The Legend of Tarzan

A lovely single summertime watch. The chemistry between Skarsgård and Robbie works, with Jackson and Waltz complementing them in their classic acting positions. It was a very good choice to retell not the origin, but the return of Tarzan to Africa. I’m satisfied with it (although I've never really gotten into any Tarzan, including the statuesque Lex Barker). Lambert's best Tarzan to date has a good successor. (07/26/2016)

That was bullshit. The plot doesn't make any sense, the effects are lousy in places, and the weird slow-motion spoils all the action. Tarzan comes across as bland to the point of being unlikeable, but it's not so much Alexander Skarsgård's fault as it is David Yates' dull direction that trips him up. The weird tree-running is eye-poppingly digital, as are the animals, and unfortunately not even Margot Robbie, who quite illogically spends her days in the Congo wearing a dress that doesn't even shine in the water, can save the day. Christoph Waltz as the villain is incredibly dull. I'm afraid Tarzan will be off the market for a long time. (02/10/2024)

True, it is not a revolutionary adventure, but I do not think it deserves such harsh criticism. The film is spoiled mainly by the fact that the filmmakers once again didn't know the level and needed to film, for example, jumping on a train or the finale with a herd of digital animals... But they probably didn't even think that more than such unnecessary and not very well done scenes, the viewer would be interested in at least a somewhat thrilling final duel of man against man, during which we could worry just a little bit about the main character or his damsel in distress. Oh well. At least the first hour was pretty good to watch, the wooden Tarzan was actually likable, Samuel L. Jackson amused me here and there, and Gregson-Williams' music was a pleasant surprise. (12/30/2016)

Despite the fact that some of the motifs are probably taken from various sequels to the original book, the plot of the film seems desperately pulled out of someone’s ass and the film looks as if none of the creators knew what they were doing. It is as if the film was gradually shot by three directors with different visions, or as if director David Yates wanted to shoot it in three different ways at once. The resulting mishmash is a combination of Tarzan, a romantically veiled red library in the style of Out of Africa and an adventure reminiscent of Indiana Jones. At the same time, the film lacks tension, well-filmed action, humor and fun. On the other hand, there is no lack of bad editing and the digital tricks have a fluctuating quality. The actors are either poorly cast, play below their abilities, or both. The last rescue of the creators would be for them to argue that they tried to reproduce the naive trashy atmosphere of the adventure novels of the 1920s and 1930s, which would explain a lot. But even so, that would amount to a rather weak apology. (07/19/2016)

Right at the beginning, it would be good to compare this film with The Jungle Book, which also arrived in cinemas this year and I have to agree with most of the users, because I also liked the story of Mowgli and his animal friends more than The Legend of Tarzan. David Yates' film isn't downright bad, but I was probably expecting a slightly better built story and more use of the characters, especially Christoph Waltz, whose villains are top notch. Alexander Skarsgård was more suited to his role in True Blood, Margot Robbie was kind bland, and Samuel L. Jackson's involvement was obviously meant to cater for some of the humour (which, thankfully, it did). It wasn't a bad film from a technical standpoint, but compared to The Jungle Book it's more of a poorer sibling. In short, a film that while offering beautiful scenery of African nature, its stumbling block is its weaker story and especially its untapped potential. (07/16/2016)