The Legend of Tarzan

Tarzan has been a staple part of pop culture for much longer than most people might’ve expected. While many nowadays would mainly associate him with the 1999 Disney animated film, the man from the jungle had his roots planted all the way back in the early 20th century with a series of novels written by author, Edgar Rice Burroughs, which inspired several films that came out between the 1930s and the 1960s. With television specials, stage plays, radio programs, and comics also being released that were centred around his adventures, the character and his story became a cultural icon that helped inspire several famous stories in the future that had a similar criterion, with one of the most popular being Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book. From his earliest iteration to the latest, the name does still seem to have a slight pull over audiences, but is his popularity strong enough to save a movie that isn’t very good? The 2016 Warner Brothers film, The Legend of Tarzan, set out to test this theory and proceeded to prove it definitively false.

After leaving his jungle home and settling into human society in the city of London, Tarzan, who now goes by his birth name, John Clayton II (played by Alexander Skarsgård) is called back to his old life by American entrepreneur George Washington Williams (played by Samuel L. Jackson) who is convinced that the current ruler of the Congo Basin, King Leopold II of the Belgians, is enslaving the population in order to work off the debt he’s collected after exploiting the land’s resources. After arriving with George and his wife, Jane (played by Margot Robbie), Tarzan discovers that George’s fears were true and that Leopold has sent his envoy, Léon Rom (played by Christoph Waltz) to secure the fabled diamonds of Opar from the native warrior tribe, whose leader, Chief Mbonga (played by Djimon Hounsou) agrees to hand them over if Rom brings him Tarzan, as he was responsible for the death of his son’s death. Now being tracked by militia, and with Jane being captured as collateral by Rom, Tarzan transform back into the jungle man he once was in order to save Jane, face off against Chief Mbonga and prevent Rom from getting away with any diamonds.

The Legend of Tarzan was unable to turn a profit at the box office and was met with mixed reception by critics, proving that while the name may still be relevant, it alone isn’t strong enough to hold a movie, especially if it isn’t very good.

With Tarzan having a total of 49 films to his name (not including unauthorized content), any future attempt at the story would need to find some way to stand out in order to not just feel like another entry on the pile. The earlier films seemed to adopt a very serialized delivery through their trivial plots, archetypal characters, and time period specific foils and threats, relying on a more streamlined, easily digestible and repeatable formula rather than really diving into and exploring the brand, whereas the newer films nearer and within the 21st century opted to take liberties with the original sources and made up their own adventures whilst holding onto the essentials. With this in mind, The Legend of Tarzan decides to copy both avenues, following the modern trend of veering away from the plot of the original book (even more drastically than most versions) but containing a narrative conflict that feels in line with how the Tarzan films of old would play out. This could be a positive, but this direction doesn’t automatically result in a strong story, as by nature, Tarzan was meant to be a very shallow storyline.

While many can see the clear complexities of the tale and others have tackled this human turmoil in a way that made Tarzan more of an interesting character, the original stories and movies look and feel like serial pulp-magazine vignettes that were meant to entertain on a non-thinking standpoint and not much else, so copying a format like that wouldn’t result in more classic intrigue, but rather just contain a lot of outdated premises, characters and even ideologies (let’s just say that Tarzan wasn’t the nicest to the black community thanks to the author’s belief in ‘’scientific racism”). The plot is overly convoluted, featuring way too many discussions about diamond smuggling, slaving affairs, and political turmoil, and it’s hard to stay invested in a story this simplistic, shallow by nature, and extremely unengaging due to the weak script, dull pacing, and stale direction. The director for the film, David Yates, seemed to want to continue banking on a popular name to sell movie tickets after his recent success with the final four Harry Potter films  (even bringing producer of said films, David Barron, along for the ride), but much like the problems that plagued those movies, name recognition couldn’t hide moments of boredom, unappealing visuals, and characters more interested in talking importantly than being interesting or likeable. The script by Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer doesn’t draw people into the story potential of Tarzan, or create a narrative that utilizes him effectively, resulting in a mostly talk-heavy experience that barely showcases the unique spectacle and visual eye candy that can come with a property like this.

