User reviews

Congorama is a complicated, gemütlich comedy by a Canadian filmmaker about an eccentric Belgian engineer. "You're number one when it comes to modernizing facilities," a supervisor tells the film's eccentric protagonist, Michel Roy (Olivier Gourmet), "but inventing isn't your cup of tea." Michel goes in search of his origins. Where does he come from, and where does he belong? One perceptive viewer suggested this is a metaphor for the Quebecois of Canada, who don't resemble the Anglos any more than little Jules resembles Michel.

Michel lives with Jules, his son, a cute little Congolese boy (Arnaud Mouithys), and his Congolese wife, Alice (Claudia Tagbo). He takes his papà, Hervé (the late Jean-Pierre Cassel), paralyzed from a stroke, around with him. From a packet of papers Hervé gives him, Michel learns he isn't Hervé's son and he isn't Belgian. He was adopted in Canada, and his birth parents are unknown. He goes to find them.

In Quebec, an old lady tells him his birth parents were named Legrand, but in the town he finds only Legros. He eats some bad French fries (Belgium is famous for its fries--not Quebec) from a stand, "Legros Hot Dog." Michel spends time with a minister, then gets a ride with a man named Louis Legros (Paul Ahmarani) and dodging an emu they have an accident in Louis' car and Louis ends up in a permanent coma. This begins a flashback about Louis, whose father also turns out to have been an inventor, perhaps a more important one; and there are curious direct, or nearly direct, intersections with Michel's life, including links with the Congo. Events take us back to the Brussels World Fair of 1958. Ir's there that the Congorama was to be found: an exhibition where Louis was born. It's also the name Michel gives to his electric car in honor of his wife. And the name of a book Hervé has written, illustrated by Jules.

Congorama is a droll, offbeat kind of Iñárritu film, jumping back and forth between past and present, slipping by odd moments when lives and paths collide. People think of Iñárritu or Tarantino, because they think only of films. Somehow this seems on the whole a more literary than cinematic narrative; it might work very well as a novel. It takes a while to get going, but it's quite ingenious. Its way of tying things together gives one a feeling of satisfaction at the end, like finishing a puzzle, but a puzzle full of humanity and humor, leaving behind rich material to ponder.

Shown as part of the San Francisco International Film Festival 2007.

My husband and I saw this film at the Cleveland International Film Festival. I originally wanted to see another movie since the description of Congorama didn't interest me. But we ended up compromising on this one and it was a great choice. It really surprised me because it wasn't just about his inventions, but his mid-life identity crisis- due to the fact that he discovers he was adopted. This film is definitely worth the ticket price. I really enjoyed the unique story and the subtle twists in plot. This movie was written well. It left just enough questions for my husband and I to talk about Congorama the whole way home. There are a couple funny points in the film, especially with the main character "stuck in a rut." I believe that Olivier Gourmet did a great job of playing Michel, the inventor/engineer who just can't get a break. Sitting in the theater, I genuinely felt like I knew him from watching his story unfold. His inventions were actually decent... Who wouldn't want a solar-powered "Turtle Trotter" lawn mower? I'd buy it!

Congorama has the charm and right quirk supported by a well-casted lead (reminiscent of the lead from Canada's Corner Gas sitcom) and supporting cast of characters. Warm and inviting for the first 75mins, and the coincidence of things though somewhat contrived could be easily absorbed …. then that unnecessary Hollywood twist at that point just brings the movie down to the land of ordinary badly done contrivance, wholly unconvincing, implausible and tacky.

What's the twist? Stolen inventions - absurdly at that, diamond in the eye, the nemesis appearing out of the blue, explosion of family secrets, pointless generosity, overly melodramatic birthmark connections (can birthmarks even be inherited over a skipped generation??) …. what a letdown!

The director needs to know his movie would have been very much good enough without having to resort to such cheap Hollywood contrivances.

But would still recommend the movie for its first 75mins. Would have given it a 9 if not for that last 30mins of Hollywood a-la crap.

As an English speaking Canadian, I have experienced first hand the divide between Anglophone and Francophone Canadians. I understood it as cultural insulation as opposed to the true connection between Quebec and rest of the french speaking world. This delightful tale of a down and out Belgian inventor and quest to find out where he comes from, is a strong allegory for Quebec and the rest of us. The acting is subtle, the characters are rich and interesting and it avoids so many clichés that would be easy to fall into. The main character is so real that his longing and personal angst creates a pervasive melancholy to the film. The pace was a bit slow for my partner and I found that this only added to the movie. What I found most interesting was this search for identify motif that Philippe Falardeau so expertly weaves throughout the film. Whether it is the Congoese, Quebecois, adopted or anyone of us. When Jules, his black son, asks Michel(a dumpy white Belgian) "what did I get from you?", Michel is stuck to respond. Looking at his adoptive father, Michel says they all have the same nose. Don't we all.

A good movie, with a lot of referrals to the the rest of the story, but the first part is too slow. Maybe because too many items have to be brought in scene, maybe on purpose. In fact, the entire movie is a bit slow for the "more experienced" viewer, that I consider myself to be. Some scenes also might be too foreseeable for them. But : the theme is universal and the storyline is great. The director uses a specific movie language. It is somewhat surprising that this is done in Belgium and not the United States. But on the other hand, if this movie is seen by someone from the Hollywood scene, there might be an American remake. Go check out the original I'd say !

I cannot for my life imagine why this movie was made. The story is both improbable and prosaic, as well as confusingly ill-told. The main characters are unappealing, though some of the supporting characters, and their relations to the protagonist, have a life of their own - they appear to be visiting from another and much better movie. The tone is uneasy and inconsistent, varying from slice-of-life to tragedy to melodrama to (very briefly) absurdist farce. The trailer that I saw was as misleading as it could possibly be, promising farce, while the movie is very bland and matter-of-fact. The last scene of the movie (I don't think this is a spoiler) shows the protagonist (there ought to be a short word, when you cannot bring yourself to say 'hero') driving a car in front of the phoniest back-projection landscape I have ever seen. The landscape is Africa - presumably the Congo - dragged in by the heels to justify the title. Are the Belgians still guilty about the Congo?