Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes (1984) User Reviews

Starts out great, but...

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 23 April 2012]

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.

Captivated Audiences in 1984

[damianphelps · 7/10 · 29 January 2021]

After 50 years of Tarzan movies, Greystoke was really the first proper version of the story to get made.

Gone was the fighting crocodiles and baddies and the epic 'call' (if I could spell it I would!) in the forest, replacing it was an, essentially, mentally affected child/boy/man who was left in the forest to scavenge an existence.

They then traumatise the boy/man more by taking him out of the only environment he is familiar with to become an amusement for the upper class.

Its presented as a tale of woe and wonder and romance.

This movie has a soul.

Greystoke: The Legend Of Tarzan, Lord Of The Apes (Hugh Hudson, 1984) ***

[Bunuel1976 · 7/10 · 6 January 2009]

This begins a series (which I'll hopefully keep up every week-end) of films that came out during my childhood – in this case, it's one I've only managed to catch now. It was clearly intended as the last word on the subject, which basically had been debased to the level of hokum over the years; however, in its uncompromising striving for a serious-minded approach (a sure measure of which is that the protagonist is never once referred to by the name he's been known all this time the world over!), the film-makers rather lost track of the fact that the thing was intended primarily as entertainment! Consequently, we get a decidedly staid representation of events – with more care given to meticulous period reconstruction than in providing a functional thematic environment for its mythic jungle hero! Even so, Christopher Lambert rose to stardom – as did another debutante, Andie McDowell, playing his love interest (named Jane, of course) – with the title role, which he handles creditably enough under the circumstances. However, Ralph Richardson (to whom the film is dedicated, this being his swan-song) steals every scene he's in as Tarzan's natural grandfather who, in spite of showing obvious affection for his long-lost kin, can't bring himself to forget tradition in an effort to understand his predicament; the hero, in fact, is much more comfortable interacting with primates (even contriving, after having gone back home, to save his adoptive 'dad' from captivity). The film is otherwise very good to look at (with cinematography by Stanley Kubrick regular John Alcott, no less), features an appropriately grandiose score as well as remarkable make-up effects (by Rick Baker) – and, while essentially disappointing as a Tarzan outing, retains considerable value nonetheless as a prestige picture of its day.

Excellent novel, good film.

[srb67 · 15 April 2002]

Greystoke stays close to the first Tarzan novel which makes for a striking contrast between this film and earlier Tarzan flicks.

'Christophe' sticks to his French accent for most of this film, which is a relief as he concentrates on his acting and, for the most part, gets it spot on. His reversion to ape behaviour in moments of emotional stress is funny and touching. Ralph Richardson's potrayal of the Sixth Earl is full of humour and subtlety, only to be expected from a master of the art. Ian Holm, again, a masterful performance. They put Andie MacDowell to shame.

The first half is mainly in the jungle and is fascinating to watch. A huge amount of research about ape behaviour is put to entertaining use. It comes to a close when some amusingly nasty English explorers and a disdainful Belgian appear in the jungle. The second half, when Johnny (Lambert) is introduced to Victorian society touches on what it means to be 'civilized'. He meets his grandfather and is expected to take his place in society but then discovers what society is like.

A great adaptation and an entertaining film.

It started so well...

[neil-476 · 7/10 · 20 May 2010]

I have mixed feelings about Greystoke.

I haven't read all the Tarzan books by any means, but I must have read at least a dozen or so and, to my way of thinking, none of the myriad screen Tarzans came close to capturing the character in Burroughs' books.

And then along came Greystoke, and gave me the exact origin I had read - for the first time, there were Kala and Kerchak, there was young Tarzan nurtured by the great ape, a weakling child, but coming into his own when, as an adult, he was able to use his greater brain, teaching himself to read on finding the ruined home of his parents... plus the apes looked and moved like apes, and not like humans in monkey suits.

The first half of the movie was wonderful.

Then "civilisation" found him and took him back to England, and a slow moving and soap opera-ish second half undid most of the good work of the first half. Don't get me wrong, there were good elements - the touching relationships with Ralph Richardson and the old ape, for instance - but, by heavens, it dragged.

