Forum

From Collider, most of this isn't new to those of us reading all the articles, but it's a nice summary:

‘The Legend of Tarzan’: 15 Things to Know

by Christina Radish     2 hours ago

During a conference at the film’s press day, filmmaker David Yates was joined by co-stars Alexander Skarsgård, Margot Robbie, Samuel L. Jackson and Djimon Hounsou to talk about what attracted them to this version of the Tarzan story, their previous familiarity with the character, preparing for the physical aspects of the role, acting opposite CGI animals, why there’s no loin cloth, and the Tarzan call. From the interview, we’ve compiled a list of 15 things that you should know about The Legend of Tarzan.

http://collider.com/the-legend-of-tarzan-things-to-know/?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=collidersocial&utm_medium=social

Here's a review that's mostly positive. I hope we get more like these that didn't expect much from the movie, but were pleasantly surprised.

http://www.reeladvice.net/2016/06/the-legend-of-tarzan-movie-review.html

The Legend Of Tarzan: Movie Review

 Jed Chua  6/29/2016 12:31:00 AM  

"The Legend of Tarzan" on paper feels off. It is easy to assume that its the prototypical film that people should shun in a heart beat. The movie grabbing onto a well-known fictional character's name recall and the seemingly CGI-driven aesthetic instantly beckons some negativity in any shape or form. But hugely surprising, "The Legend of Tarzan" is actually a compelling watch. It seriously delivered a deep look into the life, the psyche, the legend and the man that is Tarzan.

In the late 1800s, the Congo was partitioned to the Belgians. King Leopold II of Belgium is about to go bankrupt and desperately needs to look for riches fast. He entrusts Captain Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz) to find him mythical diamonds right in the heart of the Congo which he does but with a huge catch - he must bring Tarzan to an African chief who protects said diamonds. It has been years since the man once known as Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård) left the jungles of Africa behind for a gentrified life as John Clayton III, Lord Greystoke, with his beloved wife, Jane (Margot Robbie) at his side. He has been invited back to the Congo to serve as a trade emissary of Parliament, unaware that he is a pawn in a deadly convergence of greed and revenge, masterminded by Captain Rom. But Rom doesn't know that he is about to unleash the man and the force behind the stories and the legends.

Let's get straight to the point - "The Legend of Tarzan" is not perfect but it is also not as bad as you might expect it to be. The outcome was actually way better than expected. The plot was simple but had a healthy dose of intrigue and injections of back story to how Tarzan was "adopted" by Great Apes and how he and Jane eventually met made sure that it had our attention from start to finish. We also loved how the movie explored the inner workings of Tarzan's mind especially now that he has had a taste of civilized life. It's a good contrast to when he was still in the jungle and until the turning point where he was taken back to humans. The visuals itself were mostly great and realistic. At times, we found ourselves terrified especially with the Great Apes - that's how effective it was - while the greyish tone of the film was a little bit too dull and dark for our taste. Finally, the cast was okay. Christoph Waltz delivers as a villain while Margot Robbie and Alexander Skarsgård delivers well as the leads. The only major gripe we had was with the obvious miscast of Samuel L. Jackson as George Williams. We just couldn't gel with his character and the comic relief vibe of his character just felt off for a very serious film. Overall, "The Legend of Tarzan" has its quirks and it has that formulaic instances that holds it back. But when it explores and dares to be creative, the scenes and the characters shine and luckily, the film is mostly that.

Rating: 3 and a half reels




Why you should watch it:
- the film is a deeper look into a character most of us have never taken too seriously
- visuals were stunning and terrifyingly good

Why you shouldn't watch it:
- Samual L. Jackson was miscast for sure 

I called afumalow on IMDb a troll because he called anyone who liked the movie a shill for the studio because it had an 7.8 rating on IMBD . Also, he tries to speak for everyone else and say the movie will flop just because he and his friends who attended the prescreening with him didn't care for it. People who appoint themselves the arbiter of Good taste and sensibility while dismissing any disagreement with their opinion by using insults and base allegations fit the definition of a troll exactly and precisely. Their motives are not to simply comment on their opinion but to take down all opposition to their opinion by opening with an insult to the integrity of anyone who thinks differently.

