Wonderful Movie

Why so much hype?

Pretty Good

Boring

In a story with which most people are familiar, Jane goes to the Dark Continent, meets the legendary jungle swinger, faces numerous threats, is rescued multiple times, and falls in love with Man at his most primitive. The movie is not the first celluloid adaptation of E.R. Burroughs's famous story, but is likely the best known and, although conflicting with current sensibilities (e.g. shooting pesky animals, heroic ivory hunters, dwarfs in black-face playing villainous pygmies), remains a classic 'pre-code' adventure film and predecessor to multiple sequels, series, and TV shows. Considering the film is based on what was essentially a boy's adventure book, it is very sensual (almost soft-erotic) at times. Jane spends much of the middle part of story soaking wet in a clingy (but opaque), strategically disintegrating, outfit as she and the Lord of the Jungle engage in a long bout of 'getting to know you' flirting. Olympic swimmer Johnny Weissmuller, the titular Ape-man, is perfect as the very fit, very European looking, Lord of the African jungle, as is Maureen O'Sullivan as Jane Parker, the lovely British girl destined to be his mate. C. Aubrey Smith plays Jane's father, James, an old 'African hand' and Neil Hamilton (familiar to boomers as Commissioner Gordon in the '60s campy "Batman" series) is Harry Holt who, as a 'civilized' gentleman, is no match for Tarzan when it comes to attracting Jane's affections. The movie is an excellent blend of location footage and 'Hollywood Africa', and if some of the great apes look like costumed stuntmen and the elephants have prosthetic ears - that just adds to the charm. There are some incredible interactions between the actors and the animals (or seamless switches to wranglers, I couldn't tell) and chimp-star 'Cheeta' has some of the best scenes, both with the humans and when being chased by lions while carrying the news of Jane's current peril to Tarzan. Followed by sequel ("Tarzan and his Mate", 1934) in which Jane wears even less (and sometimes nothing at all) before the Hay's Code clamp down on cinematic naughtiness forced Maureen O'Sullivan to don a (relatively speaking) frumpy jungle skirt for the rest of the series. Great fun from another era.

Meh. The original Tarzan has some historical appeal and watching it can be fun in a campy way, but it just didn't click with me, despite reminding me of the classic 'King Kong' in a few ways. The white man goes to the unknown, forbidden jungle in search of treasure. The natives jump around and dance to sacrificial rites. The explorers have no qualms about blowing things away with their guns, in this case, hippopotamuses, not dinosaurs. The young woman along for the adventure falls into the hands of a powerful being who can take care of her. Tarzan, like Kong, has to fight and kill other wild creatures that threaten them. They want to bring him back to civilization, but here is it where it diverges: Tarzan has the choice, and declines, and Jane has fallen in love with him, and wants to stay.Olympic champion Johnny Weissmuller was a great choice for Tarzan (my understanding is that Clark Gable was also considered … yikes), and Maureen O'Sullivan has great chemistry with him, so what's the trouble? I ask myself, does the movie hold up? The worst of the scenes has the explorers very noticeably standing in front of stock footage of African tribesmen in the background. Ugh. The best has Tarzan battling a lion in what looks real, and we know it's not CGI. There are scenes that drag on, dashing through the jungle and bellowing his famous cry in places he could not possibly have done, such as when he's swimming, and O'Sullivan shrieking 'Tarzan' gets quickly jarring to the ears. There are other scenes that surprise us, like Jane falling off a cliff face shortly after a native has; the difference, she's on a rope, whereas his death is treated simply as property loss, with no recognition that he was a human being. We see the African porters whipped on more than one occasion to keep up. We cringe as we hear Jane trying to stop the others from shooting Tarzan by yelling "He's White!" The racism is certainly one of the film's problems, and is more than a little off-putting. The other is the plot, which isn't all that exciting, and I began looking forward to the movie ending about halfway through. Maybe I just wasn't in the mood. Maybe I would have preferred the sequel, where it sounds like the sex and violence was ratcheted up a notch. I don't know. Just, meh.