Lambert was excellent. Holm was very good. The apes were brilliant. The stuffed panther - meh, not so much.

A terrific first half, a downer second half, then a great ending

[bobbobwhite · 7/10 · 16 February 2006]

I really liked the first part of this film in Africa for about an hour or so until the animal cruelty by civilized humans in Scotland got to me in the second half and made me so sad I couldn't watch some of it. However, this was done by the filmmaker to make a point that early natural scientists ruined everything alive they didn't understand by "studying" it literally to death without considering the rights and comfort of the animals studied, which we know now shouldn't be studied anywhere but in the natural world they inhabit, and as unobtrusively as possible. I do recommend this film as it was a mostly serious and honest story of Tarzan and made a point of showing the gross animal cruelty that was rampant in the 19th century scientific world as well as the pure and simple, beautifully primitive life Tarzan lived as a young man who was found as a baby and raised by chimps after the violent death of his parents in the African jungle.

Christopher Lambert was wonderful and very soulful in his life of Tarzan role, as was Ralph Richardson in his last film role as Tarzan's ultra-rich, nobility-reeking gramps in Scotland. Andy MacDowell was pretty and pretty good as Tarzan's gussied-up and civilized "Jane" in her first movie role. From his charismatic work in this film and his very haunting eyes, I cannot understand why Lambert did not later become a big star, but his really bad movie choices later may have done him in. The terrific Ian Holm, as a wounded Frenchman in Africa helped by Tarzan and who then escorted Tarzan back to his previously unknown, ancestral home in Scotland, was great as always.

I am so glad Tarzan got sick of and didn't stay in the animal-cruel civilized world at that time and went home to Africa in the end to live out his life with his gentle and loving ape "relatives" who raised him instead of staying in Scotland and living like royalty, which would have ruined him if it didn't kill him first.

John, John, John of the jungle.

[hitchcockthelegend · 7/10 · 3 May 2015]

Upon release mixed notices greeted this attempt to get to the crux of Edgar Rice Burroughs' jungle man creation, The Lord of the Apes, Tarzan. It's a bold movie in many ways, one of those occasions when a fondly thought of character from days of yore is given the serious make - over treatment. Which as film history tells us is often very tricky.

Plot trajectory has a lost child of the British aristocracy reared by apes in the African jungle after his parents were shipwrecked there. Feral but wonderfully skilled with it, the child becomes a feral man of some substance but is discovered by explorers and returned to Britain and his ancestral home. Lord Greystoke becomes his title, but his loyalties, confusion and emotions continue to pull him in two directions.

The story as written obviously becomes a two-parter. The first part is the best as Greystoke is born into the jungle and we are up close and personal with the ape community. The action is very well marshalled, the effects work of a high quality, and the realisation of the situational dynamics is superb. Not forgetting, either, some mighty emotional thumps as the dangers of mother nature's creatures tugs away at the old heart strings, the rules and brutality of the jungle given weighty filmic thrust.

Shifting gear to the "jungle man in aristocracy Britain" thread, the pace slows down considerably as Greystoke dons a tux and gets the hots for Miss Jane Potter. It's this section of film that proves problematic. Narrative is bogged down by philosophical brain farts, further compounded by Andie MacDowell's (Jane) voice being dubbed by Glenn Close and the fake noises coming out of Christopher Lambert's (Greystoke) mouth, they are both very disconcerting issues. Thankfully Ralph Richardson (in his last film before he passed away) is on hand as Grandfather Greystoke to give the pic a warm and tender center.

Tech credits are a mixed bag, with John Alcott's photography impressive on both continents and Rick Baker & Paul Engelen's makeup work is from the high end. Sadly, John Scott's musical score is not nearly epic enough, while director Hugh Hudson is guilty as charged when it comes to not keeping seamless the transitional change over from jungle to mainland, more so as the great Ian Holm gets short shrift here. What a waste!

