Forum

Finally, I got to see this film yesterday. I saw it in IMAX 3D with my sister, son and grandson. The theater was about 1/3 full which was actually quite good for a 2:00pm showing on a weekday. We all loved it. It was so beautiful it was breathtaking and I was into the movie from the opening scene to the last scene.( a big sign for me that everything is clicking along on all cylinders)  It is just the kind of movie I have always loved the most combining action, adventure and romance in a setting that is  historical yet exotic. i was totally emersed in the jungle and it still preoccupied  my minds even after it was over. I didn't want to talk to anyone,I just wanted to linger in the jungle swinging through the vines for as long as I could sustain it.

Skarsgard was perfect as Tarzan playing him as a man of few words,as he would  be having grown up in the jungle where silence is a survival necessity. He moved through the jungle " like a ghost" for a reason. Chattering and zinging humorous one liners around or having all this great " personality" would be totally ridiculous. Keeping your thoughts to himself ( even Jane lightly chastised him for his non communication) and reining in his emotions until it was time to attack or show dominance ,on the other hand,  is exactly how a creature raised in the wilds of a jungle would behave. Skarsgard nailed it ,whether at the prime minister's meeting ,hiking the savannahs, visiting old friends in the African village where Jane grew up or swinging from vines high in the forest,he exuded  leashed power and ferocity while behind his eyes lurked the deep sadness of a man out of place and alienated from his fellows. Even when he was happy and smiling ( which didn't happen until he returned to Africa)  he still had a gentle wistful sadness about him .  I actually forgot about his terrific body after awhile, I got so caught up whith his face and his eyes  where reams and volumes were being said.

When he unleashed his fury it was quick and sudden, done with no warning or endless talk explaining himself. In these instances, he was very animalistic as he moved the way a wild animal would. Strike first,strike fast and be deadly. He was thrilling to watch in action. Anyone who didn't pick up on his performance and called it dull and soulless is either lying to justify their position or the one who is dull and soulless is them.

Perhaps they are just too used to all of these noisy, quippy, super heroe's who want to be a laugh a minute and have just lost the ability to pick up on anything subtle? But then why did my 11 year old grandson, his 45 year old father and my older sister all get it? They watch all of the superhero movies too as well as movies like Jurrassic Park, Mad Max and Star Wars. They did all share one thing in common,however. They were open and accepting simply following the flow of the movie letting it take them where it would. There was no resistance or putting expectations or preconceived notions in front of what was on the sceen ,hence, daming up the flow and creating a jam,then blaming the movie for said jam. The people in the theater with us ,all seemed to get it too, chuckling or exclaiming in all the right places.

What I didn't see any of, not even a trace ,was the much lauded " white savior " trope, racism or sexism. Those charges are being invented prior to even seeing the movie by a bunch of cowardly ignorant  critics who in their desparate efforts not to be caught on the wrong side of this question chose to err on the side of rampant PC than be brave enough to actually write about what they had seen.  Which was a movie that had a director and scriptwriter who had done every thing they could to remove any objectionable traces of the white savior,racism or sexism and still remain true to the spirit of ERB and Tarzan. This wasn't a historical political movie taking up the cause of  the native Africans during Belgian colonialism. Nor was this a movie that focused on Jane as a kind of Jungle Wonder Woman nor was it a biographical movie about George Wahington Williams.

It was about Tarzan. The Tarzan that ERB  created who is at heart a pulp fiction superhero who has wonderous skills and adventures. He returns to the jungle in LOT and he's a bit rusty and awkward in some ways as he should be. It's clear, at the end, that he and Jane are staying and in the next adventure, I imagine, Tarzan will be back in peak form ,even better because he has accepted his dual nature and is more at peace with himself. Will we get to see that one? I truly do hope so and I am really pulling for it to have legs in this country and do gangbusters overseas.

I want to share what my sister said about the flashbacks and how seamlessly they were woven into the main story. She said " it was like watching a waltz." And it was, indeed.

Enjoyed reading your LOT review, Margaret -- thanks for sharing!

Thank you Margret for your review.  I knew you were going to love by the way you described what you were looking for in a movie.  An epic action adventure movie which LOT certainly is.  I'm on my fifth viewing.  Taking anyone interested in seeing it.

This is the first promotional material that I've seen at either of the two theaters I frequent.  Shoved at far end of an exit.  This wasn't up two weeks before release I'm sure.

• image.jpeg

I have have been taking note ,since monitoring LOT posters at theaters, that not only does each theater decides when and where  to put their posters but in most of the theaters,I frequent in Houston,there is no place to feature big cardboard cut out posters. These theaters have most if not all of the room in the main lobby devoted to food and drink including liquor bars. Thus, huge posters are relegated to whatever space can be found in the wings that branch off from the main lobby. Sometimes that means they can be found in front of a now defunct concession stands and at others it means somewhere near the back exits.I went to a fairly large theater inColumbus at Easton Commons but there was very little rroom anywhere to display prominent cardboard cut outs. Hence I didn't see any at all. Perhaps they were in the opposite wing to the one I went down.

Here's a review that just appeared in my local newspaper yesterday.  Since the paper doesn't have its own critic, it uses reviews that are apparently syndicated.  This link is from a paper in AZ.  I'm in PA.  My local paper added its own headline that doesn't appear in the review from the paper in AZ:  "Brand-new 'Tarzan' movie simply cannot measure up to its other legendary predecessors".

Bob Garver: “The Legend of Tarzan” movie review

This guy was really off.  The only part he liked was Margot Robbie and he shredded the rest of the movie.  He gave it a rating of 1.5 out of five.  Since he mentioned The Jungle Book, I looked up his review for that.  He gave it a 2.  Looks like he doesn't like jungle movies.

Nice!

Saw Tarzan. Forget the stupid reviews. Best Tarzan movie I've ever seen. It won't hold a little kid's attention, but it sure held ours.

https://twitter.com/se4realhinton/status/748996634093039617

I found this interesting article in Animation magazine which talked about the creation of the CGI animation and other special effects. Of particular note, is the description of thevMangani as having less hair and more bald spots which shows more flesh and the fact that they were more muscular.  When critics and viewers trash the CGI because of the poorly done gorillas/ apes perhaps it is because they want them to look like the apes in Planet of the Apes or they think they are gorillas.                                            

http://www.animationmagazine.net/vfx/framestore-goes-ape-for-legend-of-tarzan/

How funny, Margaret...I posted a link to this same AM article in "The Movie Itself" section of this forum. Great minds think alike. 🙂

Most detailed interview yet with Skarsgard's trainer Magnus Lygdback. Someone should translate this as he seems to provide a lot of details about the thought process that went into creating the image of Tarzan.