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

After 50 years of Tarzan movies, Greystoke was really the first proper version of the story to get made.

Gone was the fighting crocodiles and baddies and the epic 'call' (if I could spell it I would!) in the forest, replacing it was an, essentially, mentally affected child/boy/man who was left in the forest to scavenge an existence.

They then traumatise the boy/man more by taking him out of the only environment he is familiar with to become an amusement for the upper class.

Its presented as a tale of woe and wonder and romance.

This movie has a soul.

I, unlike a lot of you unkind movie reviewers, actually liked the movie. The movie was slow? That it wasn't. If it was, I would have sent it back to Amazon.Com. All of Tarzan's actions in the movie HAD to take place. Like the love scene. You'd be stupid to think that Tarzan would turn into a Romeo and just make love to Jane..duh..he's half ape peoples! If you're in the mood for a beautiful movie, don't listen to the no-brainers, see it, you'll love Greystoke! I first saw it in Theaters when I was 11, and I loved it then & I still love it now. All the actors in the movie did a great job..the jungle scenes are beautiful, and the original score is a masterpiece. 9 out of 10

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)?

GREYSTOKE: THE LEGEND OF TARZAN, LORD OF THE APES (1984) ***1/2 Christopher Lambert, Ian Holm, Ralph Richardson, James Fox, Andie McDowall. Incredibly realized adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs' classic tale of an orphaned infant raised by apes in the deepest darkest jungles of Northern Africa that eschews the old Johnny Weissmuller route ("Me Tarzan, You Jane") and instead captures the essence of the story of the man who would be the next Earl of Greystoke Estate of Scotland who cannot escape the upbringing by primates no matter how hard established (and snobbish) society dictates what is proper. Exquisitely breathtaking cinematography by John Alcott and make up artist/genius Rick Baker's ape creations are indeed a wonder to behold (the apes are the most empathetic I believe since his "King Kong" sympathetic figure). Richardson (in his last screen role) received a Best Supporting Actor nomination as the grandfather of John Clayton (Tarzan), gives a memorable performance. McDowall in her screen debut has her voice dubbed by Glenn Close thanks to director Hugh Hudson's supposed distaste for her unmistakably anachoristic Southern accent (as well as his rewrite of screenwriter Robert Towne's script that promptly led to Towne removing his moniker for the pseudonym of P.H. Vazak, which incidently is the name of his pet sheepdog(!) )

Once you get past the first notion of the unlikeliness of the actual events in the story, you'll enjoy this film a lot more. I have seen this movie several times, and still enjoy it. Although i find Christopher Lambert a mediocre actor in most of his films, i feel that he shines here (a good idea to let him speak in his native French accent, cleverly written into the script by means of the Belgian explorer who finds him)instead of making him put on a bizarre accent, and it works well. Ian Holm and Ralph Richardson are fantastic and moving, but McDowell spoils it again and most of her scenes are irritating to watch. Some of this movie was actually quite upsetting (the taxidermy labs and the scene where the ape/father is shot) but very well done. The scenery is fantastic, and the musical score is brilliant and stirring. Great make-up effects for its day. This movie is well worth watching, give it a try, you might be pleasantly surprised!