Reviewing a Tarzan movie is a difficult task. First off, they usually fall into two categories: low budget stinkers or big budget hits. Casper van Dien in Tarzan and the Lost City (1998) is a good example of the first and Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan (1984) the second. But no matter the budget, the biggest difficulty is how does the screenwriter work the material. Like all classic hundred-year-old novels, Tarzan of the Apes, is not readily accessible. The filmmaker has to work the concepts to make them acceptable to a modern audience. To film it as it was written would be arduous, and frankly, quite dull to watch. And finally, the last hurdle, how does the filmmaker create the impossible? Do they use suits for the apes, etc. Making a Tarzan movie is not easy and should not be attempted by the faint-at-heart.
Let’s look at these three aspects individually. First, budget. The Legend of Tarzan cost $180 million to make plus an aggressive advertising campaign, pushing the total to $300 million. With that kind of money the movie could afford veteran Harry Potter director, David Yates and True Blood star Alexander Skarsgard as well as Samuel L. Jackson. So far, so good. No rubber alligators in this film. These choices were well-made with Yates focusing on the emotional story as well action. Skarsgard is a great Tarzan, having both the physique and the acting chops.
The adaptation of the movie was my biggest concern. What do you say with Tarzan? The Disney movie was a father-son story between Tarzan and Kerchak (not Burroughs! Tarzan kills Kerchak to become king of the tribe). Greystoke was a fish-out-of-water story with the main focus being what Tarzan does in England after being taken from the jungle. Tarzan the Apeman (1981) was about Bo Derek’s boobs. It wasn’t even a good action movie. Tarzan movies can range from dismal to something greater (usually not quite achieved). This new version is a return movie. Tarzan and Jane are living in England and are not happy. Only once they return to Africa do they begin to open up and become the characters we know. They return to Africa as part of a team of inspectors looking into reports of slavery in the Belgian Congo. This film is an anti-colonial movie, refusing to ignore the politics of the 1880s. This political struggle brings in Samuel L. Jackson as George Washington Williams. Though not part of Burroughs novel, he is a welcome cipher for the viewer, allowing us to feel more included for Williams embodies a modern outlook on slavery and the evil of colonization. Jackson’s humor also lightens what could have been a fairly grim film. Margot Robbie as Jane has a similar modern feel to her, making her less the damsel-in-distress than an active partner in Tarzan’s life.
Another thing a good Tarzan story needs, and this film has, is a good villain. Most of Edgar Rice Burroughs baddies are as realistic as a Raiders of the Lost Ark Nazi. Yates avoids this kind of scenery chewing antics by casting Christoph Waltz, recently of Django Unchained (2012) fame. Waltz plays Leon Rom, agent for the Belgian government and a ruthless engineer of progress. His plan to build a railway, forts and house a huge army in the Congo spells slavery and death for the locals. To fund this terror campaign, Rom makes an agreement with Chief Mbongo of Opar (not Burroughs’s Opar sadly but a nice mention). The Chief will trade Tarzan for a chest full of diamonds. Rom fails to capture Tarzan but does kidnap Jane. Tarzan and his Waziri warriors (with George Washington Williams trying to keep up) go after Rom. This requires Tarzan and Williams to cross the territory of the Mangani, the tribe of gorillas that Tarzan once lived with. Tarzan and his brother ape, Akut, have a showdown of epic proportions, that ends in a surprising way: Tarzan loses. This struck me as odd at first but it makes sense within the context of the film, which is about respecting others. If Tarzan had killed Akut and taken over the ape tribe how would he be any different than the Belgians? This same sensibility comes into play when Tarzan faces off with Mbonga, who wants Tarzan dead because he killed his son. Yates and the screenwriters wisely don’t tell Tarzan’s story from the beginning, but show important pieces of his past in flashback. We learn Mbongo’s son killed Tarzan’s ape mother, Kala, in a scene truly heart-wrenching. In the end, both Tarzan and Mbonga have to admit their pain and let it go. Djimon Hounsou, as Mbonga, could have been another boring baddy, but his emotional story carries him above being a cardboard villain.
The film ends with a big finale. Here we can talk about making the impossible real. CGI gives Yates an advantage no other live-action Tarzan film has ever had. The scenes of Tarzan and the apes swinging through the jungle are breath-taking. Some critics have whined about poor CGI and the only place where I’d agree is in the finale. Tarzan takes out the Belgian mercenary camp with a stampede of wildebeests. Some of the CGI animals look fake. Still, the film ends with a bang and Tarzan and his African allies, both human and animal are prepared to face off against the Belgians. The spirit of Tarzan, and Africa, refuses to be tamed. The coda of the film jumps a year ahead. Yates shows the abandoned English mansion for Tarzan and Jane do not return there. The couple stay in Africa and celebrate the birth of a son. So many Tarzan elements are available for a sequel including baby Jack. Others things fans have wanted to see include Jad-bal-ja the lion. The Tarzan series of twenty-five books, a plethora of earlier movies, television and comics, means there is enough of a back-log of story material to make a Marvel superhero jealous. But it comes down to money. Can the film make a profit? If not, it may suffer the same fate as John Carter of Mars (2012), a successful film, with an over-all profit, but lackluster at the American box office. If so, David Yates and all the others involved can hold their heads high in knowing they made a good Tarzan movie.