Tarzan as a character is simple on paper but can have a lot of interesting elements to him if written well. There are a lot of discussions that can and have come about from this type of role, like the idea of nature vs nurture, a primitive mind being able to evolve to a point even beyond what’s traditionally expected to be ‘’human’’, and exploring what it’s like to exist between two different worlds and cultures yet not being able to fully embrace either. While the character doesn’t have the most pleasant backstory in regards to how he’s been portrayed (again, a little uncomfortable seeing how happy Tarzan was to kill, or worse lynch, people of color in his stories), he has the makings for something great, but despite this, the movie fails to dive into any of that, effectively skipping his backstory to reserve it for flashback (which is pointless as nothing of note is different, so it’s not going to impress familiar fans or newcomers) and instead just starts him off as a civilized individual going back to the jungle to save people, and even that isn’t handled well. Alexander Skarsgård, despite not having much to work with thanks to bad dialogue and directing, is a good choice for the role, with a physique and body structure that’s spot-on for this kind of wild man, and his unique almost animalistic facial structure and mannerisms blends perfectly into the moments he’s existing and interacting with the wildlife, it was a smart choice.

On the flip side, every other cast member is either poorly cast or just completely wasted. Margot Robbie as Jane doesn’t portray the character’s wit, class, or intelligence, instead opting for a more traditional portrayal who spends most of the movie just needing to be saved, therefore failing as both a regular character and as a love interest. Robbie is usually good at playing characters that appear normal on the surface but always have this underlying dark edge or fractured mental state, so it doesn’t really feel like she was the right choice for the part and the script and direction isn’t strong enough to provide anything for her to work with. Skarsgård and Robbie also have zero chemistry together and aren’t even given much time to develop a romantic bond as they’re separated throughout a good chunk of the film. Samuel L. Jackson is stuck as a generic sidekick who doesn’t contribute much (despite playing a real life person who actually did the very thing his character does in this film), Christoph Waltz is usually such an electric performer who can ooze charm whether he’s playing a good guy or bad guy but his role is very generic and forgettable, and even Djimon Hounsou is wasted on what could’ve been a pretty cool villain by only briefing showing him during the film’s intro and climax.

For a movie that is supposed to showcase the jungle in all its horrors and beauties, all of that is mostly negated by how hideous this film looks. Another poor trend of David Yates’ films is his seeming hatred of color and need to have every all of his locations bleached and stuck with this ugly white and grey palette, making everything very dull and uninteresting to look at. This could maybe be explained away during the England portion of the film (where it could be a little less visually pleasing to act as a contrast for later on when they head to the wild), but when the jungle is equally as bland looking and seeped in this wet, misty atmosphere, that’s where the real problem comes in. The overall production design by Stuart Craig and Anna Pinnock does a nice enough job capturing 19th century London, and even the costume design by Ruth Myers and some of the houses and constructions on the island do adopt this jungle, adventurer atmosphere in a manner that feels akin to some of those earlier adventure flicks, but the film’s entire visual design just feels dreary and lifeless, and that is made very clear when they enter the jungle.

It was apparently an important element when filming to make Africa feel as authentic as possible, but with the film feeling devoid and life and color, it doesn’t in any way capture its likeness. Even most of the film took place in London outside of a few background aerial shots filmed within Gabon from a helicopter, so there wasn’t much chance to really get a close-quarters perspective of the area, but at the very least, those overview shots done by Henry Braham are the most visually pleasing elements of the movie (even if they’re few and far between). Considering what should be a literal nature film was filmed on a set, it feels overly fabricated to the point that it doesn’t even feel authentic, even if some of the sets and props constructed aren’t necessarily bad. The action is also a pretty heavy letdown, especially for a character that should have a very unique manner of handling action that utilizes his environment as much as his own physical strength. The hand-to-hand stuff has decent set-up and an occasional good stunt, but the camera work is so cramped, and the editing by Mark Day is so shaky that you can barely make any of it out.

Tarzan is a character that may have lasted the test of time, but he isn’t strong enough to survive on his name alone, proven by this movie being unable to please people just by doing the bare minimum of what the character requires. There have been so many adaptations and there are bound to be countless more, but this film will probably not be remembered in that line up. It doesn’t have the simplicity of the original films to entertain people but also lacks an emotional complexity to engage people that are hoping for something fresher and more modern. While the cast in theory is decently portrayed and it’s so lifeless and inoffensive that it at least won’t leave any bad impression, the bland delivery, boring characters, ugly visuals, and unimpressive action is more than enough of a reason to keep this one lost in the jungle. When a 1990s Disney cartoon version with Rosie O’Donnell and Phil Collins is the more exciting, memorable, and emotionally engaging option, you know you’re in serious trouble.