REVIEW: The Legend of Tarzan

Finally, a film maker bold enough to not do an origin story.  One of the most frustrating creative movements over the past many years has been the desire to create origin stories.  It doesn't matter how well known the source material is, such as King Arthur and Peter Pan, any story that is made for some inane reason always needs to centre on how it all began.  Writers Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer need some instant recognition for the fact that 2016's The Legend of Tarzan not only skips being an origin story, but that it finds the titular character many years later as he lives a sophisticated life in England.

The people behind this film understand that audiences are not dumb, and they don't always need to be pulled by the hand into a story.  They plop us down, and, while there are some flashbacks showing some of the history of Tarzan and Jane, we are given an adventure with what is presented as an already established character.  This impressed me, as well as their choice to throw in themes of exploitation and slavery.

That being said, I can't say that it was the most riveting script.  Belgium baddie Lem Rom (Christoph Waltz) needs diamonds from the Congo, and strikes a deal with a tribe.  Rom will deliver Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgard) to the tribe's leader (who seeks to avenge the death of his son at the hands of the vine-swinging hero) in exchange for access to diamonds of great wealth.  Rom orchestrates a reason for Tarzan, also known as John Clayton, to revisit the land of his youth.  Along with him comes Jane (Margot Robbie) and American George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson).  Williams is tagging along to show proof of slavery taking place, an older character that is also seeking his own form of redemption.  Rom grabs Jane, and it is up to Tarzan to save her.

It is essentially a damsel in distress story, although director David Yates makes a comment on that fact and tries to show that Jane is indeed strong.  You can't go wrong with having her played by Margot Robbie.  Heck, you also can't go wrong with having Samuel L. Jackson in the mix.  The problem, however, seemed to be the performance of Skarsgard.  Tarzan in this film almost always has a look on his face that seems he is as bored as someone waiting for a pigeon to read through The Lord of the Rings books.  There is a scene where Tarzan is swinging on a vine through the jungle with Williams on his back.  A close up reveals that once again, he looks bored.  Skarsgard is capable of so much more, and I don't understand the concept behind this portrayal.

While I didn't feel as though there was a lot of excitement in the story itself, I felt that the action sequences were well done for the most part.  They moved along well, and brought some excitement.  That isn't always the case, though.  There is a staggeringly poor overindulgence of slow motion used in one of the final scenes.  It really felt as though, since this is a Warner Bros film, that they were trying to harness the spirit of Zach Snyder.

Speaking of Mr. Snyder and his influence, Yates' decision to filter almost the entire movie in a grey and drab format is baffling to me.  This eliminates all power that the lush colours of the Congo could provide, making the greenery dull and lame.  I do not know how you could be setting a film in one of the most captivating locations on the planet and take away its majesty.  This is a repeating of a sad strategy for film makers to make things more gritty since Christopher Nolan's Batman series was such a success.  I feel that the way to capture a gritty feeling, if that's what Yates was shooting for (if he wasn't, I have no explanation for his robbing of colours), is through the actual telling of the story.  A camera filter is no substitution for substance.  There are some moments where things are shot in an amber light, but, once again, the greens are not true.  The use of colour in this film felt like a shortcut to something that was not needed.

An aspect that both helped as well as hindered this movie was it's special effects.  There was an enormous use of CGI taking place (a little too much for my taste in this type of story), and sometimes it was seamless.  At other times, it was painfully obvious that a computer took precedence over a location scout.  When movies are inconsistent with these types of effects it doesn't take much to jerk the audience out of the moment.  The use of CGI can be wonderful and still tell great stories.  Jon Favreau showed the world what was possible in Jungle Book, a film that is almost all computer graphics that came out mere months before The Legend of Tarzan.  My thoughts on CGI is that if you cannot pull it off well, simplify your scope.  On The Movie Breakdown podcast, my co-host Christopher Spicer and I have seen a number of movies that understood what they were capable of and stayed within those limits.  I can't fault Yates for wanting some ambitious shots, but I feel like he should have known what was working and what wasn't.

Ultimately, this is no horrible film.  It moves along, and Robbie and Jackson are as fun to watch as they always are.  The script is bold in some aspects, and just normal in others.  I would have definitely liked to see a portrayal of Tarzan that wasn't so monotone.  If you are a great fan of the stories of Tarzan, it's not going to be a waste of time.  If you are looking for something that is an adventure that will whisk you away to exotic locals with lots of excitement, save this one for a rainy day and there are not many other options.

Rating - 2 out of 4 stars