Film Review: ‘The Legend of Tarzan’

The Legend of Tarzan
Courtesy of Warner Bros

'True Blood' hunk Alexander Skarsgård loses the loincloth in favor of a pair of fancy pants in this ponderous attempt to turn Tarzan into a 21st-century superhero.

A talky and mostly turgid attempt by British director David Yates to build on the epic vision he brought to the final four Harry Potter movies via another beloved literary hero, “The Legend of Tarzan” is sequel, origin story, and racially sensitive revisionist history lesson all in one. What it isn’t is much fun for anyone who’s seen Edgar Rice Burroughs’ ape man in any of his previous incarnations. While name recognition alone should snare a fair number of those who prefer their pulp heroes endowed with superpowers, between this and last year’s “Pan,” evidence suggests Warner Bros. ought to leave the live-action reboots to Disney.

For a film the scale of Yates’ “The Legend of Tarzan,”  the visual effects are astonishingly subpar, obliging the creative team to distract us with such impressive topographical sights as the African savannah and Alexander Skarsgård’s abs. The latter selling point doesn’t appear until nearly midway through the movie, until which point Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer’s script is concerned primarily with getting Tarzan back to Africa — a prospect his beloved Jane (a semi-empowered Margot Robbie) far prefers to days spent “hybridizing coconuts and playing ping pong.” While choppy, action-oriented flashbacks retrace the feral child’s formative years in the wild, it seems the one-time vine-swinger has grown up and re-gentrified in rainy old England, where he has traded his loincloth for a dapper pair of pants and assumed his identity as John Clayton III, fifth earl of Greystoke and member of the House of Lords.

Covering his protagonist in scars (a superficial gesture toward realism), Yates has attempted to give us a more psychologically complex Tarzan — which is to say, he serves up a version of the character that shamelessly emulates the “why so serious” tone of Christopher Nolan’s brooding Batman movies. Skarsgård plays Clayton as a pampered rich kid haunted by his parents’ deaths who feels compelled to protect others. The main difference is the fact that everybody knows his secret identity, which makes it rather easy for the film’s villain, Capt. Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz, in yet another of his suave sociopath roles, just a few degrees removed from the well-mannered Nazi officer he played in “Inglourious Basterds”) to invent a pretext that will lure Tarzan to the Congo, where Rom plans to deliver him to vengeful tribal chief Mbonga (Djimon Hounsou) in exchange for the sought-after diamonds of Opar.

Inadvertently helping to pull off Rom’s plan is another Tarantino regular, Samuel L. Jackson, who may as well be riffing on his score-settling “The Hateful Eight” character. Jackson plays George Washington Williams, a veteran of the American Civil War (and a real historical figure) who suspects that Belgian king Leopold II may be enslaving — or at least condoning the enslavement of — the natives of his colony in the Congo. Having fought to help end slavery in the United States, Williams has now set out to stanch the practice at its source, enlisting Tarzan (who, frankly, seems more interested in the fate of the gorilla family that raised him) to restore some sense of balance to the region.

Williams makes an intriguing addition to the formula, as does the decision to peg this particular Tarzan adventure to the Congo, which isn’t necessarily the backdrop Burroughs had in mind. (Situating it there does allow the film to make a more impactful commentary on Europe’s controversial relationship with the Dark Continent.) To the extent that white men have exploited Africa for more than two centuries, Tarzan comes to represent the extension — a hero who identifies with the natives and stands up to the corrupt white men who refuse to respect their lives, liberty, or potential claim to their own natural resources.

The film establishes Rom’s villainy early on via a scene of disturbingly cold-blooded genocide, as the Belgian officer gives the go-ahead for his Force Publique soldiers to gun down locals armed only with spears (although, like Tarzan, Yates seems more interested in the fate of the gorilla family later in the film). The historical figure on whom Rom is based was notoriously cruel to African natives — it was he who inspired the character of Col. Kurtz in “Heart of Darkness.” Dressed in white linen and armed with only a deadly rosary made from Madagascar spider silk, Rom gets the fate Hollywood feels he deserves, which includes a homophobic barb from Jane that flies right over the character’s head (“Sounds like you and your priest were really close”).

