Film Discussion - 2016

12I THE LEGEND OF TARZAN I Film Discussion

The Legend of Tarzan is not a bad movie or anything, but I don't think anyone can walk out of this movie having thoroughly enjoyed it. There is definitely something for everyone - Some great action sequences for the action-buff, a decent romance for the puppy-eyed-s, cool looking sceneries for those seeking pretty visuals. Sadly every success this film achieves tend to come off very half-hearted. How is Christoph Waltz in the movie? He's alright, I guess. How is the portrayal of Tarzan? Pretty darn good, but could've used some improvements. How is the mythology? Sounds really cool – could've been more explored. How is the story? Eh. It's fine. Slightly convoluted.

Xby TurboMac

The first sequence in the film doesn't involve Tarzan at all. From the beginning the movie tries to introduce this plot about the King of Belgium and how he's in debt and is trying to enslave the people of Congo... something something. Granted, people like me who studied the Colonization period will be thrilled, but then we'd realize one thing: The movie is standing on a thin wire here. If it escapes the possible convolution and irrelevance of a political plot and delivers an emotional yet realistic take on the Tarzan story, then it'll probably be the best Tarzan movie to date. If not, it will be convoluted and irrelevant. I had a feeling in the theatre it was going to be the latter.

I don't want to go through this entire review butchering this movie. In all honesty, it doesn't deserve that. But because the bad things really seem to overshadow the good stuff and that they seem so easy to fix, I'd probably end up talking about the bad stuff. So let's praise the movie first.

I like the visual effects. Congo looks amazing in this movie. They are most likely all CGI but they still look pretty good. I am admittedly still disappointed that the film was not shot in Africa. After watching a movie that seems to feature the continent as a character on its own, it is sort of unfortunate they didn't go all out. A stunt like that could draw attention to the film as well, setting it apart from other CG- blockbusters.

The actors are all very good in the movie. Alexander Skarsgard is great at playing Tarzan. He is faithful to the character – but there are things about his performance or about the character of Tarzan that I think is worth discussion. We will get back to this. Margot Robbie is good as Jane too. She plays this character with faithful dedication. She is likeable in the role but there is a sense that she is in the wrong century. When she speaks it doesn't quite scream 19th century – it actually feels quite 21st Century. Granted, Samuel L. Jackson doesn't transform into a man from the past either but his character is infinitely more entertaining than Jane. As for Christoph Waltz – Let's wait for his own paragraph – a lot to talk about regarding this guy.

Xby TurboMac

The direction by David Yates is for the most part really good. At times the sweeping imageries and grand cinematography creates the kind of epic sensation Yates had preiously bestowed upon the final chapters of Harry potter. The action scenes are slick – thankfully not shaky. The dramatic moments are for the most part handled with above average direction.

However, this is where our problems seem to emerge.

Whatever good stuff this movie does, it never takes it a full length. I praised David Yates' direction, but at times it gets a little confused. There is a scene when the characters are discussing a plan and the camera keeps on spinning around them. Perhaps the filmmaker is trying to get across a sense of rolling urgency. The problem is it plays with no music. The actors don't seem at all concerned about anything. The shots are not close-ups; they are medium. So you're left looking at a camera simply spinning around a bunch of people talking for no reason at all. Moments like this exist throughout this movie, and I can't seem to get through it. The film feels rushed at times. The use of flashbacks help give Tarzan an origin but the director inserts them in strange places. The best way to use flashback is to carefully weave them into the story. In this movie, the flashbacks are just randomly thrown in. They feel very out of place and jarring.

The plot of the movie is also a big issue. It feels like a sequel to a movie that we didn't get to see. The character of Tarzan and Jane are good but as we will discuss later with Tarzan, the film fails to establish a connection between the characters and me. So when the plot goes off the tangent to tell a story of political rivalries and colonisation of Africa, I can't help but feels like it's just misplaced. The first act is fine – lots of introduction, lots of unnecessary stuff but overall it introduces the story. The second act is the best part – lots of Tarzan being Tarzan, swinging around in the jungle, fighting guerillas, and befriending lions. The third act... is really bad in my opinion. It feels like the writer just want to end it already. There is no emotional resolution or anything.

Xby TurboMac

The issue with the lack of motivational stems first and foremost from Christoph Waltz's character.

Christoph waltz is a great actor. He has shown that time and time again – especially in Tarantino movies. However, he's played this characters many times already. It's a watered down version of Hans Landa. What makes Hans Landa great are the details Waltz and Tarantino put in in presenting the character. The guy he plays in this movie is a character with a concept that's basically all over the place. In the first scene we see him closing his ears when exposed to gunshots. So, he's a weasly, diplomatic villain right? No! In the next scene, he's using his necklace to kill a professional fighter! Okay... so now he's a secretly lethal ship captain who's quiet and soft-spoken... that sounds cool. But no! In another scene he's being a snarky little bitch. When he's dining with Jane, we see him arranging her silverware when she leaves. Wait. So he's OCD now? These characteristics, or tropes or quirks are elements that you add to a character – one element each. You don't put all these superficial characteristics together in a blunder and expect Waltz to provide a detailed performance. He sees these tropes and just goes "Great! So I just do the exact same thing but with no tangible motivation."

Now, let's talk Tarzan. He's really good. He's well portrayed. He is less fun and entertaining but he still has a character. That's fine with me. This is like a Craig Bond version of Tarzan. I could've used a little more howling and him being Tarzan though. Now, the problem with him is he doesn't have a real motivation. Sure, he's saving Jane – but what's happening to him as a character? I guess he's returning to the Jungle and learning his old ways. But even that is not really the focus of the story. If we want that kind of story, show him struggling with his identity, show him failing to become Tarzan only to rise again, use the third act as an emotional resolution for Tarzan instead of a dull and bloated action extravaganza. It was a profound realization for me in the theatre that the reason I wasn't able to attach myself to the story was because I don't know where the character of Tarzan is going emotionally. This, in my opinion, is the worst flaw the movie has. It derails the film and almost renders it pointless.

Xby TurboMac

The film would've improved a lot with that. I also think since this movie is definitely trying to be slightly gritty – why not show more violence, more hand-to-hand combat.

The film's very PG look and sound doesn't fit its grittier and more realistic plot. The actions are just enough and they don't seem too special. I would've been much more interested to see the version of Tarzan with great hand-to-hand combat sequences, with a lot of dangerous stunts, even with some real wild lives. These are the kind of things the filmmakers have to do to make a movie stands out.

All in all though, one can still enjoy the film. I guess I feel like the movie if just halfhearted. Not that it's not passionate, I'm sure everyone tried hard – I do see the passion behind it. But the result is still very half-half. For everything you enjoy, there is a compromise. So my score is literally half. 5/10