The Legend of Tarzan

Year: 2016
Genre: Action Adventure
Directed: David Yates
Stars: Alexander Skarsgard, Margot Robbie, Samuel L. Jackson, Christoph Waltz, Djimon Hounsou, Jim Broadbent, John Hurt, Hadley Fraser, Casper Crump, Osy Ikhile, Sidney Ralitsoele, Mens-Sana Tamakloe
Production: Warner Bros.

Tarzan, for better or worse has been around in one form or another since 1912. If one's counting, Alexander Skarsgard is the 20th actor to bring the loincloth donning Ape Man to the big screen; a list that includes everyone from the instantly memorable Johnny Weissmuller to the embarrassingly campy Casper Van Dien. The initial appeal of Tarzan stems from author Edgar Rice Burrough's ability to gauge his audience. Broad and formulaic, the tales of Tarzan fed into the eternal mystery of Africa that galvanized readers who saw the dark continent as the last frontier. Burrough's book series fits comfortably amid Haggard's "King Solomon's Mines" and Kipling's "The White Man's Burden" as a piece of fiction that seems at times excruciatingly antiquated.

Like this kind of antiquated...

Yet the legend endures as each generation adds its own little spin. The Weissmuller films brought nuclear family normalcy to the jungle; Christopher Lambert injected 1980's machismo; Van Dien was 90's environmentalism and now we have the aught 10's and our obsession with franchises that implant post-modern wink-winks. The Legend of Tarzan is a soft reboot with an emphasis on the word soft. The film begins with our villain Leon Rom (Waltz) making a deal with the menacing Chief Mbonga (Hounsou). Mbonga promises Rom a pile of diamonds in exchange for bringing Tarzan back from England so he may personally slay him for a slight done years ago. Rom hopes to use the diamonds to fund an army of mercenaries hired on behalf of the Belgian crown. Then, after finishing the railroads through the jungle, Rom, with the full support of Belgium will personally bring the Congo aka the heart of Africa to its knees. Meanwhile back in England, John aka Tarzan (Skarsgard) has fully adjusted to life in Britain and refuses to return to Africa "because it's hot." He's convinced to return only after American emissary George Washington Williams (Jackson) announces his suspicion that the Belgian crown is up to no good. Also Jane (Robbie) comes.

Wait, so I'm just the audiences' thoughts? Well damn!

The main issue with The Legend of Tarzan is it's trying to create a franchise from the middle out. It stretches its story from all sides, trying to cover new ground and generate new themes; basically announcing to the audience that this isn't the Tarzan you've seen in the past. Problem is, the film doesn't seem to have faith in its audience so it rehashes the origin story anyway. The film then hedges its bets further by dedicating time and an arc to Samuel L. Jackson's character, insuring we have an audience conduit to have story elements explained to. He gets a few deserved laughs for voicing shock and wonderment but his involvement just seems like a distraction to the main impetus of the story.

Johnny Sheffield, Maureen O'Sullivan and Johnny Weissmuller
in Tarzan Finds a Son (1939) 

And despite all the film's bells, whistles and clunky special-effects, the impetus is still Tarzan saving Jane. The supposed characterization of Jane (told in flashback of course) is done with such triteness that it conjures memories of Audrey Hepburn in Green Mansions (1959); and not in a good way. The film can make light of the fact that Margot Robbie is the damsel in distress all it wants but that doesn't excuse the fact that her only function in the film is to be a reward for Tarzan and be leered at by Rom.

Christoph Waltz, for his efforts does a fine job as the villain doing his best to channel the subtle mannerisms and intense mania of Klaus Kinski. Yet the film's wanting script pigeonholes him as a snake; a menace really only good for a few quick and venomous attacks before he slithers away. He surreptitiously tinkers with a rosary made of Madagascar spider silk which not only serves as his weapon of choice but sends a loud message that Rom is a big proponent of Europe's three C's to justify subjugation: Colonize, Culture and Christianize. It's this that saves The Legend of Tarzan from being a complete waste of time. The very true and very vile atrocities committed in the Congo during the period of Belgian colonization is not only present but is given a real (if repetitious) heft. Even if the reasons for incorporating such mass enslavement, injustice and cultural genocide is to halfheartedly appeal to a wider international audience, I applaud Warner Bros. efforts.

Yet given the, let's say malleability of the Tarzan ethos, there should have been much more to The Legend of Tarzan. As it is, the film is a cardboard placeholder for Warner Bros. to hold on to the live-action film rights of the Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc. property. The action is generic, the story is almost insultingly pedestrian and the faith the film has in its audience is dismaying. Do yourself a favor if you're really Jonesing for your fix of the Ape Man; go watch Disney's Tarzan (1999) again instead.

Final Grade: D