The Legend of Tarzan
Grade: C+
Starring: Alexander Skarsgard, Margot Robbie, Samuel L.
Jackson, Christoph Waltz and Djimon Hounsou
Premise: Now living in England with his wife Jane, Tarzan
is called to return to the African jungle during a Belgian exploration project.
Rated PG-13 for action, language, and some sensuality
Well, the slate of summer 2016 movies isn’t exactly knocking
my socks off so far. Admittedly, I haven’t seen some of the big-ticket movies
so far, including the comedy sequel Neighbors
2 or the newest Pixar product, Finding
Dory, but The Legend of Tarzan
marks the third-straight seriously-underwhelming blockbuster I’ve seen. There
was the dull, confusing, C-level fantasy Warcraft,
the overcooked, completely unnecessary sequel Independence Day: Resurgence, and now comes Tarzan, which has the visual flair to be a great epic adventure but
ultimately proves sadly underwritten.
My favorite version of the Tarzan story (originally
conceived by Edgar Rice Burroughs in the early 1900s) is probably always going
to be the Phil Collins-scored Disney version that came out in 1999, but this
version, directed by three-time Harry
Potter auteur David Yates, shows promise early on. Not unlike Deadpool, this movie starts about
halfway through the narrative action, revealing the typical origin story stuff
only via flashbacks while keeping things moving forward in the present. And the
overall premise isn’t bad: a now-domesticated Tarzan returning to the jungle
with European explorers? Primitive African tribesmen living in the jungle who
are almost as savage as any “beast”? Jane a more rough-and-tumble missionary
kid raised in Africa as opposed to a
squeaky-clean aristocrat? There’s a lot of potential, and it’s clear serious
money and time was spent on the period details and the special effects to
convey convincing gorillas and leopards and the like. But none of the main
characters are given more than a hint of depth, and, as a result, there’s no
chemistry between Tarzan and Jane, Tarzan exhibits a total lack of personality,
the villain is a smug, boring caricature, and a potentially high-stakes story
about the exploitation of the jungle and its natives via the European slave
trade holds almost no weight. It’s disappointing because this movie had the
visual appeal, a fine cast of actors, and the right pieces, to be a really
compelling updated adventure for a classic character.
Plot
Raised by a band of gorillas in the jungles of the Congo
after his shipwrecked British parents died, Tarzan (Swedish actor Alexander Skarsgard)
has returned to England, married his sweetheart Jane (Margot Robbie), and
assumed his birth name of John Clayton III, and his rightful title of Lord of
Greystoke. Viewed as a celebrity by a fascinated public, John is recruited to
revisit the Congo by the
Prime Minister (Jim Broadbent) to drum up interest in a colony who could turn
the land’s natural resources into a profit for England and its European allies.
Reluctant at first, Tarzan is persuaded by a plain-spoken American named George
Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson), who hints to Tarzan that the land he’s
returning to is being plundered, and its people enslaved.
When Tarzan, Jane and George arrive again in the Congo , they
find the indigenous tribes Jane was raised with, the schools she and her father
built, and the house she was raised in. They also find the remnants of the
gorilla clan, which now views Tarzan as an outsider. And they cross paths with
Belgian explorer Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), a slick-talking and slick-dressing
emissary of King Leopold of Belgium ,
who seems to be in cahoots with the chief of a local clan of sinister tribesmen
(Djimon Hounsou). Shortly it becomes clear that Rom is hostile to Tarzan and
Jane, as well as the native African community they hold dear.
What Doesn’t Work?
Like I said before: a domesticated Tarzan living in London
with Jane gets a chance to go back and connect with his homeland, not to
mention getting to let loose the inner vine-slinging, rough-housing ape man of
legend when some baddies cross him—how can they possibly mess up a film with that premise? Well, I’d say the way they
messed it up is two-fold: First, they turned something with as classic a feel
as Tarzan into your average summer blockbuster, with a perfunctory romance,
perfunctory sidekick, perfunctory villain who needs defeating, etc… Second,
they produced a film that is lifeless.
That’s right—after a promising beginning, a movie about a man raised swinging
on vines in the jungle and wrestling with his gorilla brethren feels dull and hollow
almost immediately. Alexander Skarsgard’s empty expression and bland line
readings don’t help. The man’s an impressive slice of muscular beefcake, for
sure, but this version of Tarzan is joyless, witless, and has little
discernible personality. Worse, he has nary a shred of chemistry with his
classic love, Jane. The only hint that there’s anything special about this man
at all (except for his ability to swing from vines), is that he can imitate a
number of different animals’ mating calls. Silly as that sounds, it is something that could be unique and
interesting about a man raised by apes (hello,
foreplay!), and I’m sure there was more in the tool shed. There’s a lot wrong
with this film, but the main thing they did wrong was create a largely-blank
page of their main character, especially one as intriguing as Tarzan of the
Apes.
I wonder if it’s truly Skarsgard’s fault. None of the
characters in the movie are given much depth or color at all, thanks to a
script that hurries quickly through by-the-numbers set-up sequences and rarely
stages a conversation longer than about ten lines of dialogue. There’s no
chance for traction amongst any of the characters (with the possible exception
of Samuel L. Jackson, if only because he’s playing himself). The lack of
characterization is noticeable quickly, and the gulf only grows wider thanks to
the movie’s uneven pace.
