The Legend of Tarzan is the latest film version of the classic story, now starring Alexander Skarsgard (Eric from True Blood) and his chiseled abs as Tarzan and Margot Robbie as Jane. And Samuel L. Jackson as a time traveler from 2016… oh, wait, no he plays an American ambassador to England in 1888… but he basically plays a guy from 2016.
And that is just one of the many problems in this thoroughly confused and messy movie.
First off, while not nearly as bad as the self-loathing of the Lone Ranger remake, this movie is kind of embarrassed to be a Tarzan movie. It tries really hard to apologize for the colonialism of the original stories by ensuring that we, the audience, knows that the movie and the characters knows how problematic the Tarzan story can be. Similarly, it knows that Jane is just a damsel in distress so it tries real hard to assure us she is a strong, independence woman… who gets kidnapped and needs rescued by Tarzan. Take your pick movie – just because you call out the cliche doesn’t mean you should be that cliche.
Second, this is a sequel to a better Tarzan movie they never made. The movie seems convinced we already know the Tarzan story so it only provides the origin in brief flashback scenes. The movie starts with Tarzan in England, now Lord Greystoke and civilized. The legend of Tarzan exists in the movie as pulp fiction true adventure stories – so John Clayton exists as a celebrity in his own movie. It’s kind of an interesting idea but I think the film makers missed a chance to retell the original story with all the film making and FX capabilities we have now. It’s been a long time since a non-animated Tarzan movie was made and they could have told an interesting story. Instead, they seem to be trying to jumpstart a franchise with a more action-based plot or something. I’m not sure what the logic was – fear of origin stories, maybe.
Third, Tarzan isn’t in the movie much as Tarzan (action hero) and, when he is, he’s just kind of bland. I like the actor playing him from True Blood but maybe he doesn’t have that much range or maybe they were more interested in telling the story around him. Or maybe they were embarrassed that this is a Tarzan movie. I dunno.
Fourth, this is a grim, dark movie with very little humor (other than people referencing ironically the Tarzan myth) which is fine, i guess. But the movie is also aggressively PG-13… there’s a much more violent movie here that they obviously chopped down to get a more family-friendly rating. I don’t mind a PG-13 movie but it’s the self-evident editing that gets distracting. And a decent argument can be made that maybe, you know, a Tarzan adventure should be fun.
So all of the above can be true and it can still be a good movie, in theory. But it’s really not. It’s not a terrible movie, I guess. But it’s kind of boring when it’s not tripping on its own feet with the above issues. The movie looks good and I guess the acting isn’t bad, but every actor seems to be a little too modern to the point where I started to thinking maybe they should have just updated Tarzan to the 21st century. There isn’t a lot of action, especially for a Tarzan movie and, by the time it shows up, I’d already checked out. Same is true for any interactions with animals… for the jungle-vine-swinging lord of the apes, there’s not much interacting with the decently-rendered CG animals.
I’d say avoid it. there’s better movies out there, including the perfectly enjoyable Jungle Book remake.
Score: 65