109 min
5.909
2016
Canada
Tarzan, having acclimated to life in London, is called back to his former home in the jungle to investigate the activities at a mining encampment.
Overview
Reviews
Reno wrote:**Yep, this is a different Tarzan, an updated one.**
Recently the Indian jungle boy, the live-action Mowgli film was made and so its time for Africa's. This is not a Disney film and that's one of the disappointments for the Tarzan fans. Because this film is for the grown-ups only. It is rated PG13, but still I don't think the children would enjoy it like they did for the recent 'The Jungle Book' film. So it is like a DC film, I mean, DC makes superhero films for the grown-ups, unlike Marvel's. The bottom line is, don't expect it to be like a Disney film. Like the director said before the release, this is not the Tarzan from your father, grandfather's era, but an updated one with strong graphic violence.
So the story skips all the Tarzan's earlier life like from his childhood to adulthood parts. The film commences with Tarzan being settled in the UK. It's the second half of the 19th century, where the European colonies in the Africa are expanding for its rich natural resources. So in the Congo savanna, the natives welcome Tarzan for his short visit, but the things get ugly when his wife, Jane was kidnapped. Now he must fight back for her safe return and also avert other threats in the region from the foreign power.
There are many CGI character films were made at the recent time, it is a trend, but not all of them are impressive. This film looked average when it comes to vfx. The story was acceptable, the performances were decent, the casting too not bad, but Samuel L. Jackson was completely useless. He's one of the greatest sidekick Hollywood ever produced, but I don't know why he's in this project, his role was very silly.
In other hand, Alexander Skarsgard was good in the lead character and so Margot Robbie as Jane. The action sequences were not good as I expected. The film had a good runtime, but in some parts, it was slow or maybe you can say nothing interesting thing happens. I liked the idea, to update the theme, but they should have given more focus on the story. I hope if they plan another film, it should be a prequel. Because I feel there's lots to learn about the past than going forward. This is a one time watchable film, there's no surprises, just plain and partially entertaining.
_6/10_
Per Gunnar Jonsson wrote:This was the most underwhelming Tarzan movie that I have ever seen. A typical product of some Hollywood producer trying to make a "modern" take of Tarzan not really knowing or caring for the Tarzan that Edgar Rice Burroughs created.
In particular it was the palest and most underwhelming Tarzan character yet. He never radiated the strength nor the intelligence that Edgar Rice Burroughs attributed to his character. He spent most of the movie going around with a bland look on his face.
The story itself is pretty much an out of the box standard Hollywood story about slavery and abuse of the black African population. Not truly bad but nothing to write home about either.
There is a lot of CGI in the movie and although quite a few reviewers seem to consider it bad I personally though it was pretty okay. One of the few decent bits of the movie.
I truly do not understand that they had the nerve to call this movie The Legend of Tarzan since it really is pretty far from the legend of Tarzan that Edgar Rice Burroughs created. This movie would perhaps have been okay as a one hour episode in a Tarzan TV-show but as a high budget feature movie it simply does not cut it. I was quite disappointed.
Wuchak wrote:**_The true 'sequel' to "Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan," 32 freakin' years later_**
"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
