[yasr_overall_rating]
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.
Truth be told, I have never cared much for Tarzan; not even Disney’s 1999 adaptation (complete with an endearing Phil Collins soundtrack). Tarzan may just not be cut out for the big screen. David Yates’ “The Legend of Tarzan,” while not wholly a disaster, and possibly the best attempt to date at bringing this “wild man” to life, still doesn’t quite hit the mark. Heartstrings remain un-tugged and nary a watery eye in sight; but kudos to Yates and screenwriters Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer for giving us more than just an origin story. While Tarzan’s past is smoothly weaved into the film there are more pressing matters to focus on, such as Belgium’s King Leopold enslaving the people of the Congo via the nefarious plans of the rosary-wielding and villainously-mustached Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz).
We are introduced to our Tarzan not as a man swinging from vine to vine or producing his signature call, but as John Clayton (Alexander Skarsgard), Lord of Greystoke. He is a towering figure with a somber face, a “wild man” seemingly domesticated by upper-crust British mores. But there remains a glint in his eye revealing the nature and history of the man he “was,” and who still teems beneath the surface. There are pressures on Clayton/Tarzan to return to the Congo to investigate the suspected seediness of its bankrupt sovereign, King Leopold of Belgium. Everyone knows and loves Tarzan and of course he’s the perfect selection to represent Britain. He’s a wealthy Lord that can also hang with the locals, he’s “cool.” Britain’s concern is the collection of Belgian debt, and Clayton initially expresses no desire to get involved in the messy matters of money and soulless colonialism. But no worries, Samuel L. Jackson’s George Washington Williams steps in and lets Clayton know what’s up. Upon hearing that the people that he loves are in danger of being enslaved, Clayton hauls ass and lets his spirited American wife Jane (Margot Robbie) know of his plans. After light arguing and reflection on whether or not Jane should accompany him, they are off to the Congo along with George Washington Williams.
Warm welcomes are had by animals and old friends alike. We learn of the “Legend of Tarzan” through the villagers’ hushed calming narratives. Tarzan, both the myth and the man, is revered and loved. These are the sweet moments of the film but they are few; as most of the film is chock-full of running and fighting with the clunkiness of a “Mortal Kombat” game, with poor representations of fierce CGI beasts. But everyone does the best with what they are given. Skarsgard embodies the aura of “Tarzan,” (but as John Clayton he has a grating English accent) and Waltz does his usual villain, perhaps to the point of caricature. Samuel L. Jackson was a treat. It is as if he was transported from a Tarrantino film and pared down for a PG-13 audience. The comedy (for me) was misplaced for a film focused on the evils of man’s greed and the depravity of colonialism but Jackson’s comedy is always welcome, everyone else just needs to not go there (looking at you Margot Robbie).
I can’t say Yates’ “The Legend of Tarzan” is just as bad as any of the other adaptations of the Tarzan, because it’s not. It’s fresh enough but just lacks feeling. I hate it when I don’t really give a damn about any of the characters. It’s bad when you wish one of the main characters would just die only because it might shake up the monotony. And while Yates and screenwriters scrape the surface of the ills of colonial history, at times the film comes off as an uncomfortable “white man savior” narrative. But if you can get past the superficiality, then you have yourself a mildly enjoyable kid-friendly action adventure flick complete with the distant yodels of the Tarzan we all know.
In theaters now
3.4k
20k
1.5k
1.3k