Yet it's a film that's easy to warm too. Stirring and touching in equal measure, it has enough qualities to off-set the flaws. 7/10

Splendid Hokum

[pekinman · 6/10 · 8 November 2008]

'Greystoke Lord of the Apes' has received a lot of ridicule over the years and it certainly is a bit hard to take, especially in the first half hour when John Clayton is being the ape boy in the jungle in West Africa. His 'mother' (ape) has facial expressions that cross the line of the ridiculous and is a highly risible thing to view. Aside from that it isn't too difficult to accept the fantasy of this story, which is exactly what it is... fantasy. The fantasy of the perfect human male, 'half Earl of Greystoke, half wild' as John says at the end.

Christopher Lambert is wonderful in this role, his international film debut. Beautiful, sympathetic, dangerous and highly appealing throughout. It's a shame the producers decided to dub in a smarmy-sounding Glenn Close over Andie MacDowell's performance. It is the one really huge blot on the film. MacDowell looks wonderful and though she is not the world's greatest actress I can't imagine her vocal performance being any worse than Ms Close's insipid performance. This was also Ralph Richardson's last role and he is an appropriately dotty Lord Greystoke, always a pleasure to watch. The other fine performance is from Ian Holm as Philippe, the explorer who discovers the ape-man and takes him back to England.

The cinematography is spectacular, especially in the African scenes. The music is a bit too slurpy but Elgar's tunes fit the mood very well over-all. There are many touching moments in this movie, a real tear-jerker in a couple of places which are not over-done, thanks mostly to the committed performance of Mr Lambert.

It's a good one for the kids over about 8 years of age and a good flick to watch on a rainy weekend afternoon when you just can't take any more reality. A good antidote to the recent family-dividing elections that have just taken place.

DVD Did Not Do Justice To These Stunning Visuals

[ccthemovieman-1 · 8/10 · 26 November 2005]

After I first saw this, I thought, "Wow, this is the most spectacular movie, visually-speaking, I've ever seen." Since that time, I've seen some that topped it but it still ranks as one of the best in that department. I'm just disgusted the long-awaited DVD was so poorly done, the quality of this transfer hardly better than the VHS tape.

The jungle scenes are filmed in Cameroon, and "lush" is the best adjective to describe what you see. Except for jungle sounds, "seeing" is certainly almost everything in the beginning as there is almost no "hearing," no dialog until Tarzan (Christopher Lambert) befriends Ian Holm and vice-versa....so be ready for that, if you haven't watched this film.

Story-wise, all I'll say is this is not the Tarzan many of us came to know in Johnny Weismuller films.....but that's not a complaint. For those craving action, and don't care about cinematography as I do, you just have to get past that silent introduction period

In this Tarzan version, our hero goes back to Scotland (his roots), adapts to that environment (for the most part....and a little too quickly for credibility, frankly) and then returns to the jungle without Jane. This is supposedly more true to the Tarzan books, written by Edgar Rice Burroughs.

The special effects in here were done by Rick Baker, one of the best in the business. Sharp DVD or not, this is still a stunning film to view and very interesting throughout its 2 hours and 15 minutes.

This role was made for Christopher Lambert.

[Aaron1375 · 7/10 · 14 October 2010]

This film is a retelling of the Tarzan legend. The main differences from this one than those in the past is that the film is a bit more gritty. The focus is of a more mature nature than a man swinging from vines and doing that famous call. Not to say this film is entirely serious or anything as it does have a few humorous moments within it. The story has a family that has been stranded in the jungle. The wife is dead and all that remains is the father and his infant son. Well a gorilla soon comes upon his doorstep and kills the father and a female gorilla ditches her dead child and takes the young infant baby. We watch as this young boy grows up among the apes and runs afoul of this mean looking monkey. After this segment, the boy turns to a man and stumbles upon an explorer who is running from natives and not in very good shape. For some reason he is nursed back to health and the man takes the jungle guy back with him to the uncle he never knew. The film is rather good, I did not care for certain aspects of it, but overall it worked. Christopher Lambert plays his role very well and this has to be one of the better films I have seen him in. The apes are done rather good, and look rather realistic. The story does get a bit to tragic for my tastes near the end, but I guess it fits in with this being a more mature and gritty Tarzan film.

Read the Book!!!

