film? It would take up more screen time pointlessly.

Legit people with shitty taste that have no fun and enjoy Snyder Capeshit

Attached: 897EEAC7-2DCF-4402-BE6F-90ED39A5C9C2.gif (356x260, 2.28M)

Youre a complete retard if you think congo isnt a shit movie

>Read Congo
>Get to the end

>Hey, we found the diamonds that will make supercomputers and got out and can tell people
>Zoologist lets hand talky gorilla explode the mountain losing the diamonds forever

I don't get it.

crichton is known for that kind of shit, he's the kind of dude who'll have his lead character win the lottery at the end only for the ticket to be tainted with a flesh eating disease

the lady scientist ruined it by setting off explosives next to an erupting volcano, not the gorilla

No it's worse.

>state of fear
Based. Also it predicted exactly what happened in Brazil. NGOs starting fires while a climate conference is occurring somewhere else in the world.

STAHP EATING MUH SESAME CAEK!

Attached: tim curry congo.gif (485x273, 2.92M)

> JP cover.
> Rawr.
lol

Back in 2202-2003, Bruce Campbell personally apologized to me for the movie, so yes.

The book is actually pretty good. One of his best. The movie, on the other hand, is pure fucking epileptic madness.

>2202

based time traveler user

Sorry, trying to type while stroking it to those Disclosure titties