The Legend of Tarzan (2016)

[CJohn]

Discuss it

[Webslinger]

I was disappointed. There's no question that the film looks and sounds good, and there are some elements of the storytelling that work, but it's a dull experience as a whole. Much of the blame for the pedestrian quality of the final product lies with the frustratingly uneven script. On one hand, the flashbacks that reveal Tarzan's origins are mostly compelling and benefit from their straightforward nature; on the other hand, the stakes in the present timeline are relatively low, and the filmmakers' approach to tackling these scenes - while impressive on a technical level on several occasions - feels disappointingly workmanlike. As far as the acting is concerned, Samuel L. Jackson walks off with every single scene in which he appears. He gets the kind of film he's in, and he milks his cool persona for all it's worth. However, Alexander Skarsgaard - great at being physically imposing during his run on True Blood - is flat in the title role, leaving barely any kind of impression in most of his scenes. Margot Robbie is fun to watch in a role that gives Jane much more agency than one might initially expect, but she's still underused. At first, I was intrigued to hear that The Legend of Tarzan wasn't going to be another origin story; however, given that the flashbacks are much more resonant than the dull affairs that take up the bulk of the film's running time, I now wish it had been.

 

C

[filmlover]

I enjoyed this well enough. What I appreciated is that this avoids the trappings of most reboots with giving us another origin story and instead offering a self-contained adventure; this can exist as one movie even in the unlikely event it spawns a franchise. A terrific cast elevates the slight material: Alexander Skarsgard offers one of the more appealing Tarzans on screen, Margot Robbie adds spark to the underdeveloped Jane role, Samuel L. Jackson steals all of his scenes in typical SLJ fashion, etc. Christoph Waltz can't do much with a thin villain role though (as anyone could've foretold after Inglourious Basterds, he has become typecast beyond repair as bad guys). This is also a visually striking film too, even if it isn't quite as eye-catching as The Jungle Book from earlier in the year. B-

[dxmatrixdt]

lots of CGI shots of different wildlife in Africa

[Water Bottle]

It can be fun and while the climax is a bit of a let-down, I enjoyed myself.

 

B-

[Captain Craig]

I don't take the time that I once did to review every film I see. This film seems to need a bit more feedback than most so here's my $.02

 

My wife and I really enjoyed the film. I felt the film did a great job of establishing who Tarzan was at the point we first meet him in the film. I was prepared for the film to do the opposite of what it did and found the narrative and plot to easy to follow while not being too paper thin at the same time. With few, few exceptions I wondered where the cgi stopped and real sets began. Especially with the animal interaction sequences. I'm quite amazed that critics were as down on this as they were and it proves once again that IF you only use them as a guide you're going to miss out on some entertaining fare. They missed this one, you shouldn't. 

 

Grade: A-

[MrPink]

I didn't like this much unfortunately. I thought Samuel L Jackson was fun in his role, but didn't find much charm in our protagonist, which I admit was probably intentional in terms of how reserved he is but Skarsgaard comes off as very dull. Margot Robbie is merely OK in a role that doesn't allow for much. Christoph Waltz is given another villain role that doesn't have any interest of note.

 

The flashacks became quite tedious after the 2nd one or so. Also thought some shots were incredibly ugly (the lighting was off quite often), but then there'd be other shots that looked quite good. C-

Edited July 9, 2016 by MrPink

[La Binoche]

I love escapist adventure movies, man vs the wild and man vs beast, so I gave Tarzan a shot despite the bad reviews. 

 

Unfortunately the bad reviews were right. 

 

The most exciting part of the Tarzan story is the setup (shipwreck and adoption by gorillas), but in trying to seem "original," the movie opens 8 years after Tarzan has returned to London and the set-up is only shown via ugly, grey, poorly-lit flashbacks. If you're going to remake Tarzan yet again, own your lack of originality and don't try to make it "fresh" by telling the best part of the story in flashback. 