[darqueness2001 · 3/10 · 19 September 2007]

I've read through a lot of the comments here about how this movie sticks to the book.. I don't think any of them have actually read it. Edgar Rice wrote about a dangerous African Jungle and Apes were killers and hunters. We know differently now and this movie portrays Apes in a more modern view. I've never seen a Tarzan movie that even comes close to Edgar's vision. Maybe one day Hollywood with trust talented and respected authors to tell the story. So, if you've never read the book and enjoy a good story about feelings and a fluffy bunny view of wild animals, maybe a good cry, see the movie. I hope John Carter of Mars get's more respect than Tarzan has. We miss ya, Edgar!

Tarzan as Burroughs intended!

[krdement · 8/10 · 18 July 2007]

If you are looking for a modern film version of Buster Crabbe or Johnny Weismuller's overcoming the machinations of unscrupulous, white safari guides or cunning, black tribesmen, while saving the animal kingdom, this is NOT the movie for you. This is a recounting of the Tarzan "legend" from its beginning in intelligent, adult terms. It is beautifully filmed and faithful to the Edgar Rice Burroughs stories.

Tarzan is no action hero, but a man torn between two worlds - the natural and the civilized. In a stunning performance, Christopher Lambert portrays this angst with absolute realism. If he slips up just once the cat will be out of the bag: the audience (especially the adult audience targeted by the film) will laugh, and the film will completely lose its grip. It will plummet into the cheesy depths. But Lambert never lets that happen. (Forget what you may think of him in other movies; when I saw this film at the theater on its original release, I thought he deserved an academy award.)

The supporting cast is uniformly excellent, as other commentators have noted. I disagree with most of them in that I didn't find anything wrong with Andie McDowell's performance. I wouldn't have nominated her for an academy award - the role is undemanding - but she is completely up to it, such as it is. I don't know why her voice was overdubbed, either.

The cinematography of the African segment of the tale is absolutely beautiful. It captures both the beauty of the African wilderness and the exotic expectation it holds in the collective imagination of those who have never been there. The scenery is lush and exotic, and the colors are vivid.

But this is also a "period" film, and the cinematography also magnificently depicts Victorian England - the countryside, the city and the interiors. The costumes are outstanding. The soundtrack is beautiful without being overwhelming or obtrusive.

There are some disturbing scenes - especially for animal lovers - but no more disturbing than a few scenes in Dances with Wolves. This is an excellent film about the conflict between civilization and nature, personified in the young Lord Greystoke, convincingly portrayed by Christopher Lambert.

I Guess It Must Have Stuck To The Book

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 4 February 2003]

I confess to having never read Edgar Rice Burroughs novel that GREYSTOKE: THE LEGEND OF TARZAN LORD OF THE APES is based upon but I got the impression it stuck to the original very closely . Too closely perhaps since much of the first half of the film is taken up with Lord Jack Clayton relating events in a diary and then there`s no dialogue except for the grunts of apes for a while . In other words much of what worked in a literary novel is obviously unfilmable and has been translated poorly to screen . But stay with GREYSTOKE because it really does pick up with the arrival of a British zoological party and the film turns into an innocent abroad type film as John Clayton ( Tarzan ) arrives back at his ancestral home.

There`s a lot to recommend about this movie . It makes some very stinging criticisms on the British class systems and mans contempt of nature , and is very well acted by all the cast especially Ralph Richardson in his last screen appearance and Christopher Lambert who unfortunately only seems to appear in straight to video films nowadays . It`s also worth watching for the final scene of a landscape with a volcano in the distance which reminded me of a recent film featuring Ian Holm which ended on an indentical scene . Can you guess what film I mean ?

