Apologies for the radio silence for the last couple of months, with this being my first review of any new film release since 'Batman v Superman' for a number of reasons. Firstly, a few days after reviewing that complete turd of a film I was plunged into the final month of my third year University studies, meaning a stream of constant deadlines, no sleep and ready meal after ready meal. This all accumulated in a dissertation and a final project completed, luckily without me tearing my eyes out of their sockets and having just about preserved the last lingering remnants of my sanity. After that debacle finally came to an unsatisfying conclusion, I went on an impromptu two month trip across Asia, without a laptop to write on and only a handful of cinemas around that we could watch anything in the English language.
Whilst travelling through Bangalore in South India however me and my friend managed to stumble across a small cinema down a back alley in a shopping district, showing the new American Action Adventure film 'The Legend of Tarzan'. Out of every film that I had wanted to watch this summer this particular release was very low on my priorities, and had almost slipped under the radar completely until I saw the obnoxiously large and insanely out of place poster of Alexander Skarsgaard jumping through the air to punch an ape in the face, inexplicably next to posters advertising the latest Bollywood releases of 'Sultan' and 'Azhar'. With a ticket costing 50 rupees (a little over 50 pence) and with a free afternoon to waste we decided to go regardless. We bought samosas and sat in a cinema full of phone lights, whispering and cheering. Perhaps this film could be one of the shockingly underrated releases of the year? I still remember 2015's 'Man from UNCLE' being far better than I had ever expected and one of my favourite cinema visits of the year, and being shocked at the negative reviews and it's flop at the box office. Maybe an inspired retelling of the classic Tarzan story with the man behind the final Harry Potter film at the helm could be a winning mix? In short, I was incredibly optimistic.
'The Legend of Tarzan' takes place a few years after the main events that transpired in the Tarzan story, as John 'Tarzan' Clayton (Alexander Skarsgard) adjusts to his new life as a member of the bourgeoisie elite of Victorian London and as the heir to the rich and prosperous Clayton estate, whilst being married to Jane Porter (Margot Robbie). When we first meet John he is sat stoically in a boardroom full of stuffy upper class British men (including the ever perfect Jim Broadbent) who extend King Leopold's invitation for Tarzan to visit the Congo as a special guest to see how the Belgians are developing the country. John refuses the invitation, wishing to leave his past behind him. He is swayed however when he talks to the American George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson) who believes that the Belgians are secretly enslaving the Congolese people. John's reservations are proved to be correct however when him, George and Jane travel to the Congo and Jane is kidnapped by the villainous Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz) who is involved in a convoluted plot to deliver Tarzan to a vengeful tribe leader and be rewarded in diamonds, that the Belgians can use to fund their invasion of the Congo. With Jane kidnapped, Tarzan, George and a few tribesmen travel across the country through the perilous jungles, to rescue her and stop the Belgians enslavery of the Congolese.
The casting director for the film was obviously inspired by Tarantino in this romp, with regulars Jackson and Waltz both placed in this film playing a witty sidekick with a dark side and a creepy European villain respectfully. These are the two best performances in the film, but this is just based on their merits as actors alone and not on the way their characters in this film are written. Both of these characters are stock sidekick and villain characters only, and despite trying their very best neither actor gets anything out of these thinly written roles. This is the first thing I've personally ever seen Skarsgard in, and as a lead here he lacks any charisma, grunting his way through his lines and not giving us as the audience a hero we can care about. In the Disney film (which I was going to avoid comparing this film to but it seems almost impossible at this point) the animators, writers and voice actors worked very hard to slowly develop the Tarzan character into a protagonist to root for, so towards the end you care that he succeeds. They give him internal conflict, as he tries to decide between his life in the jungle and his acceptance by society. In the end he chooses love and family and his origins, and as the audience we care about his 'happily ever after' as he and Jane are likeable characters. This is called a character arc, which this adaptation makes good heed to shit all over. This version of Tarzan lazily relies on the fact that their audience already knows the character from other sources prior to viewing, and provides us with very little development, added onto a boring lead that is hard to relate to or care about. Margot Robbie fairs no better, spending most of the film acting like Elizabeth Swann in 'Pirates of the Caribbean', being linked to lazy imagery of Butterflies and waiting for her husband to come rescue her.