This largely dooms the actors. The attractive Robbie has an
open accessibility that’s very appealing, and she’s here given a Jane that has
a little more color (she’s bilingual, she, too, was raised in Africa, she
teaches children about her experiences in the Congo ), but it’s ultimately—and
obviously—just a damsel-in-distress role. Thankfully for Robbie, she’s already
become a megastar for playing Harley Quinn in the upcoming Suicide Squad—this less-victorious outing won’t hurt her career.
I wonder if the same can be said for Christoph Waltz. The
man sashayed his way to fame in Quentin Tarantino films, playing
uber-intelligent, morally-skewed, wily, smily characters, but Leon Rom is about
the fourth character he’s played who’s basically just a watered-down,
non-Tarantino-written version of that archetype. It’s an even bigger bummer of
a role than his turn as the underused bad guy in last year’s James Bond film Spectre. Rom is a typical blockbuster
baddie—slick-dressing and ambitious, going about his business with a chip on
his shoulder thanks to a poor upbringing, and sporting a peculiar signature
weapon. It’s an immediately forgettable turn, worth mentioning only because the
man who plays it has played some truly outstanding roles in other, better
movies.
The flashbacks in the movie are handled unevenly, the big
action climax is rushed and way too easy, and the movie otherwise struggles
with contrivance. A vicious gorilla gets the upper hand on Tarzan and doesn’t
kill him because…? The sinister tribesmen in the jungle who were such a big
plot point randomly disappear and aren’t seen again because…? Oh, and there’s
the poor editing in the action sequences. From an ambush by spear-throwing
tribesmen to Tarzan fighting a train-car full of Belgian army officers to
Tarzan’s mano-a-mano with a gorilla, the editing is choppy and indirect,
hinting at cool action while rarely actually showing any of it.
What Works?
As I mentioned, right from the get-go, this movie has a lot
of things working in its favor. First, it’s about the inherently interesting
fictional person of Tarzan – man raised by apes. Second, it isn’t just another
origin story but hints at the intriguing second and third acts in Tarzan’s
life. Third, it’s visually impressive, with the CGI jungle animals rendered
even more impressively than similar creatures were in April’s The Jungle Book. There was definitely a
big-time, epic adventure saga here. But, as mentioned, the filmmakers missed it
with a far too simple and by-the-numbers script.
It’s not all bad. Robbie works hard to make Jane
compelling—it helps that she has the star-on-the-rise appeal of someone about
to hit the big time. Samuel L. Jackson does his usual loud, sharp-tongued
shtick we’re so well-accustomed to (at least the PG-13 version), but it’s
actually welcomed here, as his is the only character not heavily dulled by the
movie’s poor writing; we’re so familiar with his personality that we don’t need
much to gain familiarization. He also gets a quieter monologue about the
dehumanizing impact of war that’s the deepest thing the movie has to offer. And
Djimon Hounsou, so poorly utilized here for a two-time Oscar nominee, manages
to drive home the crux of the movie’s big emotional conflict with just a few
lines, and a vivid, pained facial expression.
There are other factors as well. It’s nice of the movie to
acknowledge the indigenous peoples of Africa
and to suggest Jane’s upbringing as a missionary gives her some extra knowledge
of the culture, the land, and the language. We do get the classic awkward/cute
meeting between Jane and not-yet-civilized Tarzan in flashback—his awkward
sniffing is weird/fascinating to her at first, but she quickly rebuffs him when
he tries to inspect between her legs. And, when Samuel L. Jackson’s
babe-in-the-woods explorer needs a helping hand to keep up with Tarzan and some
of his indigenous buddies, it’s amusing to see him piggy-backing (“legs, too”)
on Tarzan for a vine-swinging ride.
Content
Though there’s some intense action and Waltz’s baddie does
some nefarious baddie things, it’s not graphic, in keeping with PG-13
blockbuster status. A couple nice tribespeople and a pack of gorillas get mowed
down in non-bloody massacres by Waltz’ men, and a couple people get strangled
or impaled with spears, though I daresay you’ll see nary a drop of blood
spilled. And I’m pretty sure Samuel L. gets to indulge in some gratuitous PG-13
cusswords.
Bottom Line
The Legend of Tarzan
has a lot working in its favor, from great special effects and good visuals, a
talented cast, and a Deadpool-style
non-linear telling of its story, where it hints at the origins of Tarzan but
moves on to give us more interesting stuff like a domesticated Tarzan who’s been
living in England returning home to the jungle where he was raised. With better
writing, it could have been a pretty great epic. But, alas, the script is
rushed and by-the-numbers, turning Edgar Rice Burroughs’ fascinating, beloved
character’s story into Tarzan: The
Typical Summer Blockbuster, complete with a bland hunk (Swedish actor
Alexander Skarsgard as Tarzan), an underdeveloped damsel-in-distress (Margot
Robbie AKA soon-to-be-Harley Quinn as Jane), a central couple with zero
chemistry, Christoph Waltz playing the Christoph Waltz role of smug, scheming
villain, Samuel L. Jackson playing himself, an overwrought-yet-too-easy action
climax, and just an overall sense of feeling like a lengthy trailer for a
longer, fuller, better movie. I didn’t think this movie would capture my
affections quite like the 1999 Disney version has, but I was still hoping for a
lot more than this pretty-but-hollow flick.
The Legend of Tarzan (2016)
Directed by David Yates
Screenplay by Craig Brewer and Adam Cozad
Based on the 'Tarzan' stories by Edgar Rice Burroughs
Rated PG-13
Length: 109 minutes
