Skip to main content

Tarzan, you look funny!

The Legend of Tarzan
(2016)

(SPOILERS) Good grief, this is ape shit. And not in a good, crazy-ape-shit-bonkers way. Or even monkey nuts. David Yates is very lucky to have the Harry Potter franchise to fall back on if The Legend of Tarzan is indicative of the standard of ineptitude he delivers when he doesn’t have the keepers of holy Harry statutes hovering over him, watching his every move. The movie’s mystifying reasonable performance at the box office last summer can only, I assume, be put down to the throngs of Skarsgård devotees itching to see him rippling his abs.


I certainly can’t figure out what else would have induced anyone to seek out this picture (we should, thankfully, be spared a sequel, as it cost far too much to merit a follow up). Reportedly, there were production problems en route, with WB thinking they had a disaster on their hands (they did, pretty much). You can see certain worried calculations being made in advance, such as casting Samuel L Jackson in a prominent role in an attempt to head off the clumsiness of having a great white saviour who knows how to live in Africa better than the actual Africans. Jackson, after all, is used to defending insensitive white people against Spike Lee. Sam is entirely reliable here, which is to say that he’s on autopilot, picking up his lavish cheque, and not remotely enthused by anything other than his latest rug (there’s a gag about him licking a CGI ape’s nuts, which is roughly representative of what Yates is doing to the Tarzan legend, and takes us back to the first paragraph).


There’s also an attempt to model Tarzan as the original superhero, except that instead of suiting up, he strips down. Curiously, the bashful makers couldn’t quite bring themselves to have the Lord of the Jungle prancing about in a loincloth, except in flashbacks, so Alex’s troos have to settle for falling dangerously low about his hips. But, to be fair to Yates, our jungle-infested vine swinger’s continually adored by the female gaze; when Tarzan gets it on with Jane (a resoundingly forgettable Margot Robbie, proving she can only do so much when there’s nothing to dig into – she may as well be Denise Richards here – but she’s also entirely to blame for taking the damsel in distress role), it’s all about his flesh. One might, as such, advocate the picture as an updating of Tarzan the Ape Man, if it was all about Miles O’Keeffe rather than Bo Derek, that is. And if one were to disposed towards advocating Tarzan the Ape Man in the first place (which, let’s face it, no one over fourteen would be).


What it wants to be, I suspect, is Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes done right (and playing for the blockbuster crowd). Instead, it gets almost everything wrong. Where Greystoke boasted unconvincing ape costumes, Legend has whack CGI. Whack CGI everywhere. Really, this is pitiful stuff, with distractingly distended CGI apes battling a tangible Tarzan, and a distractingly distended CGI Tarzan swinging through the jungle, attempting to leap onto a CGI train. It’s enough to give Stephen Sommers, crown prince of gravity-free, CGI gymnastics, the scream habdabs. There’s more than a surfeit of CGI animals, so many I frequently wondered if I was catching the Jumanji reboot a year early, and Yates in his studio jungle (perhaps he was following Tarzan’s reasoning – “I’ve already seen Africa, and it’s hot”) and with his two-tone colour grading draining any hint of bona fide atmosphere, we’re never in danger of mistaking this for a believable setting.


The plot ostensibly posits a serious-minded piece about Tarzan defeating slavery in the Congo, but with Christoph Waltz hamming it up in the most irritating manner (seriously, Christoph, quit it already with the Hollywood villains. What’s that? You’ve got Alita: Battle Angel lined up. Oh, well) and pretty much every element following his lead in caricature, there’s little chance of respect shown or given. Skarsgård is entirely bland in the lead role, stuck somewhere between working hard at maintaining an English accent, meeting the demands of eye candy, and glowering. Mind you, Yates cast him because he loves “his verticality”. That’s fair. If there’s one thing The Legend of Tarzan has got, it’s verticality.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.