The Legend of Tarzan

True, it is not a revolutionary adventure, but I do not think it deserves such harsh criticism. The film is spoiled mainly by the fact that the filmmakers once again didn't know the level and needed to film, for example, jumping on a train or the finale with a herd of digital animals... But they probably didn't even think that more than such unnecessary and not very well done scenes, the viewer would be interested in at least a somewhat thrilling final duel of man against man, during which we could worry just a little bit about the main character or his damsel in distress. Oh well. At least the first hour was pretty good to watch, the wooden Tarzan was actually likable, Samuel L. Jackson amused me here and there, and Gregson-Williams' music was a pleasant surprise. (30/12/2016)

Someone might enjoy all the pulp as a guilty pleasure, but I found The Legend of Tarzan more and more annoying with every passing minute, despite its very promising start. Jon Favreau’s The Jungle Book is the clear winner here. (03/07/2016)

A lovely single summertime watch. The chemistry between Skarsgård and Robbie works, with Jackson and Waltz complementing them in their classic acting positions. It was a very good choice to retell not the origin, but the return of Tarzan to Africa. I’m satisfied with it (although I've never really gotten into any Tarzan, including the statuesque Lex Barker). Lambert's best Tarzan to date has a good successor. (26/07/2016)

At first I was surprised with the story itself. The thing is that the film does not offer the classical view of Tarzan’s life in the jungle, but it starts at a moment when Tarzan is already a cultivated and respectable English subject with an aristocratic past and the manners or a true elderly gentleman. The beginning seems really good and it is really entertaining. But after about half an hour, Tarzan sets off on a journey to his original homeland. There is a plot twist and the story goes back to its beginning. So once again Tarzan is flying around on endless lianas – a liana in one hand, the beautiful Jane in the other – and he’s fighting against British colonists. At that point, the excitement starts to wane and unfortunately it doesn’t get better again. It’s fine, but this movie doesn’t deserve more than three stars to be swung towards it on a liana. (15/12/2017)

Animals versus colonialism or the Swedish model makes Africa great again. When the creators are already pushing so hard on the racial and colonial aspect, the character of the scattered and theatrically very faint Aryan is very interesting, by which I do not want to suggest that anything from The Legend of Tarzan deserves to be taken seriously. Attempts at moralizing are as rigid as trying to tell two stories at once (both the "origin" and the new storyline drag on). Christopher Waltz could send his less talented double to the set to play the villainous roles, and David Yates confirms that he is a boring director, especially when the screenwriters don't give him brisk dialogues. Plus, it sometimes looks like some of the shots disappeared, so Samuel L. Jackson fires like a rich Texan. I can also forget that the film opens a meaningless amount of storylines and tells them very roughly, and sometimes not at all. Favreau didn't try a tenth of the "serious overlaps" in The Jungle Book, yet his film looks ten times more mature than this CGI nonsense. One then notices with fascination all the bullshit, such as the fact that a man living his whole life among gorillas is shaved like a real Dandy. Well, the nobleman's son won’t be denied. (21/01/2017)