The Legend of Tarzan

I would easily call the very beginning of the film brilliant. You tell yourself that this wouldn't be just any movie. But then the genius just disappears. And then it reappears in maybe two or three scenes. So there are as many scenes that are very good as there are scenes where you want to burst out laughing at the ineptitude. Aside from the sometimes rather trite script, the biggest weakness is Tarzan himself. I don't know if it was a poor choice of actor or if he was just written that oddly, but I wasn't impressed at all. I get it, he was raised by animals and had to behave differently, but this just wasn't it. So muscles... fine, he had them. But charisma? None. Too bad. On the other hand, the best thing about the whole movie, from my point of view, was the charming Margot. She had an interestingly written character and she could sell it. Otherwise, I'd recommend The Jungle Book, which came out at almost the same time. That one is much more sophisticated and catchy. 3 stars. (24/07/2016)

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)

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)

Perfect casting, but a terrible digital mess. The biggest positives are Samuel L. Jackson, Christoph Waltz and Margot Robbie, and I was intrigued by the different retelling of Tarzan's story, but the visuals and the look of the digital animals might have pleased me in 2008, but today it looked a bit off to me, and the ending with the bison seemed like a bad joke. The action is also from a weaker barrel, Alexander Skarsgård is a bit too thin in the fights and we don't even hear the impact of the blows, which disappointed me, but on the other hand, it's at least entertaining and it's easy to watch without any deep disturbance. Jungle book will definitely be two levels better. 55% (04/08/2016)

Despite the fact that some of the motifs are probably taken from various sequels to the original book, the plot of the film seems desperately pulled out of someone’s ass and the film looks as if none of the creators knew what they were doing. It is as if the film was gradually shot by three directors with different visions, or as if director David Yates wanted to shoot it in three different ways at once. The resulting mishmash is a combination of Tarzan, a romantically veiled red library in the style of Out of Africa and an adventure reminiscent of Indiana Jones. At the same time, the film lacks tension, well-filmed action, humor and fun. On the other hand, there is no lack of bad editing and the digital tricks have a fluctuating quality. The actors are either poorly cast, play below their abilities, or both. The last rescue of the creators would be for them to argue that they tried to reproduce the naive trashy atmosphere of the adventure novels of the 1920s and 1930s, which would explain a lot. But even so, that would amount to a rather weak apology. (19/07/2016)