The role of Tarzan is unique among Western heroes in that he requires virtually no acting ability (as bodybuilder Miles O’Keeffe and Calvin Klein model Travis Fimmel both demonstrated). And yet, with each subsequent screen appearance, the bar is raised on how perfect audiences expect the character’s wildly unnatural physique to be. In that respect, Skarsgård makes a fine choice for the role, looking more than ever like someone’s fantasy PhotoShop rendering of father Stellan’s head grafted onto an impossibly shredded torso — which isn’t so far removed from the process the visual effects team used to meld his face onto an all-CG body during scenes when Tarzan swings through the trees at top speed.

To the extent that modern audiences accept the character as a sort of proto-superhero, Tarzan’s “powers” rank way down there with those of Aquaman: He’s super-strong, agile, and can speak to animals, having mastered the mating calls of nearly every African species. Whenever Tarzan shares the screen with animals, however, the critters look appallingly digital — with human actors not even bothering to look in the right direction much of the time (consider the scene when Mbonga’s men are surrounded by gorillas, reacting as if to invisible ghosts). It’s a glaring problem, given all the attention Yates poured into crafting a believable context for what amounts to a glorified B movie. As a brand, Burroughs’ hero has always been schlocky, and no amount of psychological depth or physical perfection can render him otherwise — especially if the filmmakers can’t swing a convincing interaction between Tarzan and his animal allies. That dynamic — along with his full-throated yodel — has always been Tarzan’s trademark, but in this relatively lifeless incarnation, it simply doesn’t register.

Film Review: 'The Legend of Tarzan'

Reviewed at Warner Bros. studio, Burbank, Calif., June 23, 2016. MPAA Rating: PG-13. Running time: 110 MIN.

Production

A Warner Bros. Pictures release and presentation, in association with Village Roadshow Pictures, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, of a Jerry Weintraub, Riche/Ludwig, Beaglepug production. Produced by Weintraub, David Barron, Alan Riche, Tony Ludwig. Executive producers, Susan Ekins, Nikolas Korda, Keith Goldberg, Steven Mnuchin, David Yates, Mike Richardson, Bruce Berman. Co-producer, Scott B. Cherrin.

Crew

Directed by David Yates. Screenplay, Adam Cozad, Craig Brewer; story, Brewer, Cozad, based on the "Tarzan" stories created by Edgar Rice Burroughs. Camera (color, widescreen), Henry Braham; editor, Mark Day; editor, Mark Day; music, Rupert Gregson-Williams; production desinger, Stuart Craig; art directors, David Allday, Christian Huband, Huw Arthur, Guy Bradley, Toby Britton, Gavin Finch, Kate Grimble; costume designer, Ruth Myers; sound (Dolby Atmos), Simon Hayes; sound designers, Glenn Freemantle, Ben Baker, Niv Adiri, Eilam Hoffman, Tom Sayers; supervising sound editor, Freemantle; re-recording mixers, Adiri, Ian Tapp; special effects supervisor, David Watkins; visual effects supervisors, Tim Burke, Frank Petzold; visual effects, Framestore, MPC, Rising Sun Picutres, Rodeo FX, Method Studios, Lola Visual Effects; stunt coordinator, Buster Reeves; second unit director, Stephen Woolfenden; casting, Lucy Bevan.

With

Alexander Skarsgård, Christoph Waltz, Samuel L. Jackson, Margot Robbie, Djimon Hounsou, Rory J. Saper, Christian Stevens.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 51

Leave a Reply

51 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Gloria says:

    I loved the Legend Of Tarzan. I have seen it on Dish Network at least 20 times and even recorded it. I thought it was the most realistic Tarzan movie I have seen and I am 69 years old. My compliments to the cast and crew. I have a question. During the scene where Tarzan is sniffing Jane, did the scene have to be shot more than once because they got to laughing?

  2. Tarzan says:

    I loved this movie. It was fun and exciting and at times funny. The Disney one was good also for what it was. I would go see it again, I enjoyed it that much. Many of the standard tropes were gone, such as Jane being a d.i.d or that Tarzan is the only person or thing needed to safe the day. The acting was good and the scenery was amazing

  3. Kimberly Sloan says:

    I thought the movie was stupid, the acting terrible. I walked out.

  4. Phil says:

    My wife and I were both entertained. Having grown up with Tarzan in our lives it was refreshing and enjoyable. There was violence but not full of gore like so many movies are today. We also enjoyed the fact that there was no swearing for a change. It was quirky, yes but enjoyable with some humour also. We won’t be having any nightmares over this film. Recommended pleasant enjoyable.