Technically the film is very average, with okay looking CGI (except for the gorilla's, which were fucking horrible) and costumes that whilst not particularly original or interesting do fit with the aesthetics of the time. The settings too aren't particularly inspired, but do manage to show off the beauty of the congo in a satisfactory way. The stand out sequence of the film is probably the opening, with the soldiers heading through the caverns and mountains and encountering the indigenous tribes people in an extraordinarily violent manner. This then cuts to London, which had the look of one of the Guy Richie 'Sherlock Holmes' films. It was only after this that everything went downhill, as plots became lazy and the characters became increasingly more bland and paper thin. The camera work is another negative in the film, with ridiculous shot choices used in a variety of scenes. In a sequence in the middle of the film where Tarzan, George and the tribesmen are deciding their plan to rescue Jane the camera swoops around them in a really distracting pan that was horrible to look at. This managed to take me out of the film even more than the lazy writing and poor acting did.
One of my biggest complaints for the the film comes with the tone. The tone is distractingly uneven, drifting between out of place humour (including a ridiculous ongoing gag about giving a Gorilla a blowjob and an ill conceived joke that a certain character was raped by a priest) to incredibly dark sequences (like the hero Tarzan breaking a Tribe leaders sons neck) to irritatingly light hearted, almost childish solutions to the problems at hand. A few seconds after one of the aforementioned Ape blowjob scenes Jackson's character, who had so far been used solely as simple comic relief against the stoic and devastatingly boring Skarsgard, goes into an awfully contrived speech about his part in the civil war and lamenting his actions after. With syrupy dialogue this sequence stands out as being almost like a parody of typical action cliches, but without even a hint of self awareness the scene just comes across as dumb and irritating. One of the major motivations of any of the characters comes with the tribe leader Chief Mbonga (Djimon Hounsou) who wants revenge against Tarzan after the death of his son. The build up to this major confrontation is lazy and just as it builds towards a climax the confrontation is resolved in an unsatisfying manner. Whilst they could have really explored the complexities of these two characters here they instead decide to lazily push in a "he killed my mother" resolution that even Zack Snyder would roll his eyes at. The ending goes full Disney but without a hint of charm, having all the animals and people of the congo charge at the oncoming fleet and scare them away or something. Lots of cheers occur that are more obnoxious than the Gungans in 'The Phantom Menace' and everyone lives happily ever after, besides those unlucky enough to be in the audience.
To be fair the film does start simply and quite interestingly, showing a different take on the overtold Tarzan story and relishing in its Victorian London setting, but unfortunately it quickly becomes bogged down in its own plot. Instead of just having this new story take place solely within the epilogue of the classic tale, the film insists on flashing back to Tarzan's past to follow the classic beats from the classic story whilst also treating the films audience like idiots. These flashbacks are tinted in this odd sepia yellowish hue that is off putting and ugly, and they are given to us at such random intervals that it distracts you from the weak story being told in the present. These flashbacks would be welcoming in a superior film, but as almost all of John's character development occurs within these seemingly random and non linear clips it just makes you wonder why the screenwriters didn't just go for the safe option of developing a by the books Tarzan adaptation? Trying to do something different and original with such an established character is a bold move and one to almost be admired, but unfortunately the writers aren't able to establish their original story clearly without having to go back to the source story like a child refusing to take the stabilisers off their bike wheels.
Summary: Boring and charmless, I went into 'The Legend of Tarzan' with no expectations and still managed to be disappointed. Even the presence of Waltz and Jackson can't save this film
3/10
The casting director for the film was obviously inspired by Tarantino in this romp, with regulars Jackson and Waltz both placed in this film playing a witty sidekick with a dark side and a creepy European villain respectfully. These are the two best performances in the film, but this is just based on their merits as actors alone and not on the way their characters in this film are written. Both of these characters are stock sidekick and villain characters only, and despite trying their very best neither actor gets anything out of these thinly written roles. This is the first thing I've personally ever seen Skarsgard in, and as a lead here he lacks any charisma, grunting his way through his lines and not giving us as the audience a hero we can care about. In the Disney film (which I was going to avoid comparing this film to but it seems almost impossible at this point) the animators, writers and voice actors worked very hard to slowly develop the Tarzan character into a protagonist to root for, so towards the end you care that he succeeds. They give him internal conflict, as he tries to decide between his life in the jungle and his acceptance by society. In the end he chooses love and family and his origins, and as the audience we care about his 'happily ever after' as he and Jane are likeable characters. This is called a character arc, which this adaptation makes good heed to shit all over. This version of Tarzan lazily relies on the fact that their audience already knows the character from other sources prior to viewing, and provides us with very little development, added onto a boring lead that is hard to relate to or care about. Margot Robbie fairs no better, spending most of the film acting like Elizabeth Swann in 'Pirates of the Caribbean', being linked to lazy imagery of Butterflies and waiting for her husband to come rescue her.