Crap

[zetes · 3/10 · 11 May 2015]

Coming off his best picture-winning Chariots of Fire, I have to imagine director Hugh Hudson thought to himself, "Hmm, how could I make Tarzan as boring as possible?" Whatever the answer to that question, Hudson succeeded with flying colors. This is about as boring as the story can get. 90% of it takes place in England and the 10% that takes place in the jungle is only marginally more interesting. Christopher Lambert plays Tarzan (never called that) and is silly. I mean, the story's always going to be silly, but Hudson wants this to be played seriously, and he failed by casting Lambert. Sir Ralph Richardson died shortly after production wrapped and scored a posthumous Oscar nom for his role, but I barely remember him in the film. Ian Holm is a little more memorable as the Frenchman who discovers Tarzan on his jungle exposition. Andie MacDowell, playing Jane in her film debut, was apparently so awful they had to hire Glenn Close to dub her voice. The ape costumes aren't bad considering. I would have been much better off throwing in the first two Weismuller Tarzans, which combined would have run about the same length.

One of the better Tarzan films

[barnabyrudge · 8 January 2003]

I haven't seen all the Tarzan films, so I can't say if this is the best, but I've seen enough to know that it is one of the better ones. For a start it does away with all these ludicrously elaborate adventure plots that curse the Jock Mahoney and Gordon Scott Tarzan entries, and returns to the basis of the original E.R.Burroughs book, focusing on the life of a shipwrecked child who grows up among apes and begins to act and eat like them.

In the second half of the picture, Tarzan is all grown up (as personified by Christopher Lambert, who is just right for this role) and he is found living with the apes by some European explorers. They bring him back to Victorian England, where he meets his real family and is educated to join the "civilised" society where he should have grown up if he hadn't been shipwrecked all those years ago. In an ironic touch, he realises that "civilised" people are actually more barbaric than his ape family, and in the end he returns to where he truly belongs.

The audiences seem divided over this one. Some love it, others hate it. My view is that it is mainly a very good film, nicely performed and photographed, with an interesting and mostly convincing script. I agree with other reviewers who have pointed out that certain scenes are a touch unintentionally funny, but aside from that I rank this film quite highly.

First half is okay, then it gets boring

[jackasstrange · 6/10 · 3 December 2013]

This film is the perfect example of a film that relied a lot in the build up then turned to be a monotonous bore until its very last 15 minutes or so. Nothing really happens in this vacuum of almost one hour, and it clearly prejudiced the film.

In the start, we have all the stuff about the accident of 'Tarzan's parents, and then ahead we watch Tarzan's growing up and supposedly conquering the forest?, i guess? This part in the film is carefully treated, but still does not explain, or a least i didn't get, how Tarzan becomes the king of the apes. It suddenly shows him already as the king 30 minutes after his 'growing', but it not shows how he earn that title.

And anyways, the acting by the lead actor is not at all that convincing. He is either sad or raging, but it never impacts the viewer in the way it is supposed to do. I missed a bit the Tarzan, in fact.

The soundtrack is indeed good, love classical music, but in this film it was misused. I say that because it don't fitted the scenes, therefore it wasn't even necessary to this film. Not saying that a film don't needs music, but if the music is not at all put in a way that it will add something to it, it is just pointless.

The cinematography is good i guess, good use of lightning in the interiors scenes of the Greystoke castle. The panoramic vision of the forest was good, but it was way too quickly exposed and also too generic.

In a quick resume, Greystoke is a film that loses his breath in half the way, and just recovers it when it's too late. 5.7/10

Grass roots adaptation

[gcd70 · 6/10 · 27 February 2008]

Yet another grass roots adaptation of a classic tale, on this occasion Edgar Rice Burrough's "Legend of Tarzan", which is skilfully brought to the screen by Hugh Hudson, though the end result is not without flaw.

Screenwriters Robert Towne (who used a pseudonym) and Michael Austin have perhaps over cooked the plot a little, and as a result it is inherently silly when you boil it down. The whole thing is at times hard to swallow even if Christopher Lambert does a fairly good job of convincing us that he was raised by apes. In the typical naive British manner, "Greystoke" is told too matter of fact, as if recounting an historical event - in other words the audience is expected to accept it all as the irrefutable truth. While one could entertain the possibility of such an occurrence, Hudson has left no room for fantasy in this tale.

Therein lies the downfall of this potential epic, which fails to measure up to Hudson's "Chariots of Fire", only because the styles are too similar. The approach was marvellously effective for the 1981 Best Picture, alas not for "Greystoke".