  5. Adam H-J says:

    I appreciate everyone who has defended this movie, it’s one of the best I have ever seen, already planning a 4th n 5th visit before it leaves theaters.

  6. Tarzan says:

    Big Tarzan fan here. I read the novel a few times, loved “Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan” (the definitive Tarzan flick for me) and even dug the Johnny Weissmuller movies as a kid, but man, the new movie… meh.The new “The Legend of Tarzan” (not to be confused with the Greystoke movie) is just not that great. The True Blood guy is great in the roll of Tarzan. He’s a good actor anyway.

  7. Georgianna Natale says:

    I thought the movie was excellent!! Had me interested from beginning to end. Of course I’m familiar with the story–memories include Johnny Weissmuller when I was a child and others who played this role since then. A fantasy which allows one to escape reality for 110 minutes. I love movies—all types; am a regular moviegoer and this did not disappoint.

    • Diane Gunderson says:

      Totally agree, I am so glad I did not listen to the critics on this film. Enjoyed it from beginning to end. Like you I am a regular movie goer and I agree no disappointment here

  8. vipin says:

    i really enjoyed this movie. though the story was happening a century ago, it was nice watching.

  9. loupizzuti says:

    It’s a pity that the author has never read any of the source material, but rather relies on Hollywood revisionist crap for his frame of reference.
    In point of fact, the scenes portraying the backstory are lifted almost directly from the novel “Tarzan of the Apes”. The Belgian imperialism in the Congo is a constant theme in the novels. The same could be said of Jane’s abduction by Rom.
    The only signficant difference in the movie from ERB’s original conception is Jane’s backstory. This alternative is believable, and the inclusion of the original backstory would have taken away from the movie.

    I thoroughly enjoyed it, as I expect would be the case with anyone who has read the novels.
    Thumbs up for the movie, and a big raspberry for the review.

  10. Really Mr. Debruge?? I just returned from seeing the movie. I was a huge Tarzan fan in my youth. Born 1948. This movie did not disappoint. I loved it! Missed Cheetah tough. It told the story well and was seamless in blending the past with the present. It met with all my expectations. drama, a bit of humor, and action. The story was well told. Not the mundane silly crap we see a lot of nowadays.

  11. rbindia2014 says:

    You really are a thorough idiot, Mr Debruge. Monsieur Jean Tarzan is supposed to be in fancy pants at the start of the second novel in the 24 novel series by Edgar Burroughs. He is also supposed to be one of grim demeanour and astonishing physical strength. Infact, Mr Burroughs talks at length about the size of Tarzan’s arm muscles in the book, Return of Tarzan. So, the casting is apt and of course, there have been liberties taken with the storyline. But it is a fine story thay Yates’ team have spun with a fair share of political intrigue and racial context. You should just go take your paycheck home and read the book. Maybe, they will still let you thumb down well made movies that recreate literary heroes with sincerity.

    • Jack Monte says:

      Very true. Petey must have missed all the Iron Man suits flying around and bland cinematography of Disney superhero movies. In 2016 has he not seen a behind the scenes or making of footage? It’s not the actors fault if they don’t appear to be looking at a digital effect, it’s the animators. And in the scene he’s talking about the tribe looks all over because there are surrounded. Also go back to high school and take a real history class, many slaves were sold to the British by the rulers of the villages, not stolen, but we wouldn’t want to have to talk about blacks harming blacks. The kind of horrible review that usually come from little Owen G.

    • Dan D says:

      Superb comment! I concur completely.

  12. Taylor Phillips says:

    I saw the film this afternoon and enjoyed it. I’m disappointed in this review, but it looks like the film simply was not what the reviewer was hoping it would be. It appears as though the reviewer was expecting to see a clone of the Marvel or DC offerings this summer. Tarzan is not a “super” hero as much as he is an adventure hero, and Skarsgard is good in the role. Margot Robbie does play Jane as an empowered heroine. Even though she is captured, she shows she is still smart, brave and capable as she banters with Leon Rom, and I liked that she did not fall into the modern-day cliche of a female action hero once she frees herself. The multiple subplots are not as developed as they could have been, but the movie as a whole is good summertime escapist fun.

