Greystoke: la leyenda de Tarzán, el rey de los simios

Having seen numerous Tarzan movies over the years, I consider Greystoke, one of the best, if not the best. It played with all emotions. Christopher Lambert's portrayal of Tarzan was excellent. I have never read Borough's book, but this adaptation must, in the least, put any Tarzan movie that Johnny Weismueller or Lex Barker played in to shame. I have seen this movie at least 5 times and would watch it again and again.

What a masterpiece! Filmed in Cameroon, with stuntspeople, gymnasts, and circus performers in ridiculously lifelike ape suits, Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes is a beautiful, sentimental drama that shows the differences and similarities between civilization and the animal kingdom.

This two-and-a-half hour epic from director Hugh Hudson starts before the titular character's birth. His parents, nobles from England, get shipwrecked along the African coast, and while they survive long enough to build a treehouse, write a diary, and have a child, the die shortly after the baby's birth. Coincidentally, a female ape has just lost her baby, and when she sees the abandoned human infant, her mothering instincts kick in. All the deaths are pretty violent and graphic, so you'll want to stick to the cartoon for the kiddies, but it is a very interesting backstory to see the transition from a proper English castle to the wilderness.

All the actors who play Tarzan, Danny Potts, Eric Langlois, and finally Christopher Lambert, are pitch-perfect in their performances. I don't know how they managed to get through their scenes without laughing, but perhaps they got all their giggles out during rehearsal. All three have an enormous amount of physical acting to do, from vine-swinging to tree climbing to lifting, throwing, and fighting. All three have to pretend they're hairless apes, imitating the use of their limbs, their posture, the different tones and noises of their language, and their facial expressions. Accomplishing all that, without laughing and without making the audience laugh, is quite a feat. Christopher Lambert has to add in an entire transformation to his performance of learning how to speak and act like a civilized person, which, to his character, is a completely different species.

Ian Holm, a Belgian zoologist, also gets shipwrecked in the same wilderness, and while he nearly dies, he meets up with Christopher Lambert, who saves his life. In turn, he teaches him the ways of being a human. The greatest flaw of the movie is Chris's lack of a beard after living his entire life in the jungle. When Ian teaches him his first word, "razor," then shaves him, there's nothing to shave! Besides that, the rest of the movie is very good. Ian's performance is so convincing, if I'd never seen him before, I would have thought his French accent was real! Ironically, if you keep your eyes open, you'll get to see David Suchet, famous for his portrayal of Belgian detective Hercule Poirot, in a couple of scenes with Ian in the first half of the movie.

Andie MacDowell made her film debut in Greystoke as Jane, but all her lines were tragically dubbed over by Glenn Close, so it'll seem a little jarring to watch the famously Southern Andie speaking in a British accent. Even though the first portion of the film is very close to the original novel, the plot differs during the second half. Christophe returns to England to meet Andie, rather than meeting her while she's on safari in the jungle, as in the classic "Me Tarzan, you Jane" scene. In the novel, Jane is supposed to be a Southern American, but the director felt that dialect wouldn't fit with the rest of the movie. Andie may not sound like herself, but she certainly looks like herself. She's positively gorgeous, and she gets to wear some beautiful gowns!

All in all, this is a very good movie. You might need your Kleenexes, because parts of it are pretty sad from an animal lover's perspective and a sociologist's perspective. You'll be treated to beautiful scenery, both indoor and outdoor, wonderful performances, and Ralph Richardson's final film. Check this out if you like the Tarzan story and want to see a lush, dramatic adaptation.

DLM Warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie might not be your friend. There are a few aerial camera swirls in the jungle and it will make you sick. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!"

Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to violence, nudity, and upsetting scenes involving animals and children, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

Greystoke stays close to the first Tarzan novel which makes for a striking contrast between this film and earlier Tarzan flicks.

'Christophe' sticks to his French accent for most of this film, which is a relief as he concentrates on his acting and, for the most part, gets it spot on. His reversion to ape behaviour in moments of emotional stress is funny and touching. Ralph Richardson's potrayal of the Sixth Earl is full of humour and subtlety, only to be expected from a master of the art. Ian Holm, again, a masterful performance. They put Andie MacDowell to shame.