Technically the film is very average, with okay looking CGI (except for the gorilla's, which were fucking horrible) and costumes that whilst not particularly original or interesting do fit with the aesthetics of the time. The settings too aren't particularly inspired, but do manage to show off the beauty of the congo in a satisfactory way. The stand out sequence of the film is probably the opening, with the soldiers heading through the caverns and mountains and encountering the indigenous tribes people in an extraordinarily violent manner. This then cuts to London, which had the look of one of the Guy Richie 'Sherlock Holmes' films. It was only after this that everything went downhill, as plots became lazy and the characters became increasingly more bland and paper thin. The camera work is another negative in the film, with ridiculous shot choices used in a variety of scenes. In a sequence in the middle of the film where Tarzan, George and the tribesmen are deciding their plan to rescue Jane the camera swoops around them in a really distracting pan that was horrible to look at. This managed to take me out of the film even more than the lazy writing and poor acting did.
One of my biggest complaints for the the film comes with the tone. The tone is distractingly uneven, drifting between out of place humour (including a ridiculous ongoing gag about giving a Gorilla a blowjob and an ill conceived joke that a certain character was raped by a priest) to incredibly dark sequences (like the hero Tarzan breaking a Tribe leaders sons neck) to irritatingly light hearted, almost childish solutions to the problems at hand. A few seconds after one of the aforementioned Ape blowjob scenes Jackson's character, who had so far been used solely as simple comic relief against the stoic and devastatingly boring Skarsgard, goes into an awfully contrived speech about his part in the civil war and lamenting his actions after. With syrupy dialogue this sequence stands out as being almost like a parody of typical action cliches, but without even a hint of self awareness the scene just comes across as dumb and irritating. One of the major motivations of any of the characters comes with the tribe leader Chief Mbonga (Djimon Hounsou) who wants revenge against Tarzan after the death of his son. The build up to this major confrontation is lazy and just as it builds towards a climax the confrontation is resolved in an unsatisfying manner. Whilst they could have really explored the complexities of these two characters here they instead decide to lazily push in a "he killed my mother" resolution that even Zack Snyder would roll his eyes at. The ending goes full Disney but without a hint of charm, having all the animals and people of the congo charge at the oncoming fleet and scare them away or something. Lots of cheers occur that are more obnoxious than the Gungans in 'The Phantom Menace' and everyone lives happily ever after, besides those unlucky enough to be in the audience.
To be fair the film does start simply and quite interestingly, showing a different take on the overtold Tarzan story and relishing in its Victorian London setting, but unfortunately it quickly becomes bogged down in its own plot. Instead of just having this new story take place solely within the epilogue of the classic tale, the film insists on flashing back to Tarzan's past to follow the classic beats from the classic story whilst also treating the films audience like idiots. These flashbacks are tinted in this odd sepia yellowish hue that is off putting and ugly, and they are given to us at such random intervals that it distracts you from the weak story being told in the present. These flashbacks would be welcoming in a superior film, but as almost all of John's character development occurs within these seemingly random and non linear clips it just makes you wonder why the screenwriters didn't just go for the safe option of developing a by the books Tarzan adaptation? Trying to do something different and original with such an established character is a bold move and one to almost be admired, but unfortunately the writers aren't able to establish their original story clearly without having to go back to the source story like a child refusing to take the stabilisers off their bike wheels.
Summary: Boring and charmless, I went into 'The Legend of Tarzan' with no expectations and still managed to be disappointed. Even the presence of Waltz and Jackson can't save this film
3/10
No comments:
Post a Comment