This picture is still an enjoyable entertainment though, with spectacular cinematography from John Alcott, splendid Art Direction (Stuart Craig) and set decoration and a regal score from John Scott. Costume design is also resplendent, and the apes are frighteningly convincing.

Co-starred Andie McDowell (with a voice provided by Glenn Close amazingly), James Fox and a very strong Ian Holm.

Saturday, November 4, 1995 - Video

Strange but interesting film

[artzau · 6/10 · 7 April 2001]

It's not E.R. Boroughs, the ne'er-do-well story teller whose wife told him to get off his butt and write some of these fantastic tales down. He did and Tarzan became an icon of American literature. for better or worse. The story is classic. Feral child is imbued with all the goodies of apes and still retains his human faculties. Good work when you can get it, but, hey. In fiction, you can do it. Well, ERB did and the early films made movies out of the popular escapist books with the wonderful Elmo Lincoln and started a dynasty of superheroes that has only recently degenerated into TV crapola and, ugh, Disney pablum. Interesting enough, old ERB, never a businessman, sold rights to Columbia and RKO, so each came out with Tarzan in the 30s with olympic stars, Weismuller and Crabbe. Weismuller's version won out and Crabbe went on to the Flash Gordon serials which bring us back to this film. What has this story which focuses on the return of Greystroke to his "place" as a gentleman, to do with the fantasy tale of EFB's Tarzan? Not much, apparently, as the name Tarzan is mentioned only once or twice. The feral origins which bind him and bring him back to his primeval beginnings seem to be stronger than his love for the woman whom he woos with primate (albeit neither authentic or believable) aplomb. All in all, this is a very confusing version of the Tarzan story, one which likely would have left old ERB shaking his head. But, who knows, the old man might have liked it as much as I did. ERB's daughter married one of the early Hollywood Tarzans, named MacLean and the estate that ERB bought with his earnings from the novels, movie rights, etc., became known as Tarzana which is the present name of the town in Southern California. This movie was old Sir Ralph's last. In an odd sense, it is kind of a paean to this fine character actor who was as big as character in life as the ones he portrayed in films and on stage.

Lacks Vitality/Uninvolving

[pc95 · 6/10 · 2 February 2014]

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

not the Tarzan you think of......

[dbdumonteil · 8/10 · 8 March 2003]

SPOILERS Edgar Rice Burroughs's famous character was adapted thousand of times for the screen til one's thirst is quenched, notably during the thirties and the forties by Hollywood. Its productors made Tarzan one of the most successful cinema characters. Several years later, Hugh Hudson decided to make a more ambitious version of the monkey-man and it's a more natural, more wild and more down-to-earth Tarzan that he gives away here. Hudson skilfully avoids the clichés that you usually grant to Tarzan such as his famous scream or his friendly pet, Cheetah. Not only, are we far from the designed and invented character made by Hollwood but we are also far from the film set used to make his stories. The movie was partly made in Africa (more precisely in Cameroon). The movie introduces two obvious parts: the first one which takes place in the jungle where Tarzan lives among his adoptive friends, the apes and considers himself as their lord. But he ignores his real origins. The second one in England where Tarzan discovers the English society. Ian Holm epitomizes the link between the two parts and Hudson avoids all that could make the movie falls into the ridiculous thanks to a clever screenplay. Indeed, Holm teaches Lambert basic rules of manners so as to behave correctly in the English society and the result works. Moreover, in the second part, no-one ever laughs at Tarzan and he's even really appreciated. As far as the end is concerned well it's a both bitter and happy end. Happy because Tarzan comes back to the jungle and meets again his adoptive close relatives. But bitter too, because this homecoming means that the Greystoke line won't be ensured and is condemned to disappear... Christophe Lambert finds here, his first (and last?) great role. Sadly, he'll never equal the achievement of his performance in this movie and he'll play in poor and insipide action movies. Nevertheless, as I said previously, a clever screenplay, a performance of a rare quality, some impressive natural sceneries (both the jungle and the English country and we get a gorgeous movie. It's also an excellent rereading from a popular novel. So why is it only rated barely (6/10)?

