Alicia I love this movie so much

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Michael_Elliott Tarzan and the Trappers (1958) * 1/2 (out of 4) The twentieth film in the original MGM-to-RKO series wasn't originally meant to be a movie. No, instead producer Sol Lesser decided to save some money and try to produce a TV series so he brought in Gordon Scott to make three pilots. He showed all three pilots to the television networks but they all turned it down so instead of eating his losses the producer instead edited the three episodes together and turn it into this film. WIth this in mind, there's a reason everything is so messy. In the film, Tarzan (Scott) must battle an evil man wanting to steal animals from the jungle. After Tarzan stops him the man's brother comes and decides to hunt the ape man THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME style. Then, after that business is taken care of, Tarzan must try and stop some men looking for a lost city. All three "stories" don't mix well together and especially when the first one ends and then minutes later the guy's brother is already on the scene looking for revenge! It's really hard to take any of this movie serious considering how it was made but even if you just view the stories as three separate TV shows it still feels rather cheap. The previous movie had the producer spending a pretty dime as he sent the company to Africa, shot it in color and obviously those high standards are missing here. We're back to B&W, poor stock footage and rather cheap stories. Scott doesn't look overly thrilled in any of the stories but I'm going to guess that he wasn't too happy about the TV stuff. He's always made for a good Tarzan but this here was certainly a weak spot. Eve Brent shows up as Jane and Rickie Sorensen appears as Boy but neither are too memorable and neither have their roles written too well. TARZAN AND THE TRAPPERS should have been left unreleased but you know a producer has to make his money back and that's the only reason this was released. That still doesn't mean people should waste their time watching it.

zardoz-13 Gordon Scott's second outing as the eponymous Edgar Rice Burroughs hero shares a lot in common with a traditional Johnny Weissmuller "Tarzan" movie. First, the Lord of the Jungle speaks in choppy sentences. Second, Tarzan has no back story relating to how he came to Africa. Third, co-directors Charles Haas and Sandy Howard rely on the chimp Cheta for comic relief. Cheta discovers the consequences of messing around with bees. Fourth, Tarzan has an educated Jane at his side and provides life lessons for a teenage Boy who runs around in a loincloth, too. Unlike Tarzan, Boy does communicate in complete sentences and knows how to read. Meantime, "Tarzan and the Trappers" bears a slight resemblance to "Tarzan's New York Adventure," except these trappers do not succeed in kidnapping Boy, though they take him hostage for a while. Scott makes a terrific Tarzan, and he is clearly the most muscular Ape man to grace the silver screen. Eva Brent looks like she walked out of a designer fashion saloon in her Jane outfit with her coiffed hair and lipstick. Were it not for Tarzan and Cheta, she wouldn't survive long in the jungle. When we first see Jane, she is curled up and sleeping without a thought about her safety when a poisonous snake slithers over her legs. Cheta awakens Jane; Jane shrieks and kicks the snake off. Cheta attacks the snake with a stick and beats it to death. This man, woman, and child, none of whom appear to be related, live in the tree houses in the jungle.Numerous sources, far too many to document, indicate that "Tarzan and the Trappers" was a pilot for a proposed television series that did not make the cut. The production values look solid enough and this cobbled together feature is unified by Tarzan's quest to thwart illegal trappers. He ruins one trapper and has the fellow sentenced to prison and that trapper's brother decides to hunt Tarzan like something out of "The Most Dangerous Game." Of course, the flaws are really obvious. Most of the time that Tarzan appears in a scene with other actors, it is clear that they are in an elaborate studio set. Tarzan spends his time belting out his signature call, probably more than any Tarzan. He swims in crocodile-infested rivers, swings on apparently real vines, and even rides a giraffe. In most of the scenes with Tarzan charging and swinging through the jungle, it does appear to be Scott performing his own stunts. Indeed, Scott would be a difficult man to double with his physique and hair. The scene where he questions two gun bears as to their native heritage by demanding that they dance is good. It is fun to see them try to make Tarzan when they get the drop on him with a high-powered, bolt-action rifle. Tarzan refuses to dance, even as they blast the earth near his toes. Eventually, the one with the gun jams it and Tarzan teaches them a lesson. Mind you, the biggest flaw in this good versus evil epic is that nobody is in trouble for long. A dastardly big game hunter shoots one animal—an elephant, but it is pretty clear that the falling elephant was probably lensed getting up. The filmmakers printed the footage backwards to make it appear as if the beast was just struck by a bullet and knocked down.Altogether, "Tarzan and the Trappers" qualifies as a serviceable Tarzan, but it cannot compare with later Tarzan sagas like "Tarzan's Greatest Adventure" and "Tarzan the Magnificent." Clocking in at a mere 70 minutes, "Tarzan and the Trappers" is a modest adventure that never looks too cheesy.

classicsoncall "So this is the mighty Tarzan, King of the Jungle"! That's the reaction of Sikes (Saul Gorse) as Tarzan makes his way to the evil trapper's camp. Tarzan (Gordon Scott) had already put away Sikes' brother for foolishly encroaching on Tarzan's domain, and it would only be a matter of time before he would do the same with older brother. If you're following the story with a discerning eye, you might wonder why Sikes didn't capture Tarzan right then and there instead of going through the motions of a jungle man hunt. I guess he wanted to make it a sporting proposition.Gordon Scott makes for a rather well proportioned Tarzan who might have had a backyard jungle gym (can't believe I came up with that one), but he doesn't come across as believable as Weissmuller, or going even further back, someone like Herman Brix. Besides his well proportioned physique, (notice the lats), Scott's hair never once seemed out of place and perfectly groomed at all times. Hard to imagine how that could be while living in the jungle, traveling by vines and wrestling crocs for sport. I'm still waiting for a picture where the jungle lord might actually bleed following one of his encounters with a wild beast, it just never happens.There was one unique feature to the story, Tarzan actually makes a running mount on to a giraffe to gain some speed across the African veld; that's one I haven't seen before. But the real gem of this picture had to be the appearance of Chief Tyana, who I thought from time to time while watching bore a resemblance to a young Scatman Crothers. Holy cow!, the screen credits after the film listed him as Sherman Crothers! Goes to show, you have to get your start somewhere.Not too much else to say, as others on this board have commented on how the picture was spliced together from some pilot TV episodes, and it did actually have that kind of feel to it. For example, it looked like the movie was just about over very early when Tarzan captured the first two trappers. For a Tarzan flick, I guess I would put it about the middle of the pack and that's being generous. You have to hand it to that Cheetah though (Cheta in the credits). He was twenty six years old at the time the picture was made, and didn't look a day over six!

Dan Phillips Gordon Scott made some good Tarzan movies, but this is not one of them.As I watched it, wincing at the bad, obviously interior sets and the hollow wooden "clonking" sounds as they walked across supposedly dirt trails, and cringing at the bad dialog and worse acting among the supporting cast, I kept thinking, "Sheesh! This is TV show level!" Then I find out it was, indeed, three TV show pilot episodes woven seam-fully into one.It's nice to see Scott get outside (alone), away from the lame sets, in a few of the scenes; and the fights do have some pretty nice moves... but oh, ow, and ouch as to the dialog. And did I mention the acting? Heck, Cheetah (or "Cheta," in this version) was a better actor than most of the humans.And that's not saying much.It is kind of a stitch to see a younger Sherman (i.e. Scatman) Carothers acting as a native. But probably not worth the overall time-investment.