    • Nix says:

      I agree about wanting a bit more subplot buildup. It would have given more substance to a pretty darn good, fun movie overall. I wonder if Warner Bros (as studios are so money oriented that they shoot themselves in the foot many times over) got cold feet about the budget and panicked and cut it short? Usually I love critic reviews, because I like indie films and what some call “artsy high brow” films too, but many critics imo forget and screw over, as Roger Ebert used to put it… the Good Watch Movie. Word of mouth by the viewer has been good. To me that says it all. Some of the negatives I’ve read pertains to preconceived opinions of who Tarzan should be. That’s mighty hard to overcome. Such as: Tarzan’s appearance? Personally I loved Skarsgard. His movements were fluid and animal like. Tarzan’s yell? Loved that too. More natural imo. Tarzan’s speaks? Skarsgard switched between civilized English to animal like grunts, as he moved between worlds. His performance was maybe more subtle than other Tarzans in the past. A lot was in the eyes.

    • Dan D says:

      I agree completely on the character development and script. I thought the acting was very good, believable entirely. As to subplots, perhaps you are correct, but there is only so much can be crammed in a 2 hour movie, and there was already quite a bit to work in. Seems the best Tarzan movie ever, by far, to me.

  13. Rey says:

    I just watched the movie and it was great. Your critics got it all wrong and I doubt he has even watched this movie. Shame on him.

  14. Dan D says:

    These movie reviewers are disgusting. They slam films that they do not understand. And then they praise the most sleazy, horrific stuff as good movie making. I read all the Tarzan books as a youngster back in the late 1960’s. Edgar Rice Burroughs created some of the first superheroes, and later creators owe much of their superhero characters’ development to his pioneer trailblazing, and many have commented as much. What is so terrible about an attempt to bring the novels to life on the screen. This reviewer views the film through a “lens” of liberal 21st Century bias that blinds him. And all this criticism of CGI special effects is pure baloney!! All the effects looked super to me. There has never been a film of Tarzan that in any way successfully presented the dynamic of the character in the books. Until this one. And it is a tremendous, extremely well-acted, as believable as possible film (for this story and character), with an excellent script. For an action film, depicting the character Tarzan, it is a masterpiece – true to the books, and true to the character. It includes the origins, and the emotional bonding of the characters, very well. In the books, Tarzan evolves from an animalistic savage and then becomes a brilliant, multi-lingual, cunning sophisticated man, who can switch back and forth from the most cultured to the most savage, according to the situation. Not a bumbling “Me Tarzan, you Jane” one dimensional character, as in prior films. Do not let the critics scare you off. The film is very well-done and for some reason the critics want it to fail. And as for those who criticize this film as racist, in the showing I attended, about 1/2 the audience was African American, and they seemed to love it. (It certainly provided a huge amount of employment for black actors, and they were all very good.) The African blacks are portrayed as brave, dynamic and with powerful personalities, and there is no hint of racism in Tarzan or Jane, only respect (considering a film period-based in the 1880’s, such respect from an Englishman would be exceptional). If you want to see racism punched in the face, then this is the film for you!! (Additionally, the film story is built on the historically factual exploitative enslavement of the Congo Africans by King Leopold II of Belgium; apparently this reviewer is completely ignorant of that information.) These critics are superficial who have no respect for the history of an impacting series of novels that blazed a trail for superheroes who followed. It is a joy to see an amazing action story you loved brought to the screen in such a genuinely authentic effort.

  15. Richardson says:

    You obviously have never read one of the original Tarzan novels.

  16. blumemoritz says:

    i was very surprised that i loved the tarzan movie, i thought it was awesome even though i loved the disney tarzan and this movie is very different. you dont see adventure movies like these anymore. this movie is not perfect but i was still very pleasantly surprised. i would have loved to see the origin story but this movie is still great.

  17. I confess to not having seen the film yet. I do know Tarzan. A lot of the criticisms here seem to tell me this may be one of the best Tarzan movies to date. Tarzan has always put his “family” first whether it’s Jane, the mangani or the Wizari. Tarzan held little respect for those who would bend a knee and give up something as important as freedom for something as pitiful as a life of servitude.Death is preferable in his mind. John Clayton is the Earl of Greystoke, and after the second novel refers to himself as such, with pride. Though he is also Tarzan. He introduces himself by whichever title he feels will easiest win him the trust of the speaker. As for acting skills, how much harder is it to portray a role with few lines, where only body language and facial expressions carry the bulk of the weight? I doubt this reviewer has seen more than the two Tarzan movies he references and will virtually guarantee he’s never made it past chapter two of any of the novels.