Interesting take on Tarzan

[AngelHonesty · 7/10 · 15 February 2021]

I was surprised with how much I enjoyed this film. I liked that it takes the classic Tarzen movie and shows a different side to it that seems much more real and practical. The acting was superb as Christopher Lambert takes his charter to the next level., he truly brings the movie to life. The film was lengthily and a little slow, but there was a enough to it to keep my interest. I loved the move story with Jane and it was nice to see the common struggle of how John (Tarzan) was torn between man and beast. The filming was great, and quite beautiful and I loved how most of the animals were real.The biggest part of the film that I did not like was the ending, The movie was unpredictable in where it was going to go, but it was disappointing in where it finally ended up.

Jungle Boy Raised By Apes Falls Heir To Aristocratic Empire Stodgy Costume Drama

[ShootingShark · 5/10 · 28 October 2007]

The infant heir to a great estate is born in the jungles of equatorial Africa and raised by apes in the wild as one of their own. When a Belgian explorer discovers him many years later he teaches him who he is and takes him home to the family seat in Scotland, but his past haunts him and deep down he feels he belongs back in the jungle ...

Tarzan has been done a million times (I like the old NBC sixties TV show with Ron Ely best), but if this movie has one saving grace it's that it's the only one that really tries to do justice to Edgar Rice Burroughs' original novel. In the first half with Tarzan growing up in the jungle, it succeeds, with great physical acting, lovely locations and fabulous gorilla effects makeup by Rick Baker. In the second half when he is remoulded as John Clayton amongst the Scottish nobility, it becomes very stuffy and a bit risible, as he drinks from a soup-bowl and growls at the guests. The main problem for me is the Ralph Richardson character, who is sappy, bizarre and ill-defined (he's either just mildly senile or a total loony-toon, who knows); his reciprocated affection for John is completely unbelievable and so the big dramatic arc of the plot lacks credibility. The cast of this film are all over the place; Holm is brilliant as ever, Fox is atrocious as ever, MacDowell is inexplicably dubbed (by Glenn Close) and Lambert does the best he can with the script. The best performances are by the actors in the ape costumes. There is plenty to enjoy in the picture, particularly John Alcott's sumptuous photography and some nicely observed moments, such as when John visits the Natural History Museum in London and the sight of all the animals sliced up, pickled and stuffed makes him ill. This is a good film I guess, but although I usually love genre-bending movies this is a cross-breed that doesn't work - half jungle adventure and half costume drama - it's quite original, but in the end it's too overblown and far too serious for its own good. It also has a really stupid title. The original script, written by Robert Towne under a pseudonym, never mentions the word Tarzan. Shot mostly in Cameroon and Hatfield House in Hertfordshire, and dedicated to Richardson, who died shortly after production and had a forty-year career in films.

Realistic and tragic, and it doesn't shy away

[paulijcalderon · 8/10 · 21 August 2016]

Probably the most serious and realistic adaptation of Tarzan I've seen. The first act is great. The harshness and grittiness in the tone was a great way to set the mood. The second half is good and has some better moments, but it doesn't hold up as well as the first half and leaves the film a little anticlimactic.

The development and exploration of John/Tarzan's character is well thought out and the performance was really believable. Ian Holm is fantastic in the film as his friend and the journey they make together should have been explored more. Going into the film i expected to see a film where Tarzan defends his animal friends from evil humans in the jungle, but I got a very grounded and simple film about a man trying to adapt into a life he naturally wasn't raised for. The duality and having to choose between the two lives is an interesting concept, but it leaves it unresolved in my opinion.

There are some very dramatic and sad moments here too. The bond between the apes and the man is felt more than the bond between humans sometimes. The apes have their cheesy moments, but there's also really strong and emotional moments too. The detail in the costumes switches around a bit. The best compliment to the ape costumes I can give is that the eyes where done so well that I actually thought those were real ape ayes.

There are even some scenes that deal with the human beings desire to kill and rip apart other animals, like dissecting, hunting and chaining them up. Seeing those things from Tarzan's perspective was a bit haunting and heartbreaking and you feel the conflict.