 

Tonally the movie takes itself so seriously that the comic relief (courtesy of Sam Jackson) comes off as jarring. In fact it takes itself so seriously that even the essential scenes of Tarzan interacting with wild animals or swinging from vine to vine feel out of place. The pace is sluggish and jumps from long stretches of dialogue to frenetic slo-mo action scenes. There are some beautiful African landscapes but too much CGI -- the animals rarely look convincing (those elephants, eek). I didn't buy Skarsgard and Robbie as Tarzan and Jane. No matter how many pounds of muscles he packs on, Skarsgard is just a pretty boy who lacks the feral intensity the role requires. No amount of abs or thoughtfully intense stares made me buy him as Tarzan. As for Robbie, she looks like a Victoria's Secret model traipsing around Africa. She's supposed to be a sharp-tongue damsel but lacks the presence to pull it off (and she's not helped by the poor quips and remarks the script gives her). Compare her dinner scene with Waltz (who needs a new schtick) to Keira Knightley and Geoffrey Rush's dinner scene in the first Pirates movie (the scenes are nearly identical) and you'll understand what Robbie is lacking as an actress and screen presence. Great beauty ain't enough. 

 

All that being said, any movie that is essentially an adventure in Africa with jungle locations and wild animals can't be that bad, but this Tarzan is mostly a stinker. 

 

Tarzan (1999) >>>>>>> Tarzan (1984) >>> Tarzan (2016) 

 

C-

Edited July 10, 2016 by La Binoche

[Kvikk Lunsj]

Boring characters and boring story line. The movie felt long but the sets and the effects were good

2/5

[La Binoche]

An example of the movie's poor writing: 

 

Jane makes a snappy comment to Christoph Waltz's character about how his mustache is uneven. 

 

Lame because 1) not once does the movie make it feel like he is particular or meticulous about his appearance and 2) everyone is sweaty and disheveled and dirty as they race across Africa. Who cares? 

 

It's supposed to be a "oh snap!" moment for Jane, but she kind of comes off as an idiot as Waltz walks away. 

[Dementeleus]

I enjoyed it more than I expected to. Sure, it's a mess, but every so often there's a shining moment. I agree with @La Binoche that almost all the one-liners (but especially Jane's) fell really flat. And I'm not a fan at all of how Yates directed it. Some really awkward and unmotivated camera moves, little odd problematic moments like Tarzan thinking back to his childhood but instead it features his father. (Admittedly this might be due to re-arranging some of the beats in post). The whole desaturated look felt pointless, too. I'm really over that.

 

Still, something like a weak B- for me.

[ladyevenstar22]

i was happily surprised i liked it but then i went in with no expectations and what with work i haven't been on the forums as much so didnt even have opportunity to read remarks that usually doused my budding enthusiasm for a film plus with my movie card i'm pretty laid back at what i watch seeing as after 2 films i'm basically watching anything else free . 

i thought skarsgaard did an ok job , robbie too well it was no "the revenant" but as a 2hrs distraction it was more than ok plus yeah those flashback made me want to see that particular movie .

[Blankments]

The Legend of Tarzan is a really pleasant surprise. Advertised with dour trailers and humdrum buzz, it's actually a fun revisiting of a classic hero. The worst aspect of the film is David Yates' direction, or rather, his attempts to add directorial flourishes. His close-ups feel reminiscent of the worst facets of Tom Hooper's direction, and an obnoxious use of slow motion ruins otherwise well-choreographed action scenes. The dull color pallette too also harms the movie quite a bit.

 

However, the script by Adam Cozad and Craig Brewster is incredibly refreshing. Outside of the main villain, everyone feels decently comprehensive character wise, and the plot is fairly straightforward and economical. The film has two very unique attributes that most other blockbusters these days lack: the main couple of the film is married and thus clearly love each other the whole movie, and the late 1800s Congo setting. The latter opens the film up to an antislavery plotline that would seem out of place in a Tarzan movie if it weren't given the prominence it deserved. The whole film has an appropriately legendary tone that allows you to understand why Tarzan has been popular throughout the years. Just a surprisingly great script for a movie that could've easily been lackluster.

 

The cast does a great job with their roles, with highlights being Margot Robbie's Jane and Samuel L. Jackson's George Washington Williams. They both feel joyously alive in their roles, and you'll want to see more of them than they are in the movie. Skarsgard's Tarzan is solid, if a bit uncharismatic, but since he's paired with Jackson the whole movie, that's just fine since he looks the part and does well with the action. Christoph Waltz is Christoph Waltz and thus, the weakest aspect of the film.

 

The cinematography switches from claustrophobic to beautifully displaying its landscapes, and feels inconsistent. To be honest, Yates' mediocre direction should make The Legend of Tarzan feel much more inconsistent than it is. Thankfully, this update to the Lord of the Apes feels invigorating with its old school style and strong cast. The Legend of Tarzan is a great blockbuster for summer 2016 and a good movie by any standard. B-

[Lordmandeep]

Problem is movie seems like  a long sequel to long time famous franchise so was really odd