  18. Ed Wyrd says:

    The reviewer keeps calling them “gorillas.” That’s so cute. I’m surprised he didn’t say, “What? No Cheeta?”

    • Dan D says:

      Right on. As to your last comment, not to worry, another ignorant “pro” critic did at the Tampa Bay news.

  19. lulu says:

    Review is too verbose and densely empty…..can’t follow what he’s saying or describing. Rather ….gets side tracked into descriptions of descriptions of descriptions. I’ll see the movie for myself and swoon…Thank you.

  20. John Small says:

    Say, here’s a novel idea: Perhaps the reviewer should take the time to familiarize himself with the original source materials – the actual Edgar Rice Burroughs novels – instead of lamely comparing this movie to “previous incarnations” in movies that were nothing like what ERB wrote (Miles O’Keefe? really?) or making inane comparisons to (of all characters) Aquaman. I have yet to see the movie myself yet (I have tickets for Saturday), but this is what I do know: the family of Edgar Rice Burroughs has gone on record as saying this movie is closer to what ERB wrote than any that have come before. Personally I put a great deal more stock in that reaction than in a review written by someone who apparently has never read any of the books. (By the way, that “full-throated yodel” you mentioned – a product of Hollywood, NOT the original books.)

    • Dan D says:

      Great comment! Very few of “pro” critics seem to have read the books, and keep referring to “the Tarzan we know” as the cartoon Tarzan or the Johnny Weissmuller old movies. As to your last sentence, I thought the Tarzan call in this film did some justice to the “blood-curdling scream” in the novels, which, of course, was completely a product of ERB’s imagination, since his mangani were not gorillas, but something far more fierce, intelligent, and dangerous.

  21. gmatusk says:

    I intend to see the film. The original novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs could serve as a masterclass in vivid descriptive action writing, and it seems clear that the critic either never read the 1912 novel or never profited from reading it. I studied writing under someone who write many of the teleplays of the TV “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” series, and he admired the skill with which the original Tarzan novel was written. The novel was recently republished in a fine edition by the Library of America in honor of its centenary — will anything written by the critic be read 100 years from now? From the previews that I saw, it seems that the present film version is an attempt to pay tribute to the original novel and to avoid the the Johnny Weissmuller grunting monosyllabic depiction of Tarzan.

  22. tim says:

    The most racist series in Hollywood History, Tarzan. When will it stop. And how does it get green lit

    • Molar says:

      Racist… why because Tarzan is white?

      Sure, lets make him black. I am sure a movie about a black man living in the jungle in dirt and mud in a loin cloth, eating raw meat, screaming like an animal, and ripping peoples throats out would be absolutely loved by the black community.

      • Dan D says:

        Thanks for your reply, it made me laugh out loud reading it. You nailed it. I doubt “tim” has seen the film. In the showing I attended, about 1/2 the audience was African American, and they seemed to love it. (It certainly provided a huge amount of employment for black actors, and they were all very good.) To me, the African blacks are portrayed as brave, dynamic and with powerful personalities, and there is no hint of racism in Tarzan or Jane, only respect (considering a film period-based in the 1880’s, such respect from an Englishman would be exceptional). This Tarzan and Jane seems entirely colorblind.

  23. Jason says:

    I think the phrase “The Dark Continent” should be retired. Surprised to see a racist term in a 2016 film review.

    • Chuck White says:

      Victiorian nickname. It referred to the fact that little was known in the West about the interior of the continent. Has nothing to do with race.

  24. Nasir says:

    Ash said rightly, Tarzan was a super hero in the world of jungles and animals, and was an activist against slavery . l m 45 years old and still read ERB’s Tarzan books, but it seems critic hasn’t read any book of Tarzan, after watching the trailers and other clips related to the film, not just me but my friends also commented that at last Hollywood succeeded in to bring the Tarzan in his true invoironment on cinema screen, if compared to previous movies this latest version shows that we are actually watching what Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote a hundred years ago. A good writer have the ability to transform his imagination to that of his reader, that’s exectly what director David Yates has done to the viewers.

  25. BillUSA says:

    Looks like this film will meet its’ end like George of the Jungle did in the cartoon intro.