Some great performances, great first half, gritty & grounded moments are all strong points, but it loses steam in the second half and drags on a bit for too long and leaves you feeling unresolved. The film also lacked more tension and intensity towards the end which would have picked the whole thing up and made up for the calmer moments. I like calmer films, but it really builds up to something exciting to happen, and it never does.

Still, it's probably the best adaptation of Tarzan I've seen and the one who truly makes you feel the tragedy of this truly sad and haunting tale. It ain't as light as you might expect.

Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes (1984)

[fntstcplnt · 6/10 · 8 February 2020]

Directed by Hugh Hudson. Starring Christopher Lambert, Ian Holm, Ralph Richardson, Andie MacDowell, James Fox, John Wells, Paul Geoffrey, Cheryl Campbell, Ian Charleson, Nigel Davenport. (PG)

Quality production of Edgar Rice Burroughs' famed character (called Tarzan on the page but never in this film), marooned as an infant and raised by apes in the African jungle; more reverential to the source material than previous versions, but not without its liberties and inconsistencies. A rare case where Lambert is actually well-suited for a role (his physical performance is laudable, and his emotional/dialogue shortcomings are acceptable since he's new to the civilized world and its language), with fine supporting turns from Holm and Richardson, but it's John Alcott's vibrant photography, John Scott's music, and impressive makeup and prosthetics (from Rick Baker's team) that stand out. A more mature take on the jungle adventure aspects, but the scenes back in England reverse that course and trend toward melodrama and outright silliness. Script co-written by Robert Towne under the pseudonym of P.H. Vazak (his dog's name); MacDowell's poorly-obscured southern twang was erased in post-production by having Glenn Close overdub all her lines. Final film for Richardson, who passed away shortly after filming wrapped.

64/100

Too Much Silly Ape Stuff

[disinterested_spectator · 3/10 · 25 December 2014]

Though a movie should always be judged on its own merits, yet it is impossible to watch a Tarzan movie without comparing it to the novel or other Tarzan movies. In comparing the book with a movie version, there is the question of fidelity to the original story and fidelity to the spirit of the novel.

In this movie, it appears at first that we may be watching the first Tarzan movie to follow the story of the novel. Minor changes are to be expected, of course. But a jarring major change is when Tarzan meets Jane. In the novel, she is abducted by an ape and rescued by Tarzan. Though he cannot speak a human language, they fall in love. In this movie, he does not meet Jane until after he has learned speak English and has returned to England. As for the great ending of the novel, when Tarzan renounces his claim to be Lord Greystoke for the sake of the woman he loves, who has promised to marry his cousin, forget about it.

But that is not the worst of it, for the real violence is to the spirit of the novel. In the book, Tarzan is the strong, silent type, who manages to maintain his noble bearing even in the jungle. In this movie, Tarzan runs about on all fours, oo-oo-ooing like an ape. As Nietzsche once pointed out, man regards the ape as either a laughing stock or a painful embarrassment, and that is what Tarzan seems to be. This is bad enough while he is in the jungle, but long after he has returned to England, two hours into the movie, he is still running about on all fours and making silly ape noises.

It might be argued that this is more realistic. It probably is, for the Tarzan of this movie reminds me of the title character in "The Wild Child" (1970), based on the true story of Victor of Aveyron, a boy who had grown up wild in the forest. But if realism is what you are after, you should watch that movie instead of a movie about Tarzan anyway.

There is a character on the Greystoke estate that is mentally deficient, and he reminds us of Tarzan, emphasizing the fact that much of Tarzan's behavior strikes us as moronic. Actually, one of the unresolved questions about Victor is whether he was a boy of normal intellect, which was impaired by his growing up without human contact, or whether he had been abandoned by his parents because he was mentally retarded to begin with. This movie almost makes us ask the same question about Tarzan.

In other words, despite having the best production values of any Tarzan movie ever made, it is one of the worst. For all of their shortcomings, the Johnny Weissmuller movies remain the best, especially "Tarzan the Ape Man" (1932) and "Tarzan and His Mate" (1934).