Ivory hunters James Parker (C. Aubrey Smith) and Harry Holt (Neil Hamilton) are in Africa searching for a mythical elephant burial ground when Parker's daughter Jane (Maureen O'Sullivan) arrives unexpectedly. Despite her father's objections, Jane insists on accompanying them on their expedition. During their journey they are shocked when they see a half-naked white man (Johnny Weissmuller) living among the apes. The ape man kidnaps Jane and takes her to his home in the treetops, where she learns that his name is Tarzan.Edgar Rice Burrough's Tarzan is one of the most-filmed characters in movie history. Live action or animation, there have been tons of adaptations and they continue to this day. Well, for my money, none beats the Johnny Weissmuller series at MGM (and later RKO). They were exceptional adventure stories, sheer fun for young and old alike. Like most film series, the earlier movies in the Tarzan series are the better ones, starting with this first film. Olympic swimmer Johnny Weissmuller does a fantastic job as Tarzan. He was obviously cast for his looks and athleticism but he brings a sensitivity to the part that's unexpected. He plays him as a laconic man-child, innocent and peaceful until the things he cares about are threatened. That famous yell of Tarzan's is unforgettable. Maureen O'Sullivan is charming and easy to fall in love with. Her performance is so effortless and real for this period in film. She elevates every scene and makes whoever's acting opposite her give more relaxed performances, as well. She has playful and at times sizzling sexual chemistry with Weissmuller. She also has a nice familial chemistry with C. Aubrey Smith. Their scenes have an authenticity about them that is rare to see but is appreciated. The success of the early Tarzan series owes as much to Maureen's Jane as it does to Johnny's Tarzan. Neil Hamilton, an actor most will remember as Commissioner Gordon from the '60s Batman TV show, does fine playing the part of the guy in love with Jane but can't compete with the rugged but kind Tarzan.Let's not forget this is a Pre-Code movie. Maureen appears scantily clad and even wearing a soaking wet thin dress in one scene. And, of course, Weissmuller wears nothing but a loincloth throughout. Being that it was filmed in 1932, there is some inevitable creakiness, an overuse of stock footage, and some spotty rear projection effects. But these things are minor negatives. The action scenes are great. Tarzan wrestling with an obviously stuffed leopard may seem hokey to many modern viewers, but it holds a certain quaint appeal for me. The animals are fun. Who doesn't love Cheeta? The matte painting backdrops are also nice. It's exciting romantic escapism with a good cast and solid direction from Woody 'One Take' Van Dyke. Followed by many sequels, the first of which is even better than this classic.

From the 1930s-1950s, there were a long succession of jungle pictures in theaters. And, for the most part, they sucked. These films featured grade-z actors and directors, significant use of bad stock footage (often of Asian or South American locations even though the films were supposedly set in Africa) and dumb writing. Because of this, after a while I stopped watching them--they are very dull indeed. However, MGM's "Tarzan the Ape Man" is an exception I am going to make--after all, instead of the usual poverty row studio, this one was made by the most prestigious studio on the planet. Instead of lousy actors, MGM pulled out their A-game with Maureen O'Sullivan, Neil Hamilton (at the time a big star--though mostly forgotten today except for his role as 'Commissioner Gordon' on TVs "Batman") and C. Aubrey Smith. And, not surprisingly, they cast a new actor as Tarzan--as it would be hard to accept an actor with an established reputation as a jungle savage! So, they obtained the services of Olypmic champion swimmer Johnny Weismuller to play the lead. I couldn't wait to see a good jungle film! Would this fit the bill? The film skips the story of the Greystokes being lost in Africa with their young baby who would grow up to be Tarzan. Instead, it begins many years later when an African expedition happens to find the young man---quite by accident. But before Tarzan meets the entire expedition, he meets Jane and they hit it off in some cute scenes.On the negative side for this film, there is STILL the significant use of stock footage--some of which clearly doesn't fit the film (such as the scenes where they show various tribesmen who are filmed in very different locations than where the action is set). And, unfortunately, there are some guys dressed up as chimps--something that just looked cheap (though these were a bit better than the usual chimp suits). There also is a fake crocodile that looked pretty silly (conversely, the fake hippos in this same scene were pretty good). And, because of all this, I just can't understand reviews that gave the film 10s. On the positive, despite the cheesy stock footage, the acting was lovely and the script very good. These were able to make up for a lot of the film's deficiencies. The mountain hiking scene is very impressive for 1932--and a very nice use of trick photography and matte paintings. Also, a few real animals were used on the sets--such as a hippo and baby chimps and fights with real live lions--not dead stuffed ones (which I HAVE seen in other Tarzan films). It clearly skimped a bit here and there, but also did have impressive touches a better budget would allow. As a result, the film is significantly more watchable than the usual jungle film--including many of the later non-Johnny Weismuller films. It's worth seeing, as it's among the very best of the Tarzan films--if not the best.By the way, the follow-up film, "Tarzan and His Mate", is a notorious movie. That's because it features a very, very risqué nude swimming sequence--one that ran afoul of the new toughened Production Code (in an effort to make movies more family-friendly. This very nude scene was anything but family-friendly)! And, by the time it was ready for release, the code was being strengthened--and these changes forced the scene to be severely edited. Recently, the edited footage has been restored--and it is rather hot--even by today's standards--and certainly not what you'd expect in what is seen as a kids' film. Both this risqué and the previous film excel, however, as they are quite romantic--something that CAN'T be said of other jungle epics!Also, in "Tarzan the Ape Man", they use Asian elephants. While I am usually a stickler for realism (especially since the animals often shown in jungle films are just the wrong species for Africa), I don't object to this in this particular case, as African elephants are a lot more dangerous and I wouldn't want the studio to use these beasts (though some circuses have--at much greater risk).