Tarzan!

[peter]

Whoaargh-eargh-eargh eargh-earghhh!

[Avatar]

A new movie? I loved the ERB books growing up. Did not like the Christopher Lambert movie. Do not even mention the cartoon to me. I suppose they will be able to get closer with CGI now, but...meh.

(Oh, this is a done deal already. Quite an interesting (if ultimately disparaging) review here: www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tarzan-m ... ils-908278 )

--A

[peter]

I've never seen a Tarzan movie I didn't love. The improved effects of successive versions, have over the years made each of them compelling in their own way. We had Johnny Weissmuller sporting with the truly gorgeous Maureen O'Sullivan, Ron Eley and then Bo Derek (who cares who played Tarzan in that one), and then the Christopher Lambert one ("razor, razor.....Razor!") where the ape costumes were awesome and the jungle so steamy it made you sweat. God I love Tarzan movies and I have absolutely no doubt I'll sit there like a bloody great kid, glued to the screen and lost in a suspension of disbelief throughout this one as well. Trust me - by the time I exit the cinema I will be Tarzan!

[Avatar]

Read the books too many times, so can't handle the liberties they took in the movies.

--A

[Cagliostro]

I never saw the interest in Tarzan, but I also never read the Burroughs books. I did like the Christopher Lambert Legend of Greystoke movie, and if that is a pale imitation of the books, I still doubt I could summon up the interest enough to read the books. Unless, of course, there is a leper with a magic ring in it.

[JIkj fjds j]

I never saw the interest in Tarzan

I do believe Tarzan is at the very root of our most basic fantasy.
Sweeping down on a vine and carrying off Jane to a nest in a tree is as primal to a caveman with a club as you can get.

[aTOMiC]

Was a Tarzan fan as a kid. Didn't miss a film when it was on television. Liked Lambert's Greystoke, interesting take on the subject matter.
However I have become weary of computer generated characters and the clips for the new film are filled with cgi apes and cgi enhanced action images.
I am not excited for the film but I am willing to be surprised if I finally break down and view it and end up liking it.

[Avatar]

...I also never read the Burroughs books. I did like the Christopher Lambert Legend of Greystoke movie, and if that is a pale imitation of the books, I still doubt I could summon up the interest enough to read the books.

They're a bit dated now. Well, more than a bit. I still have a soft spot for them though.

--A

[aliantha]

Ron Ely was the best. But nobody mentioned the Brendan Fraser version?

[Avatar]

Well, technically that wasn't Tarzan.

--A

[peter]

Saw it in 2D last night and alas was somewhat underwhelmed. In telling the story in flashbacks while concentrating on a somewhat contrived PC tale of Tarzan against the perfidious Belgian attempts to reduce the Congo to a save state, they managed to simultaneously emasculate the Lord of the Jungle and loose that element of mystery (the Great White Ape thing) crucial to the start of any Tarzan story. I perfectly understand the need not to simply replicate the Greystoke story, but I think there would have been ample scope in going back to the first Weissmuller version for the films beginning: the discovery, pacification and subsequent absconding with Jane (together with her slow falling for the charmsof the wildman) is after all the story, but here it was reduced to a bit player. The film wasn't terrible byany means, but the opportunities for a grand display of scenery, a gripping tale of romance and daring and a display of cutting edge effects were to some extent squandered. This wasn't The Legend of Tarzan, it was Tarzan and the Slavers.

[sgt.null]

Ron Ely was the best. But nobody mentioned the Brendan Fraser version?

Watch out for that tree!