The Legend of Tarzan (2016) Review!!

Synopsis – 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.

My Take – It took me while to get myself into watching this one. No I wasn’t put off my the mixed critical and box office reception, but just a simple question – did the world really need yet another incarnation of Tarzan? Especially after the awful Kellan Lutz voiced animated 2013 film! Well I guess the executives at WB thought it was a good idea, especially with director David Yates (fresh out of directing the final four films of the wonderful Harry Potter franchise) on board along with popular actors such Samuel L Jackson & Margot Robbie attached to the project. And of course Alexander Skarsgard seemed like the best fit for the role too. But somehow as I blankly starred at the jumbled mess I was watching on screen I couldn’t think of a single reason why this film was green lit in the 1st place. While the classic story of Tarzan might have been adapted many times before, the decisions of the writers to make a story after the well known legend, caught me off guard from the beginning of the film. This isn’t the Tarzan you know from the Disney film. No, this time we see him start out in England as a gentleman, celebrity of sorts. People all know who he his and his origin. For a moment I thought the film would be smart enough to know that we, as an audience, also know this origin story. But this not that kind of a film. Outside of being a “new” take on the mythical man raised by apes there isn’t anything remotely new about this film. It still tells us his origin in laziest way possible and it still follows a three act structure that we have seen a couple thousand times over. The admittedly nice cinematography is encumbered by myriad of issues, contrasting tones and shallow social and political showing. This is one quite empty, uninteresting film. No, it’s not a bad film, but neither is it a cinematic masterpiece. Not that I was expecting such, but I had hopes for this version especially with director David Yates in the chair, that were sadly lacking.

The story follows Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgard) eight years after he left Africa. Tarzan has claimed his birthright name of John Clayton III, Lord Greystoke, and lives a gentrified life in London with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie). He is drawn back to Africa at the behest of George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson), a black American journalist who is based on the historical figure who led the exposure of the crimes of King Leopold II of Belgium. Williams recruits him to assist in Williams’ quest to investigate the suspected crimes of King Leopold. Accompanied by Jane, the two men return to Africa where Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz) has laid a trap for Tarzan that, if successful, will result in Rom delivering Tarzan to Chief Mbonga (Djimon Hounsou), who seeks to deliver vengeance to Tarzan for killing Mbonga’s son many years earlier. Mayhem and adventure ensues. Told in flashbacks, we learn of an infant left in the jungle without parents and adopted by the great apes until he was rescued and returned to England. At first it may seem all the right elements are in place, mainly as Alexander Skarsgard makes for a convincing lead, but then story structure falters. After a great opening scene, there is the filmic equivalent of “dead air” for about 35 minutes and when the script does finally gets in gear it stumbles and falls, subjects us to a wildly disjointed narrative and an equally bizarre editing. The film is also very unfocused as it constantly shifts to flashbacks and present day. This can be an effective technique however in this film the flashbacks don’t bring any momentum and sends the film to a screeching halt. The pacing of this film is the biggest issue here. I am a huge fan of director David Yates‘ Harry Potter films, and cant wait for him to tackle the spin off Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, but with this film he seems unsure with what he wanted to make. The interactions between characters seemed like a clunky soap opera, and it never seems to know which direction to take with due to the distracting shifts in tone, even the darker and more tense scenes feel too safe and are too often fatally undermined by the humor that kills the mood, and there is also lack of emotional connection between the characters. The story gets off to a sluggish start and never recovers, by trying too to cram in too many characters and subplots that not only are so simplistic and lacking in dimension, the story loses its clarity, which does make the film a slog to get through and makes the characters and their relationships not developed enough or as relatable as they should (that’s including the one between Tarzan and Jane). 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 a 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. Here the film is all too proper and seriously-minded which cuts down on the fun and adventure seen in previous films (especially the amazing Disney animated version). Director Yates shows great technical competence but lacks focus when it comes to the more substance-related elements (story and pacing). Plus, isn’t the film supposed to be taking place during the build up to WWI, but there is nothing to connect it, to any events that took place during the that time period. No radio news talking about it, nor a glimpse of a paper with references to the build up.

The other problem is the actual character development. We know a lot about Tarzan but he’s so serious all the time. He barely cracks a smile and with how little fun he seems to be having, it limits how much fun you can have with the film. We also learn a lot about his past but his attitude and his ideals don’t evolve much over the film. They setup Jane to be a strong heroine but end up stranding her on a boat for a long time. The whole plot is just pretty far fetched and the intentions of Christoph Waltz‘s characters to lure Tarzan back to Africa are almost as ridiculous as the CGI and green-screen effects in the film. Yes, a big part of the problem is also the overuse of CGI. The CGI is not terrible, but just obvious CGI. And I don’t mean in a “Oh, that can’t be a real gorilla. because it would be too dangerous to film, so it must be CGI” way either. Normally I would hope that the technical merits of a big-budget film ($180 million here) would help it out but they, too, are lacking. The reunions scenes with elephants and lions impress but the effects are off the pace in comparison to the recent Planet of the Apes films or The Jungle Book. The most egregious example is with the swinging on vines scenes. In one scene, Tarzan and his buddies swing down on vines onto a moving train. The problem is that the train is moving away from them, yet the obvious attachment point of the vines seems also to be moving with it. In short, it looks bloody awful and fake as hell. Director David Yates brings with him the cold visual sheen he used so effectively in his Harry Potter films, but here it merely dulls the wonders of an amazing continent. There are fabulous, verdant greens in jungles, and the savanna David Attenborough has sold to me glows gold enough to make a man cry at evening times. None of this is to be seen in this matt-painted land. Just as it doesn’t feel like 1884, neither does this feel like Africa (I should point out here that I’ve been to neither). The editing, too, is second-rate, certain sequences and action scenes making little sense in places. And where was Cheetah! So much here isn’t real, it does make you wonder why they bothered making a live-action film at all. Looking past that inconsistency and hard-to-follow plot, on the positive side, the film has impressive cinematography. Mostly, the film looks great, with beautiful evocative period detail and even more stunning scenery, while not skimming over the fact that the jungle is also still a place of many dangers, complemented by the wonderful mix of the darkly brooding and sumptuous London and the lusciously colorful and appropriately earthy jungle in the cinematography. Rupert Gregson-Willam’s score has energy, and provides a whimsy, cool brooding atmosphere. Another regret when it comes to the lack of success this film has had is that they did a pretty good job casting it, getting some talented people in the right roles. Alexander Skarsgard has been very well cast as the titular lead. He’s got the physicality for the role and you want to follow him as Tarzan. I think he’s let down by the script more than anything. Margot Robbie‘s acting is decent. She plays Jane as a very positive and warm-hearted girl, thus impossible not to love. She also has a very feisty and masculine side that makes her more interesting. Although Margot 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 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. Samuel L. Jackson was probably the best actor here and seems to be having a lot of fun here. 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. Christoph Waltz is a great actor, but here he’s just a one-dimensional and passive villain here. And is it just me or that he seems to be picking up the same roles again and again. Djimon Hounsou is wasted. On the whole, ‘The Legend of Tarzan’ is not awful, but just a disappointing film with a decent cast and an underdeveloped plot.