Director David Yates, with Warner Bros, is back with The Legend of Tarzan – after directing 4 last sequels of Harry Potter. This flick, as the name suggests itself, is about Tarzan, Edgar Rice Burroughs’ white lord who was raised in Savannah by apes and taught the rules of nature. But we have come down many movies, the ape-man has lived through countless TV adaptions, like Johnny Weissmuller and Maureen O’Sullivan films in 1930s and even 40s. Numerous and different Tarzan’s have been on our television set, so was there a need for one more flick? Let my review answer that for you.
The movie brings us in the phase where Tarzan ( Alexander Skarsgard) has settled down with Jane ( Margot Robbie) , as Earl of Greystoke. He has reclaimed his identity as John Clayton III, whose parents were shipwrecked in Africa and eventually killed in the jungle, where he was raise by the apes ( talk about irony) . The English government requests Tarzan to revisit the Congo and assist the money haemorrhaging king of Belgium, Leon Rom ( Christopher Waltz) .
He wants the diamond mine so that he can pay-up the mercenaries and rule Congo. But to get to those mines he has to get past Chief Mbonga ( Djimon Hounson) , who is the protector of the land. Mbongs wants revenge from Tarzan and will deliver diamonds as reward in exchange for Lord of the Apes. Parallelly, Clayton not convinced to enter his jungle life again, which makes it very confusing if he has started to hate what he was and resent his previous life, is persuaded by American George Washington Williams ( Samuel L. Jackson) . He tells the ex-Tarzanian that he needs his help to investigate his suspicion of slavery. With this Tarzan is back in Congo, right where Rom wants it.
Did the whole plot make any sense, at all? No. Then let me list down few of the things that took the movie from dull to outright uncomfortable. Our title character, with his oh-so-not-real bode and personality, gets no personality but just set of abilities. The way he is seen trying to bury his past life makes you wonder what did you wrong with him. Why is he so adamant on running from his life? First he insists that he is John Clayton III and next he is seen showing, proudly, bunch of school kids how his hands have become ape-like. There is no relation if Tarzan want to revert to his wild ways or is he reluctant to do so. Left me with a scowl on my face.
Talking about Jane, well she is independent, strong-willed woman, who without any reluctance gathered herself to leave for Congo ( corset-free life) . Just to picturise this for Jane, the filmmakers made little jumbles here and there, every time. Jane, I don’t was supposedly to be a “damsel” or not? Because whenever she is captured by the baddies she manages to get herself out of the situation “before” the knight arrives ( what? ) then again she is captured by those baddies. Just doesn’t make sense. The filmmakers definitely threw the dictionary out while they were picturising “damsel in distress”.
The movie gets caught up in many questions, or rather makes your mind question the movie. Can Tarzan lead a civilised life? Is the movie trying to tell the origin story or making something new, all over? So we are just stuck with sepia-toned flashbacks that tell us how he met Jane, how the bad blood started between him and Mbonga. But nothing gets answered and movie never pursues these questions to interesting ends.
Samuel L. Jackson is playing the role of a real-life figure, an African American writer and human-rights activist, travelling to Congo and horrified at what he saw there, the grave mistreatment of Congolese at the hands of Rom and his army of abettors. He justifies the role very well but a little slip up is all that counts. He calls Tarzan as “Africa’s favourite son”, that’s downright unimaginable, because no one expects a Nordic white man when you mention Africa.
Out of all this and characters floating in the movie, one can only stay gripped because of Waltz. Thinking that he must have his drink-full-of-villainous characters, but he only gets better every time. Even when the movie saddles him with the most idiotic weapon ( rosary beads) , he still has more personality than our Tarzan. He takes the character with a stride and makes it work on the screen. No one roots for the villain, but when he gets on the screen he definitely has your attention.
I wish everyone was picturised the same, and it could have at least reached the mark of Pan. This boy adventure story lacks adventure, it is more of a cautious and lesson-teaching flick. Did we need that in this movie? Your answer is what my verdict is.
