October 1, 2016

Sequel to the Jungle Book

Just trying to be funny there folks. I know it's not a sequel to Jungle Book. That kid was raised by wolves. This kid was raised by apes. I don't think they were even in the same jungle. Though both were enjoyable movies in their own rights. Let's talk about The Legend of Tarzan

I only recently listened to the audiobooks for Edgar Rice Burrough’s first two Tarzan books; Tarzan of the Apes (1912) and The Return of Tarzan (1913). I was both surprised by them and enjoyed them immensely. The Tarzan of those two books is not the Tarzan of television and movie fame in many ways. Hollywood always makes changes, some aesthetic, some practical, and some just for the sake of making changes. That’s just the way Hollywood does things. But the gist of things is that Tarzan is a man raised by apes.



I was excited when I saw the preview for this movie. It looked promising. Good CGI. Good actors. Seems pretty accurate to the source material. Last night I watched this movie and I’d like to share my opinions and observations with you, so that you can decide if you want to watch this movie.
  • I’d like more Tarzan and less politics, please.
  • There were some unnecessary changes made to the backstory in typical Hollywood fashion.
  • You have to remember that Tarzan is a superhero. He's batman without the suit. Crazy strong. Crazy smart. Heightened senses. And he has a British title and estate.
  • Get Samuel L. Jackson out of this movie. What the hell, man. This guy is the Jar Jar Binks of Tarzan. Why is he here? His character adds nothing to this movie that couldn’t have been accomplished with one of the other characters.
  • Good Tarzan. Good John Clayton. Believable. I can see this guy as Tarzan. Did you know Tarzan was a special agent for the British government? Well, he was.
  • Good Jane. They made a lot of changes to her character to make her stronger and more important to the story, which was not so much the case in 1912. Burroughs had written Jane off, but the public outcry for more Jane was such that he had to put her back in the stories.
  • The film maker seems to be trading too much on having Harley Quinn (Suicide Squad) and Eric Northman (True Blood) in his movie. Nothing the actors are doing, just an impression I’m left with. And why is Samuel L. Jackson in here? Just to be Samuel L. Jackson seems to be the answer we're left with.
  • The villains were good and their motivation seemed both believable and understandable. Though, I’ll say it again, they seemed to spend too much time on this and not enough time showing us Tarzan doing cool shit.
  • Any number of the African tribesmen could have made a better, more understandable sidekick than Sam Jackson.
  • Why is Tarzan friends with the lions? Perhaps something I didn’t get around to reading/listening too, there are twenty-four Tarzan novels by Burroughs alone and I don’t know how many by other authors.
  • Tarzan's brother kicked the shit out of him, which is good because without his steel fang (knife) or lasso I don't know that he was ever capable of beating one of these big ass apes. That's how it played out in the books anyway.
  • There’s not a lot of depth here. But what the fuck did you expect, it’s a story about a man raised by apes. Jane gets captured and Tarzan saves her, seems like a pretty good Tarzan story to me.
  • Could it be better. Yes. Is it bad. No. Just get Samuel L. Jackson out of it and it’ll go up a full star, maybe two. Why is he here?
I hope you found that in someway helpful. I enjoyed the movie, but it was not without it's flaws. Did I mention Samuel L. Jackson? Yeah, get rid of that fucker, he done messed up a decent movie.