|
100,000 sperm and you were the fastest?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,860
|
Legend of Tarzan : 4.5/10
I've got to agree with Protector2814 on this one. Dreams shattered, then stomped on, then spit on, then set afire.
As an average movie goer with little or limited knowledge of the source material, I would have scored this one a little higher, but not much.
As an ERB fan, I've got to say that, once again, Hollywood has managed to completely whiff on translating his work into film. This is on par with John Carter for a huge swing and a miss. The essentials of the character were simply ignored or forgotten. While there were some decent elements in the film, there were too many that simply missed the mark altogether. If this movie gets a spoiler thread, I'll go into more detail, but for now here's the take I can give.
The Good:
Alexander Skarsgaard at least looked the part. Almost. Tarzan is typically referred to as having jet black hair, but I'll let that go. Physically, he was a fine choice to play the character.
The settings and cinematography were stunning and appropriate. Wonderful look at the various locales in which the Tarzan mythos takes place.
The jungle swinging scenes were pretty well done. Maybe a little to clean, but a good representation of Tarzan's ability to move quickly through the forest.
I really liked the updated Tarzan yell. It paid homage to the Johnny Weismeuller era, but sounded much more guttural and savage. Likely my biggest kudo to the movie.
Overall, Tarzan's relationship with the beasts of the jungle was well represented. His affinity to all savage beasts was perhaps the only thing the producers paid any respect to. The lion scene and the elephant scene probably showcase this the best. It was a little over the top at the end, but well done nonetheless.
The Bad:
Where to start? There's so much wrong with this on so many levels for the true Burroughs fan.
Tarzan was too white. Now settle down while I explain this. Even though the film is set in a time when Tarzan has been away from Africa for quite some time, he still comes off as too pale. Tarzan spent his entire life naked under the African sun. Apart from his signature loincloth (strangely absent in this film) he was entirely exposed, day and night to the elements. As such, and explained in the novels, Tarzan would have the kind of tan that no amount of being indoors would ever completely fade. He is most often described as having a "deep chestnut complexion". Call it a nitpick, but pasty white Tarzan doesn't cut it.
Tarzan's strength and fighting skills were very poorly portrayed. He was almost like a victim in much of the movie. I won't get into spoilers but suffice it to say that it would take far more than five or six men to subdue the lord of the jungle. And no way he takes a beating from an ape without giving a whole lot back. Pathetic understanding of what the character is capable of.
Skarsgaard was too flat in general. He never really gave more than one emotion throughout the film. Even in the face of his wife's abduction, the animal side of him never really came out. No rage, no grim resolve, no animal bloodlust. He just sort of floated through the film in one constant emotional state. Very lack luster performance.
As Protector2814 said, Sam Jackson's character was completely useless and unnecessary. Not to mention the fact that he would have died or been lost a dozen times over before the final scene. He was kind of like Fievel's hat in An American Tail. Completely lost in one scene, and then just reappears for no reason in the next. There was no reason for this character to be in the story, and so many actors who could have done a better job than the go to angry black dude.
Jane's character was also very weak. Her portrayal of a woman calmly waiting for her apeman to rescue her was way off. She learned a lot of survival skills and jungle lore from her husband and was far from the damsel in distress. Her escape would have lasted much longer than it did. Also, she grew up in Connecticut, not in Africa, so a big WTF there.
The CGI elements, particularly of the animals, felt incomplete. In a age where seamless integration of live action and CGI elements is possible, there was just a feeling that the entire post production process was lacking. The lions and leopard and well as the apes came off looking like video game props more than being real life creatures. In comparison, and not to defend the other ERB flop in any way, the CGI elements in John Carter were much more convincing, and they were aliens.
The apes were very poorly represented in this movie, being essentially just gorillas. In Tarzan lore, the mangani, or great apes, are an entirely different species to bolgani, the gorilla. They are a mythical species of ape, created for the purpose of the story and bear no resemblance to the gorilla. In fact the mangani and bolgani are mortal enemies, competing for territory. To have them be just a subset of the gorilla family with more aggressive tendencies is simply lazy and inaccurate.
I could go on and on with the misses that this movie made, but I think I've given as much time to it as I want to. The end result for me is that, once again, Hollywood has exercised its right to utterly and completely ignore source material in translating a time honoured character from literature into film. There is so much more wrong with this movie than there is right. As it stands, "Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan" still stands as the most accurate portrayal of Burroughs' creation to date. All other film adaptations, this latest one included, pale in comparison, and are nothing more than campy, popcorn cinema.
What an utter disappointment. I was so stoked for this movie after seeing the trailers. They made it look so much like they had gone to great lengths to make a proper Tarzan movie. I guess it just goes to show how much crap you can hide with a well edited trailer. Too bad they spent so much effort making a convincing trailer and so little time making an accurate movie.
|