The first half is mainly in the jungle and is fascinating to watch. A huge amount of research about ape behaviour is put to entertaining use. It comes to a close when some amusingly nasty English explorers and a disdainful Belgian appear in the jungle. The second half, when Johnny (Lambert) is introduced to Victorian society touches on what it means to be 'civilized'. He meets his grandfather and is expected to take his place in society but then discovers what society is like.

A great adaptation and an entertaining film.

Probably the most serious and realistic adaptation of Tarzan I've seen. The first act is great. The harshness and grittiness in the tone was a great way to set the mood. The second half is good and has some better moments, but it doesn't hold up as well as the first half and leaves the film a little anticlimactic.

The development and exploration of John/Tarzan's character is well thought out and the performance was really believable. Ian Holm is fantastic in the film as his friend and the journey they make together should have been explored more. Going into the film i expected to see a film where Tarzan defends his animal friends from evil humans in the jungle, but I got a very grounded and simple film about a man trying to adapt into a life he naturally wasn't raised for. The duality and having to choose between the two lives is an interesting concept, but it leaves it unresolved in my opinion.

There are some very dramatic and sad moments here too. The bond between the apes and the man is felt more than the bond between humans sometimes. The apes have their cheesy moments, but there's also really strong and emotional moments too. The detail in the costumes switches around a bit. The best compliment to the ape costumes I can give is that the eyes where done so well that I actually thought those were real ape ayes.

There are even some scenes that deal with the human beings desire to kill and rip apart other animals, like dissecting, hunting and chaining them up. Seeing those things from Tarzan's perspective was a bit haunting and heartbreaking and you feel the conflict.

Some great performances, great first half, gritty & grounded moments are all strong points, but it loses steam in the second half and drags on a bit for too long and leaves you feeling unresolved. The film also lacked more tension and intensity towards the end which would have picked the whole thing up and made up for the calmer moments. I like calmer films, but it really builds up to something exciting to happen, and it never does.

Still, it's probably the best adaptation of Tarzan I've seen and the one who truly makes you feel the tragedy of this truly sad and haunting tale. It ain't as light as you might expect.

SPOILERS Edgar Rice Burroughs's famous character was adapted thousand of times for the screen til one's thirst is quenched, notably during the thirties and the forties by Hollywood. Its productors made Tarzan one of the most successful cinema characters. Several years later, Hugh Hudson decided to make a more ambitious version of the monkey-man and it's a more natural, more wild and more down-to-earth Tarzan that he gives away here. Hudson skilfully avoids the clichés that you usually grant to Tarzan such as his famous scream or his friendly pet, Cheetah. Not only, are we far from the designed and invented character made by Hollwood but we are also far from the film set used to make his stories. The movie was partly made in Africa (more precisely in Cameroon). The movie introduces two obvious parts: the first one which takes place in the jungle where Tarzan lives among his adoptive friends, the apes and considers himself as their lord. But he ignores his real origins. The second one in England where Tarzan discovers the English society. Ian Holm epitomizes the link between the two parts and Hudson avoids all that could make the movie falls into the ridiculous thanks to a clever screenplay. Indeed, Holm teaches Lambert basic rules of manners so as to behave correctly in the English society and the result works. Moreover, in the second part, no-one ever laughs at Tarzan and he's even really appreciated. As far as the end is concerned well it's a both bitter and happy end. Happy because Tarzan comes back to the jungle and meets again his adoptive close relatives. But bitter too, because this homecoming means that the Greystoke line won't be ensured and is condemned to disappear... Christophe Lambert finds here, his first (and last?) great role. Sadly, he'll never equal the achievement of his performance in this movie and he'll play in poor and insipide action movies. Nevertheless, as I said previously, a clever screenplay, a performance of a rare quality, some impressive natural sceneries (both the jungle and the English country and we get a gorgeous movie. It's also an excellent rereading from a popular novel. So why is it only rated barely (6/10)?