Is this Maggie?  If so, it's Linda (hsm7).  🙂

Yes, I've read his posts. I'm not sure he's trolling exactly, but he seems to have an unrealistic expectation for the movie. He mentions a very specific scene and it remains to be seen if it occurs, however, all of his posts sounds like someone who went in with a very specific idea of what he wanted to see and didn't get it.  Therefore, he's spending his time nitpicking the entire movie and serving as the naysayer.  I find it particularly laughable that he's unhappy that they used CGI instead of real animals.  Really?  Did he expect that they'd use "real" fictional Mangani, real lions, real elephants, etc., to "act" and engage with actors who don't have a minor in animal wrangling?  Something's off. 🙂

Quote from Margaret Bailey on June 28, 2016, 9:02 pm

I called afumalow on IMDb a troll because he called anyone who liked the movie a shill for the studio because it had an 7.8 rating on IMBD . Also, he tries to speak for everyone else and say the movie will flop just because he and his friends who attended the prescreening with him didn't care for it. People who appoint themselves the arbiter of Good taste and sensibility while dismissing any disagreement with their opinion by using insults and base allegations fit the definition of a troll exactly and precisely. Their motives are not to simply comment on their opinion but to take down all opposition to their opinion by opening with an insult to the integrity of anyone who thinks differently.

Oh, he's a type of troll, but in his case he's been on IMDB for 16 years and is a higher quality troll than the others on the site. But as I said, he's a pretentious asshole, but the way he was initially responded to, including basically accusing him of lying about having seen the movie, played into what he was doing, which was playing with people.  IMDB is much like the political blogs I'm on, sometimes it's better just to ignore,  or respond once, and then ignore, in some cases literally with the ignore button, than to engage. It's hard not to engage, but when it's what they want...

Regarding the reviews (both professional and not) that we've seen, there does seem to be an issue which I think we knew was going to happen, that some people still are reviewing a movie that they thought they were seeing instead of the movie that they actually saw.

Now, here's an interesting article from THR with an interview with David Yates where he talks about working on Tarzan and Fantastic Beasts at the same time: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/warner-bros-unveils-modern-very-906960

This review is just...ugh: http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.straitstimes.com%2Flifestyle%2Fentertainment%2Flord-of-the-jungle-is-invulnerable-and-dull&h=iAQGPEoR8&s=1

Of course, everyone is welcome to their own opinion, but I seriously think there's something wrong when you're comparing an adventure-fantasy story about a super-man to The Revenant of all things, and complaining it doesn't capture the same gruesome, grizzly realism. I mean, what?

A really negative review: http://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/the-legend-of-tarzan-is-just-dreadful-w211352

Rex Reed gave it 3/4, but nothing in his review tells you what he really liked about the movie (then again, it's Rex Reed...):  http://observer.com/2016/06/edgar-rice-burroughs-tale-is-dragged-out-of-mothballs-for-the-legend-of-tarzan/

https://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2016/06/george-washington-williams-was-a-black-human-rights-activist-so-what-is-he-doing-hanging-with-tarzan/

Art has the right to be what it wants, but that doesn’t mean the consumer has to support it commercially. (So as much as this writer wants to see what a 2016 Tarzan movie would be like, a ticket will not be bought; someone has to draw a line somewhere.) The version of Williams that exists in this author’s mind, a complicated man who was dedicated to the human rights of African people, will remain intact for now.

Blacks still do not control the high-end production and worldwide distribution of their own culture; in the specific case of Hollywood, theystill cannot green-lighta major-studio film. So the only power blacks have is the ability to shout a loud economic “No” to Tarzan, no matter what actor or “positive” character is in it, or even what the film has to say about the devilish nature of European colonialism.

- Todd Steven Burroughs

A generally good review.

http://thefilmgeekguy.blogspot.com/2016/06/legend-of-tarzan-movie-review.html