The Legend of Tarzan (Post-release)
- Thread starter CessnaDriver
- Start date
justanuthercap
Sr Member
To answer you question, but warning... spoilers
Yes, he is aware. When the movie starts Tarzan has already left the jungle and assumed his life as John Clayton, and apparently much had been written about the entire adventure.
I've not seen yet but will despite the not so great Rotten Tomatoes rating, that did keep me from rushing
out to see it though.
Tarzan movies are rare as hen's teeth in the modern era and at least an honest attempt
at a serious tale I have to view.
out to see it though.
Tarzan movies are rare as hen's teeth in the modern era and at least an honest attempt
at a serious tale I have to view.
harrisonp
Sr Member
oh neat! Glad it wasn't just some weird meta thing. Actually makes me more interested in seeing it
Awful film.
* Skarsgard's performance was weak. I never bought him as a man who was raised in the jungle by apes. (He could learn a lot from Christopher Lambert.)
* Margot Robbie, although an exquisite beauty, is a dreadful actress. Absolutely dreadful.
* Christoph Waltz was incredibly ordinary. With his impotent performance as a Bond villain, that's two recent clunkers for him. I may have to re-consider my admiration for him as an actor.
* Samuel L. Jackson played himself in a 19th-century period piece. 'Nuff said.
* The new story was lame.
* The CGI was inconsistent.
The only thing I liked about it was the relationship between Tarzan and his simian brother that the film only briefly explored.
Other than that, this Tarzan picture was pure garbage. Not worth the time or money I gave it. I'll take Christopher Lambert, in Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes--a far superior film in every respect.
The Wook
* Skarsgard's performance was weak. I never bought him as a man who was raised in the jungle by apes. (He could learn a lot from Christopher Lambert.)
* Margot Robbie, although an exquisite beauty, is a dreadful actress. Absolutely dreadful.
* Christoph Waltz was incredibly ordinary. With his impotent performance as a Bond villain, that's two recent clunkers for him. I may have to re-consider my admiration for him as an actor.
* Samuel L. Jackson played himself in a 19th-century period piece. 'Nuff said.
* The new story was lame.
* The CGI was inconsistent.
The only thing I liked about it was the relationship between Tarzan and his simian brother that the film only briefly explored.
Other than that, this Tarzan picture was pure garbage. Not worth the time or money I gave it. I'll take Christopher Lambert, in Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes--a far superior film in every respect.
The Wook
nightwind1
Well-Known Member
Didn't you see the Tarzan dime novel they had a close-up of in one of the shots?
Also, don't listen to The Wook. It was a vey good movie. Both the wife and I loved it.
