In this sequel to the 1980 classic, two children are stranded on a beautiful island in the South Pacific. With no adults to guide them, the two make a simple life together and eventually become tanned teenagers in love.
In 1933 New York, an overly ambitious movie producer coerces his cast and hired ship crew to travel to mysterious Skull Island, where they encounter Kong, a giant ape who is immediately smitten with leading lady Ann Darrow.
A shipping disaster in the 19th Century has stranded a man and woman in the wilds of Africa. The lady is pregnant, and gives birth to a son in their tree house. Soon after, a family of apes... See full summary »
An adaptation of Rudyard Kipling's classic tale of Mowgli the jungle boy who is raised by wolves after being lost when a tiger attacked an encampment and killed his father. Years later he ... See full summary »
In the Victorian period, two children are shipwrecked on a tropical island in the South Pacific. With no adults to guide them, the two make a simple life together, unaware that sexual maturity will eventually intervene.
An eccentric scientist working for a large drug company is working on a research project in the Amazon jungle. He sends for a research assistant and a gas chromatograph because he's close to a cure for cancer. When the assistant turns out to be a "mere woman," he rejects her help. Meanwhile the bulldozers get closer to the area in which they are conducting research, and they eventually learn to work together, and begin falling in love. Written by
Ed Sutton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sean Connery's hairstyle in this movie was based upon composer Jerry Goldsmith's well-known ponytail. Meeting the composer at a cocktail party, Connery started the conversation by saying, "I want your hair." Goldsmith replied, "You can't have it, it's mine." Connery, and even the film's producers themselves, felt Goldsmith's "pulled back ponytail" fit the character of Robert Campbell very well. See more »
When Bronx and Campbell are up in the canopy on harnesses, in some shots they are shown supported by small flat wooden seats as part of their harness rigging and in other shots the seats aren't there and they are just supported by harness rigging around their upper thighs, yet the action is supposed to be continuous and there is no time for any sort of rigging changes to explain this. See more »
Dr. Robert Campbell:
[Campbell and Rae are around a campfire, Rae is taking heavy swigs of the contents of Campbell's jug]
Careful, that's peach Pernod, huh?
Dr. Rae Crane:
[tries to stand up, and then sits down clumsily, very drunk]
Why, I'm not driving!
Dr. Robert Campbell:
Or walking, apparently.
Dr. Rae Crane:
. Wooo! No wonder you like this stuff!
[...] See more »
When this movie came out in 1992, many critics seemed to feel that it was mediocre, or average at best. Even as a hardcore Connery fan I avoided the film simply based on a handful of reviews I had read in the media at the time.
Fast forward nearly ten years and the mixed reviews here on imdb reinforced my apathy towards the film. It wasn't until I borrowed a copy through a local library that I finally watched the movie just now, and I fail to see why it's supposedly not up to par. I thought it was a fine film in most respects: the storytelling was good, the dialogue was snappy, the cinematography was wonderful, and it had a positive message. It's not an action movie, but I never felt bored at all...if anything, it was a refreshing change of pace and scenery, and Sean Connery continues to astound me with his versatility. His acting was superb, which is not really a big suprise, but he seemed more into this role than some others I've seen him in. Even the wig and ponytail looked real!
Like a lot of other people, I found Lorraine Bracco's character quite annoying, almost insufferable at certain points, but that's the whole point: her character is supposed to be like that, and the truth is that if she didn't come across as so irritating then that would have been failed acting skills on her part. I think she did a great job at being annoying, which is what she was supposed to do. I imagine that if you took some ivy league lab rat scholar and dumped them right in the middle of a situation and place that's totally foreign to them, you'd probably get a reaction like the one she portrayed. I found the two leads had a good chemistry, and the constant tension and conflict between them was very convincing and helped to propel the story along.
All in all an enjoyable film, but some of the other aspects could have and should have been expanded. I felt that they spent too much time searching the trees for the plant they needed, and the whole conflict with the developers was thrown in at too late a juncture. These aren't major failings however, so I'd recommend the film to anyone looking for something a bit different, and it's a must for any Connery fan. Don't wait ten years to see it simply because some critics didn't think it was a masterpiece. Screw the critics!
36 of 39 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?