Forum
Welcome to the forum. This is still beta so bear with me. Here is a link to a Forum Signup Form. Also, if you have trouble signing up or signing in, I also created a “Meta” forum for discussions/complaints/suggestions as I try to work the bugs out out of this — and you can always reach me with suggestions/complaints/scathing criticism at michaeldsellers@gmail.com.
Shining Wizard
Posts: 59
Will Streckfus
Posts: 47
I can't believe these three didn't even know the basic plot line. That it's been 8 years since he's been in the jungle. They're complaining about his hair of all things. They have no clue of what's going on.
B C
Posts: 25
Quote from Will Streckfus on June 28, 2016, 8:25 amI can't believe these three didn't even know the basic plot line. That it's been 8 years since he's been in the jungle. They're complaining about his hair of all things. They have no clue of what's going on.
At this point it's hard to take seriously anyone does something like this for a living and can't spend literally a minute or two finding out the plot.
Sir Drew
Posts: 39
The film currently has a 7.9/10 rating on IMDb from 215 votes. Not bad, at least. I hope it breaks into the 8s.
B C
Posts: 25
Here's a little article in Variety on the Premiere, focusing on the GWW character. But note the sentence in bold, I don't know why it's so hard for people to not understand this isn't part of the Disney movie, or the animated series, etc.
The live-action feature strays from the animated series, incorporating historical events and following Tarzan (Skarsgard) on his return to the Congo nearly a decade after moving to Victorian England with his wife, Jane (Robbie). Joined by George Washington Williams (Jackson), the group becomes a part of Belgian Captain Leon Rom’s corrupt plot to extract diamonds from the land and enslave Africans under King Leopold II’s rule.
“‘Tarzan’ has historic value in terms of exposing what King Leopold actually did to the Congo and the first real holocaust in African history transpired because of him,” Jackson said. “I was able to portray a real life character who actually went to the Congo and exposed King Leopold. I think that’s important for us as a people to understand.”
Yates said that the screenwriters, Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer, never intended “Tarzan” to be an adaptation. “It’s a completely original story,” the director said of its political backdrop.
B C
Posts: 25
Here's a negative review from the Tampa Bay Times (Linked to in IMD by someone who seems to have it in for LOT but judging from his other comments on the site likes IDR)
Review: 'The Legend of Tarzan' will leave you feeling Cheetah'd
Wednesday, June 29, 2016 12:00pm
Him Tarzan, me disappointed.
Could things turn out any other way for The Legend of Tarzan? The lord of the jungle is a century-old superhero as invented by Edgar Rice Burroughs, and an early template for Hollywood's insensitive racial and gender representations. Not to mention the occasional animal cruelty.
Filmmakers simply can't make Tarzan like they used to. If someone tries, like director David Yates did with The Legend of Tarzan, he's just another superhero, swinging on vines rather than spider webs. Natives can't be restless. Lions won't be wrestled.
Tarzan fans leave feeling Cheetah'd.
These issues could easily be overcome, if Alexander Skarsgard were allowed to bare his teeth and spill some true blood. This isn't a take-charge Tarzan commanding respect and wildlife; he's an elephant whisperer with downcast eyes. Skarsgard's charisma rests entirely in his sculpted abdomen, which doesn't register since his Tarzan stays dressed most of the time. (No loincloth, sorry.)
The plot is far too busy for summer movie pleasure, crowding out ideas that could've been entertaining. Belgium's king wants sacred diamonds from the Congo in 1898, and England is assisting. Tarzan is the ape man in the middle, familiar with the jungle territory and a Parliament member as John Clayton, Lord Greystoke. He'll negotiate.
Ah, but this is merely a way for Belgian schemer Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz) to deliver Tarzan to King Mbonga, who wants him killed for reasons we'll get around to. There are also abandonment issues with Tarzan's ape half-brother, plus the obligatory origins material, although thoughtfully scattered throughout.
Then there's Jane (Margot Robbie), who certainly isn't a damsel in distress but isn't much else. Jane and Tarzan are married, she insists upon joining his journey home, eventually falling into Rom's clutches. But not before being seduced by Tarzan's mimicked mating calls into a little oh-ee-oh-ee-oh.
Let's also mention Samuel L. Jackson as George Washington Williams, a U.S. emissary tagging along with Tarzan to ensure Congolese citizens aren't being enslaved. Of course they are, bringing out George's marksman skills. (A lot of people are gunned down in this movie.)
