द लेजेंड ऑफ टार्ज़न

(RATING: ☆☆☆½ out of 5)

THIS FILM IS RECOMMENDED.

IN BRIEF: A conventional approach to the Tarzan story which swings back and forth, without getting anywhere.

GRADE: B-

SYNOPSIS: The story of a little boy who goes ape.

JIM'S REVIEW: There have been many incarnations of the Tarzan legend, starting with Edgar Rice Burroughs original 1914 novel, Tarzan of the Apes. Our ape man has appeared in magazines, novels, comic books, movies, radio, cartoons, and television shows, all with varying degrees of success. Various actors have filled his loincloth, from the most famous actor in this role, Johnny Weissmuller in the 1940's, to Gordon Scott in the 1950's and Ron Ely taking hold of those vine reins in the mid 60's. His legend lives on once again in this modern day re-boot, The Legend of Tarzan, with Alexander Skarsgård as our muscle-toned hero.

The story adheres to its source and follows the basic outline of Burrough's novel. Told in flashbacks, we learn of an infant left in the jungle without parents and adopted by the great apes. Tarzan, now John Clayton III, Lord Greystoke, lived and thrives in his tropical environs until he was rescued and returned to England. Having difficulty readjusting to British society, he finds a comrade in the beautiful Jane Porter (a beguiling Margot Robbie). Upon his return to his childhood home in the Congo, Greystoke (a.k.a. Tarzan) discovers man's cruelty in the form of Belgian huntsman, Leon Rom (a typecast Christoph Waltz, playing, what else, but the villain). Whereupon Tarzan must takes sides to protect his adopted tribe of primates and protect his homeland.

Mr. Skarsgård plays Tarzan as an eloquent victim, more at home with his hairy friends than his human species. No "Me Tarzan, you Jane" monosyllabic banter here, and no loincloth either. This Tarzan mixes the physicality and brutishness of Stanley Kowalski with the sophistication and aplomb of a true noble gentleman, no small feat. If only the film matched his interpretation also.

The Legend of Tarzan is all too proper and seriously-minded which cuts down on the fun and adventure. David Yates directs his film solidly, keeping the action moving. Yet the production design by Stuart Craig seems too well-crafted for its own good, nothing out of place. It lacks authenticity in its detailing. This man-made jungle is just too pristine, so clean and sanitized just like its story. (When the vines look suspiciously like greenish rubber tubes and the cragged rocks like painted styrofoam, something is a bit off.) The special effects aren't that special either. Except for the primates, most of the animal kingdom is obviously the results of CGI, effective but slightly unreal and unsatisfying.

On the plus side, the fluid camera-work by Henry Braham has an acrobatic energy, especially as Tarzan travels from vine to vine, the best part of the cinematic experience. Mark Day's fine editing enhances the effect. The panoramic vistas help to give the film a sense of epic adventure, even if the adventures we witness never attain the grandeur of other epic film tales due to its script.

The narrative structure swings from its more interesting backstories (Tarzan's early life and upbringing, his adaptation to his aristocratic England, Jane's personal journey) which are only hinted, to the standard main story dealing with The Great White Hunter's poaching of ivory, diamonds, and the slave trade...granted all important subjects, but the treatment is painted in the most black and white terms with the widest of brushstrokes. That's the problem...there are no grey stokes in this Greystoke's version.

None of the characters are remotely real or believable, but the roles are well cast. There is a nice chemistry between the two leads, although their beauty reminds us too often of an Abercrombie and Fitch ad. Both are gorgeous human specimens who fortunately can act, even if the dialog that they are given by screenwriters Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer, is banal and stilted.

Given strong support is Samuel L. Jackson as the real life George Washington Williams, a political activist and do-gooder, but his character, as written, speaks in anachronistic modern day jargon. Still the actor brings much needed bravado and is amusing in his role. Djimon Hounsou as the avenging chief does some effective underplaying when Mr. Waltz again overplays the menace angle. However he does bring some interesting human quirks to the part. (Nice moment with the silverware arrangement, Christoph.)

All in all, the initial story line remains intriguing, the action sequences entertain, and Mr. S. makes an awesome impression, all swagger, six-pack, and sensitivity in a tight delightful manly package, although his fluent English language skills are never addressed.

This Tarzan has its flaws, but it does keep the legend intact, until the next chapter.

Visit my blog at: www.dearmoviegoer.com

ANY COMMENTS: Please contact me at: jadepietro@rcn.com

The story of Tarzan has been known for decades, the movie tries to capitalize this in expectation that audience will follow its two timelines and many branching subplots. Unfortunately, the admittedly nice view is encumbered by myriad of issues, contrasting tones and shallow social and political showing. It becomes an overly familiar sighting that barely presents the characters above their stereotypical roles.

Tarzan or John (Alexander Skarsgård) returns to Africa after reclaiming his birthright, a conflicting homecoming as he deals with slavery and conspiracy. The story plays after the events of his origin, and the past is retold with several flashbacks. This different path is a welcomed change and surprisingly the little touch on these scenes are effective in setting his character. Alexander Skarsgård also looks the part for the brawny slightly beastly protagonist from his speech and mannerism.

The problem is Tarzan and both his foes and allies are entirely predictable. Christoph Waltz as Leon Rom is almost identical to his other villain roles, down to the creepy table exchanges and only differs in attires. Margot Robbie is the new Jane, an attempt for more spunky and powerful female, but she's trapped in usual pretty damsel in distress role, which ironically the movie points out hoping for the opposite effect.

