Incannerax What a waste of my time!!!

Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

SnoopyStyle In 1885, Lord John Clayton, son of Earl of Greystoke, is shipwrecked in Africa with his wife Alice. They have a baby and Alice dies. Lord Clayton is killed by an ape while the baby is adopted by Kala. Years later, Philippe D'Arnot (Ian Holm) is the sole survivor of a hunting scientific expedition after a native attack. He is rescued by a wild male (Christopher Lambert) who he realizes is the child of Lord Clayton. D'Arnot brings him back to civilization as the heir to Greystoke. His grandfather (Sir Ralph Richardson) is overjoyed. He's taken with his grandfather's ward Jane (Andie MacDowell).This is a two part movie. The first part suffers from a lack of individuality in the apes. It's hard to differentiate the various apes. That limits the drama within the ape society. The second part has Tarzan returning back to Scotland. I actually find this idea quite fascinating and this could be a great story by itself. However the drama never truly takes off. There is a lack of a dangerous villain. He is completely protected by his grandfather. I think there is a valiant attempt here but it doesn't really work for me.

pc95 Sometimes movies don't work particularly well. They seem to have much of the needed components but the end result falls flat or is off-target. That fits as the description for "Greystoke, the Legend of Tarzan" an ambitious and large-budgeted production of the the earlier 80s. It's directed by Hugh Hudson and stars Christopher Lambert, Ian Holm, Ralph Richardson, and debuts a young 20-something Andie MacDowell. The story is long-winded and without spirit. For starters, The ape scenes are mixed. Sometimes the difficulties of make-believe with puppeteering and live-action are out on display, as well as some poorly designed sets/stages. In this case at times ape- actors/costumes/puppets are woefully unbelieable, and the main set with the black panther looked tacky and man-made. Worse though, Lambert seems miscast physically. He has no muscularity and we are supposed to believe he is king of the apes!? Then the filmmakers capitalize on animal-call parlor tricks which wears thin over the runtime. However, Richardson and Holm together help prop the movie up to keep it away from failure. They are excellent in most scenes, and I especially enjoyed the early scenes of discovery and learning with forsaken Holms and Lambert characters as well the old Richardson remarking of his land and legacy. MacDowell's voice was strangely dubbed reportedly, and confirmed although she has a lesser role than first billing - maybe 35 min of screen time and is quietly on display dollishly. There needed to be more excitement, vitality, and physicality in the movie, although the filmmakers did achieve the sensory/feeling/touching part of primates pretty well. The internal conflict doesn't really involve, and there's no real antagonist or something to be lost. To note, Photography and music are competently put together. A mixed bag - 6/10

Leofwine_draca A bit of an oddity, this: a few years ago I read through the original Burroughs novel and was eager to find out how this adaptation held up. The answer is that it follows the story in the book extremely closely – especially in the first half – depicting events with a kind of vicious believability that's miles away from the chest-beating, vine-swinging Tarzans of old.It's not entirely accurate – there's far less of that grisly business involving the hostile tribesmen – but what I saw, I liked. The apes are played by men in pretty convincing suits, and watching Tarzan growing up to become lord of the jungle is a lot of fun. In addition to that, the film plays an ace in the casting of Ian Holm as the Belgian captain who 'civilises' Tarzan. Holm gives a subtle, mannered, quite excellent performance, one that's filled with emotion and is the best in the entire movie.That's not to say that Christopher Lambert, as the title character, is bad. It's a memorable debut turn, carefully judged and entirely physical. He gets the movements and mannerisms of a jungle-born man just right, which is why it's a shame that the ridiculous decision was made to rub him over with animal noises. If he's angry, a lion's roar comes out of his mouth, etc. The filmmakers rely on such things a lot, especially in the second half, and it's a real shame.That's not the only problem with the second half. Once the action shifts to England, the pacing slows right down and the film feels devoid of incident. Andie MacDowell is fairly uninteresting in playing an insipid Jane, and even a final, unexpectedly touching turn from Ralph Richardson fails to liven things up. As I remember, this part of the film deviates quite substantially from the book, and it suffers for it. Basically we get an hour of Tarzan wandering around his mansion and it's all rather depressing. It's a shame, because earlier on a great deal of effort was made to bring those jungle scenes to life, and it all fizzles out at the end.

skullislandsurferdotcom While being a more faithful rendition of Tarzan, the ape lord created by Edgar Rice Burroughs turned into an endearing airhead in older films, the brooding saga, made by CHARIOTS OF FIRE director Hugh Hudson, ultimately misses the vine.The prologue introduces us to the gorillas in their African jungle habitat during a volcanic eruption, seeming like a creation of sorts. The simians (created by Rick Baker) are esthetically pleasing but all their screams get annoying, and they never feel like characters to invest time in.The humans in England are a bit more deserving our attention… Ralph Richardson, in his final screen role, plays the Earl of Greystoke: consisting of a giant mansion sprawled along a plush countryside. His son Jack, discontented with easy living, takes his wife to Africa where, after a shipwreck (that we unfortunately never witness) is stranding in the jungle and… Let's cut to the chase: the parents die and their infant is raised by apes. The scenes with the young Tarzan (who's never referred to as such) are wonderful looking, but the coming-of-ape montage cuts so sporadically we never feel he's in any danger, nor is an effective kinship established with his new parental figures.He grows to be Christopher Lambert, with narrowed eyes and swiftly cunning agility, but he seems more posing the role than performing it. And eventually Tarzan aka John Clayton is taken by Ian Holm, the surviving member of a massacred hunting party – after much too easy tutoring lessons to make him more human – to be with his grandfather in England.Here's where a real story could have sunk in... but the scenes skip around so much it's like half a film – and a long one at that. As Lambert makes noises like lions, and leaps around bedrooms like an ape, it often feels more parody than serious; and Andie McDowell's dubbed voice (by Glenn Close) is preposterously distracting.All in all, our titular hero's never successfully established as the lord of the jungle or a man trying to find his place in England. Even Ian Holm tells Clayton to realize he's human in order to fit into the jungle or civilization. Too bad for the audience he never really does.James M. Tate, For More Reviews: www.cultfilmfreaks.com