The Legend of Tarzan (2016) (filmed, scenes, dvd, cast)

[Ralph_Kirk]

At my age, I've seen all the American-made Tarzan movies from Johnny Weissmuller's 1930s movies to date. The last couple of iterations have avoided the obvious cultural issues only by eliminating Africans entirely. This one has the least cringeworthy representation of Africans yet, by essentially making Tarzan the friend and hero of every living creature native to Africa.


Since we all know the origin of Tarzan, this movie thankfully presents that only in short flashback scenes. It starts with John Clayton III as an English gentleman with his Tarzan background being a matter of past interest that he has no intention of returning to (although he and Lady Jane still like a bit of the jungle boogie in private).


John has received an invitation from King Leopold to visit Congo and to see how well things were going in his old homeland. That is an invitation to a trap, because John has an old enemy, Djimon Hounsou, who wants his head on a pike. Hounsou is the chief of a tribe that controls diamonds King Leopold desperately needs, and Hounsou's price is John Clayton.


John has no intention of accepting Leopold's invitation until urged by Samuel L Jackson to investigate slavery perpetrated by King Leopold of Belgium in John's old Congo homeland. Because John has lots of homies back there (both human and animal), he decides to investigate the charges. And of course, Jane ("I am no damsel") is far too feminist to stay behind in England.


Here is something I found paradoxical: Jackson's character "George Washington Williams" seems totally pasted onto the story. Yet, his character is the only historical character in the movie. There really was a black man named George Washington Williams who was everything Jackson's character claimed, including traveling to the Congo to investigate slavery and the letter of protest to King Leopold (except, of course, hanging out with a dude named "Tarzan"). It's paradoxical that the one element of reality seemed so unnecessary to the plot.


They also didn't do very much with Hounsou. He was good, but they could have paid much less money for an unknown to do the little that Hounsou did.

[Mark S.]

I might catch the DVD on this one some day.

I don't understand why studios keep making TARZAN movies but never actually put the Burroughs's stories onscreen. The only one that has even come a little bit close was the old Saturday morning cartoon from the '70s.

[NVplumber]

Originally Posted by Mark S.

I might catch the DVD on this one some day.

I don't understand why studios keep making TARZAN movies but never actually put the Burroughs's stories onscreen. The only one that has even come a little bit close was the old Saturday morning cartoon from the '70s.

Oh so true. That old.cartoon was the only on screen make that did the Burroughs stories any justice at all. This new make doesn'toil like any exception.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by NVplumber

Oh so true. That old.cartoon was the only on screen make that did the Burroughs stories any justice at all. This new make doesn'toil like any exception.

Some stories are too outdated to be "done justice" in a modern era. Burroughs stories in particular seem to be hopelessly dated without substantial changes, which is why even excellently authentic "John Carter of Mars" adaptations do not do well at the box office.

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

Some stories are too outdated to be "done justice" in a modern era.

I don't disagree, which is why I've never been able to read too far in to the Tarzan series. I'm all for a suspension of disbelief in fantasy. But Tarzan doesn't push the envelope. It shreds it.

That said, there was a lot to love about the basic concept of the original stories that none of the film adaptations have ever tried to play with.

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

Burroughs stories in particular seem to be hopelessly dated without substantial changes, which is why even excellently authentic "John Carter of Mars" adaptations do not do well at the box office.

I don't know. I watched the movie, and it was certainly lacking something. Being "dated" wasn't the problem with that story. The problem was completely bland characters. Not a single character was the least bit engaging from beginning to end.

[AFtrEFkt]

John Carter (of Mars) is a good movie. It was horribly promoted.

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by AFtrEFkt

John Carter (of Mars) is a good movie. It was horribly promoted.

It was an okay movie. Nothing about it ever struck me as bad. But it never rose enough to be engaging. I sat through the whole thing, but I could have stood up and walked away at any time in the movie and not felt like I was really missing anything.

[Miss Hepburn]

If I had not been with a friend I would have gotten my $$ back after 30-40 minutes.
I knew at 15 minutes, "Oh brother, is this slooooow."
Only in the last 30min did I gain any interest ...but it wasn't much.
And it had nothing filmed in Africa according to SL Jackson on late night talk shows.

And I love Alex Skarsgard and his wife was beautiful....but...they could not save this movie.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

If I had not been with a friend I would have gotten my $$ back after 30-40 minutes.
I knew at 15 minutes, "Oh brother, is this slooooow."
Only in the last 30min did I gain any interest ...but it wasn't much.
And it had nothing filmed in Africa according to SL Jackson on late night talk shows.

And I love Alex Skarsgard and his wife was beautiful....but...they could not save this movie.

Nothing with the cast was filmed in Africa, but background rolls were filmed in Gabon.

[nightlysparrow]

Too much CGI. Too many unrealistic scenes that had him swinging on vines like Spider Man. And there is a dinner scene with the wife and her captor that is totally stolen from Raiders of the Lost Ark.