See The Legend of Tarzan if you must, then consider what could've been done differently with these characters. Why don't we get a scene of Congo natives interacting with George, curious about a black man of obvious means in 1898? Certainly Waltz deserves a role written more dastardly. We could also use an early scene in London, of Tarzan's instincts being kept in check. Skarsgard keeps him tame too long.
If you have sexy stars like Skarsgard and Robbie, give them a memorable vine-swinging sequence like Lois Lane and Superman (as long as you're imitating other movies). Or here's a novel idea: Make Tarzan dependant upon Jane for a change. A preceding trailer for Suicide Squad shows Robbie is ready for action.
Yates manages a couple of impressive animal stampedes; ostriches for comic effect and an CGI jungle menagerie for thrills. Tarzan's brawl with his ape half-brother makes good use of Planet of the Apes motion capture technology. Again, the best parts of The Legend of Tarzan are transparently sourced from somewhere else.
Then again, Burroughs long ago created the enduring fantasy of superhuman abilities fighting for right in surroundings that stir imagination. He's Tarzan, we're grateful, and disappointed this movie didn't turn out better.
Contact Steve Persall at spersall@tampabay.com or (727) 893-8365. Follow @StevePersall.
The Legend of Tarzan
Director: David Yates
Cast: Alexander Skarsgard, Margot Robbie, Christoph Waltz, Samuel L. Jackson, Djimon Hounsou, Sidney Ralitsoele, Casper Crump, Osy Ikhile, Jim Broadbent
Screenplay: Adam Cozad, Craig Brewer, based on Tarzan stories by Edgar Rice Burroughs
Rating: PG-13; violence, brief sensuality and profanity
Running time: 109 min.
Grade: C-
Margaret Bailey
Posts: 49
I can't take reviewers like this seriously no matter what movie they are talking about since all they want is to comment about how they wanted a different movie altogether. What about the movie that was made? What about the script writers? What about the director? And the actors?Did they do a good job making the movie they intended to make? These kind of reviewers are totally unable to stick to the point and focus on the intentions of the script and director.They are all taken up with their own vision. They also want to sound too clever and cute ( "Cheetahed " indeed and he wanted Skarsgard to spill some " true blood" ) I think of these types as wanna be script writers or directors and usually stop reading as soon as it becomes clear to me that their ego is dominating any attempt to fairly and objectively assess the movie.
Lindie825
Posts: 74
This reviewer was clearly looking for something else -- he had an expectation and the movie didn't meet it. I guess that's his prerogative. What I find irritating is that he is way too impressed with himself using all of the old, tired Tarzan references -- "Cheetah'd" , "oh-ee-oh-ee", and the true blood comment. Too clever for his own good.
Michael Sellers
Posts: 45
Very annoying review and disappointing that this would be the first "real" review to come out. I am not going to give this embargo-bustin' egotist the advantage of posting his review on the main blog before the other ones are out. In my comment to it I said it's one of those reviews that tell you a lot more about the reviewer than the movie. "Looking for something else" is right . . . .
B C
Posts: 25
Interestingly while I don't get a 404 error the review is no longer on the page. I'm presuming it'll reappear tomorrow morning (this is why I copied and pasted it into the comment).
I don't have my own computer at work which is probably a good thing, since tomorrow I'd be constantly refreshing RT to see what's been posted.
ETA: I wonder if WB notified them to take the review down or they realized they'd broken the embargo and removed it on their own. This being a major paper I'm presuming the fault with the early publishing lies not with the reviewer who submitted for publication post embargo.
Also, I note on IMDB the trolls have come out again. I'll say this here, because I can't post on IMD (can't authenticate my new account) Maggie is countering a commenter called ofumalow, who saw a screening yesterday and thought it a bore. I have no doubt s/he did see it, as there were screenings yesterday besides the premiere. But looking at their posting history, LOT isn't their type of movie, so if they did like it, I'd be very surprised. And looking at their commenting style they seem to be a pretentious asshole. While I can't comment on IMDB I can block, and I've started to do that with the obvious trolls, because even if I could post, I currently don't have the energy to counteract too much trolldom. But just because someone doesn't like the movie doesn't mean they're a troll, even if they're on IMDB.