The Legend of Tarzan
Out Now On-Demand
Alexander Skarsgård (True Blood) is chest-thumping icon Tarzan in this adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs' classic tale from filmmaker David Yates (who directed the last four Harry Potter films). Co-stars Oscar-winner Christoph Waltz, Samuel L. Jackson, and Margot Robbie (The Wolf of Wall Street) as Jane.
It has been years since Tarzan left the jungles of Africa for a gentrified life as John Clayton III, Lord Greystoke, with his beloved wife, Jane at his side. Now, he has been invited back to the Congo to serve as a trade emissary of Parliament, unaware that he is a pawn in a deadly convergence of greed and revenge, masterminded by Captain Leon Rom (Waltz). But those behind the murderous plot have no idea what they are about to unleash.
Rating: M Violence
It’s not an altogether unfamiliar experience to come out of a film thinking “what the hell did I just watch?” That’s largely the realm of film festival or arthouse selections, though, or the result of external factors - illness, fatigue, poor dietary decisions. Not so often does it apply to presumptive blockbusters, of which The Legend of Tarzan most assuredly is one, while at the same time being a confusing pile of sight and sound.
The film wisely foregoes being a simple origin story (excepting extensive flashbacks), as well as dodging modern reinterpretation (set towards the end of the 19th century, where distant corners of the world still enjoyed mystery - and the presence of endangered species). In fact, it's largely a chase pic, though Mad Max: Fury Road this ain't.
There's not much storytelling meat on Tarzan’s bones. Just on Alexander Skarsgård’s torso. And arms. And etc. Hopefully that will be enough for some.
Aside from leering at Tarzan’s physique, there’s enjoyment to be found in the supporting performances around him, but as with everything about the film, this is tempered with problems. Samuel L. Jackson crackles as his sidekick, providing excellent comic relief and dramatic gravitas - but nothing ends up being made of his African-American Civil War veteran status.
Likewise, Margot Robbie’s a fine enough Jane, but spends most of her time in damsel-in-distress mode. By the time she joins enamoured villain (and her kidnapper) Léon Rom (Christoph Waltz) for dinner, I found myself wondering if nothing had really changed for female love interests in the 25 years since Marion and Belloq (with whom Rom may even share a hatmaker) had a similar drink together in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Confusing action sequences, ropy CGI animals and landscapes further hinder proceedings, even while director David Yates shows he has the odd nifty stylistic idea. Lacking in spectacle overall, light on adventure, and weakly written, it’s hard to see how we’re supposed to consider this legendary viewing.
Time Out London
Rolling Stone (USA)
Los Angeles Times
New York Times
NZ Herald (Alex Casey)
Stuff.co.nz (Graeme Tuckett)
Strangely this movie kept my attention for longer than I expected it would. It's an ok watch. Plus it has Samuel L Jackson.
Swing like an Earl
Everyone knows this story right? So why the next level reboot, again? Hmmm, who knows, but its dam good. So awesome to see that guy from ‘True Blood’ as Lord Greystoke and that awesome dude from bounty hunter from ‘Django Unchained’. The film itself was like a wonderful emotional mix of ‘King Kong’ (2005 Peter Jackson version), ‘Blood Diamond’ and 'Jurassic World’. Truly a great film but nothing really new, only the characters are more vocal about the norm of what we as the audience as seeing and thinking. I felt that helped put me in the film a tad more than the last few reboots.
Genre : adventure, fantasy, drama
3/5 : Not quite the Disney family version I remember as a kid, but really good gorilla fight scenes & the body on this guy!!
GOOD... BUT NOT EPIC!
Which is what this Tarzan needed to be. A little more tension and pacing. A touch of Indiana Jones or the Mummy, just to kick it along. The problem with Tarzan - apart from his 104 year old pulp origins and less than PC attitudes on the part of his creator, Burroughs - is that it's hard to know what approach to take with him. Full on pulp craziness or arthouse eco-conscious, post colonialist earnestness? This movie has opted mainly for the latter with a touch of action. It's difficult, though not impossible, to effect a decent marriage of the two. This version is better than most critics would have us believe. Some overseas critics seem to have based their reviews entirely on the trailers - there's no indication at all that they've actually sat through the entire film.
I've just seen the movie. Wasn't sure what to expect but was pleasantly surprised. I found it intelligent and enjoyable. Wish they hadn't resorted to the Weismuller warble - I burst out laughing when that came echoing through the trees! But the story was solid enough and keeping it in the 19th century was a smart move - the only move, really. No, it wasn't a groundbreaking film by any definition of cinema, but it was an entertaining 100 plus minutes that didn't insult one's intelligence and that has to be a good thing.
I would love to see a balls-out pulp-insane version of Tarzan one day, though, with Opar as it was originally conceived by Burroughs - with a half naked insane, sexually rapacious queen surrounded by hordes of neanderthal-like servants guarding a stash of ancient Roman gold in the grounds of a ruined palace. Along with nasty Russian/German mercenaries out to get everything they can. Directed by some crazed auteur from Korea or Japan!
Enough to upset all the PC film critics... The Legend of Tarzan needs to be epic, but until then, this one will do just fine for me.