  26. John schmosess says:

    Actually, the film is fun. This review is wrong.

  27. Ash Nazg says:

    Sounds like a missed opportunity. The literary Tarzan is, essentially, a superhero. Not only is he strong, fast, and agile, he more or less speaks with and commands respect from, many animals, and he also speaks several human languages. Most of the TV and theatrical depictions of Tarzan are pretty far off base. Of course, there’s also the inherent racism in the original stories, that Tarzan attained his abilities and knowledge mostly through the virtue of his aristocratic, white, heritage. But modern storytelling should be able to reframe the character into someone more suitable for today’s audiences. I was hoping this film might be a start for that.

  28. patrik says:

    Margot Robbie- is the most charming Jane

  29. Mark says:

    The character of Tarzan doesn’t resonate with anyone under 75 years of age, are there enough over 75 years olds out there, who are willing to see this film twice, to make it profitable…don’t think so. This is a bit like trying to reboot the old “Blondie” film franchise. Just because something “was” really popular and profitable, doesn’t mean it will be again.

    • bOb Owen says:

      Mark, you seem to think of this new Tarzan film as a reboot of the old Tarzan films. Actually, this a complete departure from those quaint old films. Completely different from anything done before.

    • Dan D says:

      Well, I’m under 75, and I plan to watch it several times, in IMAX 3D. The CGi was far more realistic than Avatar, and that was not condemned by “pro” critics. I doubt you have even seen the film. And it would not matter, since your mind is made up in advance. Interestingly, there were about 1/2 African Americans in attendance at the showing I went to. And they seemed to love it. The African blacks were powerful and courageous, loyal and inventive. And Tarzan and Jane and their African black friends treated each other as family. And the racists got slammed in the end. This film is actually as anti-racist as any ever. It is set as a period history film in the late 1880’s, so why does that automatically cancel it as unviewable.

  30. nbtx says:

    Please tell me who thought this was a good idea?

  31. Jane says:

    Scarsgaard in a quietly fierce, emotionally available man torn between two identies. His arc is that in the end he chooses himself. Robbie/Jane is a contemporary heroine, standing on her own, with strong will and deep compassion and understanding- Jane is an inspiration for all young girls today. Waltz is a true demented villain, delighting in the pain of others. Sam Jackson ‘s sense of humors brings a reality and balance to a devastating story of slavery. Yates captures the relationship between Tarzan and the animals, between man and the animals as Burroughs intended. TARZAN is storytelling at its finest, the most romantic, heroic and entertaining film I’ve seen in years. A+ #SEEIT # JUDGEFORYOURSELF #ignorebittercritics

    • Dan D says:

      Thanks, Jane, for an excellent reply to a shallow, biased review. I think you are exactly correct that this Jane is an inspiration and role model. The entire romance and commitment between Tarzan and Jane in this movie shows far more depth and intensity than is often seen in such action films. There are some fine character models in this film. And I enjoyed the absence of much profanity (perhaps as true to the period setting). The acting seemed superbly suited within the context of a classic tale that is admittedly a fantasy that could not occur in real life. No human could do all the things that Tarzan does. But he is only a bit beyond reality, as opposed to the Marvel and DC superheroes. Perhaps this is too intense for elementary children, but many seem to be watching far worse movies these days.

    • John Michaels says:

      Margot spends 80% of the movie chained up or running, a few witty comebacks don’t make her anything special.

      • Nix says:

        Jane doesn’t get tied up until at least a quarter in to the movie, but the biggest B.S. on calling out the old stereotype of “damsel in distress” is Tarzan didn’t rescue her off the boat the first time. Jane herself saw an opportunity to escape and took it, while saving the life of the tribesman in the cage. The only eye roll stereotype I saw (and I almost wonder if it was added for the eye roll element), was Jane stumbling and falling while running away.

    • Rex says:

      Did you type that with one hand?

  32. BillUSA says:

    Imagination, like talent, is a scarcity in Hollywood – which doesn’t say much for movie-goers.

    • Dan D says:

      BillUSA, I doubt if you have seen the movie. And your mind is made up in advance anyway. For those who think that Tarzan and Edgar Rice Burroughs novels are inherently bad, the verdict is pre-determined. But for those who would like to see the novels brought to life on the screen, this is a reputable effort.

More Film News from Variety

Loading