Samuel L. Jackson performs as the sidekick William, also a vehicle for audience as he's new to the jungle. Expect the same charmingly brash Samuel here. Humor is relatively decent for light adventure, mainly In Samuel's expense, but the delivery is implemented in wrong way, thus it sometimes ruins the supposed intense atmosphere or just misses completely. It wants to have strong characters, social backdrop and occasional light comedy, although it throws them together, even in the same span of five minutes, more often than not it is not effective.

For the exotic location, it does showcase some good cinematography. However, it doesn't take off as the focus on CG affects the authenticity. When the movie gives an organic camera angle or rapid motion, it eventually turns in CG fest. There's attempt to mask this with flash editing, not only that it doesn't work this rustic camera cut negates any impact on the action scene.

A fairly nice trek muddled by disjointed narrative and clash in styles. With too much reliance in shallow gimmicks and abundance of CG, the beautiful scenery reverts back into bland predictable safari.

"The Legend of Tarzan" (2016) stars Alexander Skarsgårda as John Clayton (Tarzan), Margot Robbie as Jane and Samuel L. Jackson as Tarzan's American friend. The events take place a decade after Tarzan & Jane leave Africa for England with brief flashbacks to the ape man's origins. Christoph Waltz co-stars as the villain, Rom, who enslaves blacks in the Congo to mine the diamonds of Opar. Tarzan, Jane and Willliams (Jackson) aim to set things aright.

"Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes" (1984) was the best modern Tarzan movie, and one of my favorites despite a somewhat lethargic second half (and an irritating overuse of the "Ooo, ooo, ooo"ape vocalization, which this movie thankfully only does once). Unfortunately, they dropped the ball with the sequel, 1998's "Tarzan and the Lost City" with Casper Van Dien in the title role, as it was half-baked, a quickly-thrown-together "sequel" to presumably steal some of the thunder of Disney's animated version that was coming out the next year.

This one comes across as the true sequel to "Greystoke," albeit with an altogether different cast and understandably so, seeing as how it's 32 years later. The portrayal of the lost city of Opar is different from the books. There's no ravishing High Priestess La (a blonde white female) or ape-like denizens. The Oparians in the movie are just an intimidating black tribe covered with white body paint, but this is no big letdown because changes are to be expected when transferring to a different medium and, besides, Opar doesn't play that big of a role, at least not the city itself.

In any case, I found this to be a solid Tarzan flick with a serious adult tone mixing drama, jungle adventure and unbelievable action. I was thankful for the thoughtful lulls in the story, which shed insights on the characters or conveyed the wonders of nature, like when Tarzan communes with an elephant at night or when Williams honestly confesses about his past mistakes as a youth where he feels he's not so different from the odious Rom. Moreover, Margot expertly brings Jane to life and is easily one of the better Janes in the movies. The CGI animals are great, especially the powerhouse apes.

The film runs 1 hour, 50 minutes, and was shot, believe it or not, in England with aerial shots done in Gabon (West of the Congo).

GRADE: B.

I recently read (or re-read) about twenty of the original Tarzan books. I always wondered why we never saw a Tarzan movie that portrayed the character as he was written in the books.

In the books, the adult Tarzan was very well educated and spoke several languages, but in the movies he hardly knew any English and rarely spoke in complete sentences. In The Legend of Tarzan, Alexander Skarsgård plays the character much like I imagined him when I read the books. Tarzan's command of language is competent, and his interaction with other people is never awkward or stilted as it had been in earlier movies.

Some changes from the books that The Legend of Tarzan makes is the way Tarzan communicates with animals. Instead of using words (as in the books), Tarzan can read an elephant's eyes, and he calls crocodiles by mimicking a mating call. Another change is the removal of many of the more racist elements the books had in the depiction of African tribesmen, and they are not missed at all. One other element missing from the books is the science fiction or supernatural slant that several of the stories had. The Tarzan stories that had those elements were never my favorite ones anyway, so I don't mind that they are absent from this movie.

One aspect of Jane's character that was often ignored in the earlier Tarzan movies, is that Jane lived in the USA before she married Tarzan. Earlier movie Janes were often given a British accent and occasionally had a pampered upbringing. It was refreshing to see Margot Robbie's take on the character. This Jane is American, and is feistier than we usually see her.

Christoph Waltz and Samuel L. Jackson looked like they had a lot of fun in their roles. I enjoyed watching them, but it sort of seemed like they were there as "stunt" casting - nice but unnecessary. They were each good, but every time they appeared on the screen, I never really saw the characters they were playing, I saw the actors.

Overall, I liked the movie. At times it was a little more "epic" than it needed to be, but I guess that just added to the fun. Of all the film versions of Tarzan I have seen, this one is my favorite. I think anyone who enjoyed the books would most likely agree that this is the closest to the book character of Tarzan that we have ever seen.

The core Tarzan story is not only iconic, it speaks to something deep within us. It is at the same time the ultimate Romance and the ultimate Action tale. It is no coincidence that, almost a century ago, when young Hollywood looked to find a franchise for its new "talkie" motion pictures, they turned to the Tarzan tale, and spawned a franchise so successful that it literally outlived the shelf life of its star.

In my lifetime I have seen well over a dozen versions, retellings and re-imaginings of the Tarzan story. I have no doubt that after I am gone, producers and writers will continue to be attracted to it and continue to "make their bones" by bending it to their unique style.

That said, this one is not especially good. After a great opening scene, there is the filmic equivalent of "dead air" for about 35 minutes and when the script does finally get in gear it stumbles and falls, subject to a wildly disjointed narrative and equally bizarre editing.

Alexander Skarsgård has been impressive in other films (a race driver, a superhero) and I think with different material and a different director he could have connected. Christoph Waltz and Sam Jackson remain two of the most over-exposed stars in Hollywood and, good as they are, they are running out of clever ways to play the same character over and over. And over. And over.