Tarzan

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 story of Tarzan is so ingrained into the brains of moviegoers that it's difficult to really put a new stamp or add something fresh to something so well-known. While Legend of Tarzan certainly attempts to take a new approach structurally, it never swings off the screen as gracefully as I had hoped.

2016 has been a rough year for big budgeted films. So many bombs and duds overshadow some of the great ones we've had through the first half. This film isn't necessarily in either camp. It begins the second half of this year with a formidable installment in the long-running ape-man franchise. David Yates, director of the last four Harry Potter films, does absolutely nothing special with the characters of Tarzan and Jane, but I was nonetheless entertained by the film from beginning to end.

Alexander Skarsgård and Margot Robbie portray Tarzan and Jane respectively. Both give solid performances but neither brought anything new to the characters. It took me awhile to adapt to Skarsgård's more guarded portrayal. In fact, for a good portion of the first half, I found his performance to be quite stiff. Tarzan isn't supposed to be running around cracking jokes, but I would have liked to have seen a bit more lightness to him. Although Robbie is very good as Jane, she doesn't get a whole lot to do as she's tied up by the villainous Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz) for half the film. She's far from a damsel in distress, because she's definitely not helpless, but the plot constantly puts her in position to be a device or Tarzan's motivation to do something. I think Robbie could have done something special given the chance.

Undeniably good, however, is everything to do with the apes. I've seen the backstory before, but I loved watching his ever-changing relationship with his family of apes and the various flashbacks to what came before Tarzan's venture into home life in England. It's also where the film succeeds the most visually. While some animals, including a pretty bad ostrich, are weak on CGI, the apes are animated tremendously. The cinematography through the jungle and in the African mountains is quite beautiful. However, there are several moments of awful green screen footage. I'm talking cringe worthy background visuals.

Having said all this, I was definitely invested in the story they were telling. Tarzan is thrust into a choice to return home and chaos ensues when Leon Rom, a corrupt Belgian captain who tricked him into returning to the Congo in the first place. At times the tone blurs the lines from taking its source material too seriously and supplementing it with some weak dialogue with an average romance. I think that's the best way to describe most of the film, average.

I appreciate the filmmakers approach in taking the Tarzan story in a different direction in having it be about his return home and to his animalistic ways. But the best part about this film is Tarzan's relationship to his ape family and the background to that. I would have just liked to see more of that side of things rather than just bits and pieces here or there. Christoph Waltz was exactly what I needed out of a Tarzan villain and Samuel L. Jackson's humorous sidekick to Tarzan worked seamlessly. To me, there's plenty good here, but there was potential for greatness.

+Solid performances from the leads

+Samuel L added some much needed humor

+Apes Apes Apes

+Some visuals and fight scenes

-Others were too noticeably green screen

-Struggles to balance tone at times

-Needed more apes

7.4/10

Was not expecting it to be so good.

I did go into it thinking I did not want to see a movie about a white dude becoming King of an African Jungle, and I think the filmmakers themselves tried to be favorable of that opinion.

If you have any familiarity with Tarzan, especially movies that came before, this film acts as a continuation of that. It tells the origin of Tarzan, a boy lost in the jungle and raised by apes to become a ghost like figure, but this film more focus on the life after Tarzan left the jungle and joined civilization were his legend became the stories that Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote about.

Samuel L Jackson plays a doctor who needs Tarzan's help when Tarzan gets an invitation to come back to the Congo, the doctor needs to come with him to find out if slavery is being practice there, but it turns out the invitation was a trap laid out by the the villain, Rom, played by the brilliant Christoph Waltz in his element, to deliver Tarzan to an old enemy, also played brilliantly Djimon Hounsou.

Jackson's role in this keeps it from being some white dude who saves Africa from other white dudes. This is one of his better supporting roles as he was funny and dramatic when needed. The chemistry between Jackson and Alexander Skarsgård works like a charm.

I love Djimon Hounson character as an African Chief seeking vengeance with Tarzan's death. It was very Black Panther like (or more like Black Cheetah, as the costume design shows).

I like Margot Robbie as Jane as well. At first it seem they tried too hard to to make Jane not just the chick Tarzan saved, but as the movie went on and her character developed , she went on a small adventure herself that was as exciting as Tarzan.

It's an action packed adventure through the Congo. The visual effects worked to make the terrain beautiful and dangerous and epic.

It's also fun an exciting, it will have you laughing throughout all the action.

It still floors me how fantastic this thing turned out. Worth seeing

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.

(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