Why so much hype?

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Admirable film.

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Possibly could be better if didn't used too much special effects and countless graphic computer,a deep sin customary used nowadays,to do a movie like that in large proportions totally in studio is quite insane,they should be shoot in Africa's jungle despite so expensive costs and efforts in benefit to the movie,neither they have to provide a proper Tarzan,not a fake super-hero introduced and implied in this picture,some acting scenes is quite ridiculous like when assault in the train...another fail is Tarzan moving in vines,so fast way in unbelievable...in stampede is another delirious scene end up in harbor in so contrived acting...African landscape previously taped saves the picture!!When we'll have a decent Tarzan??? Resume: First watch: 2017 / How many: 1 / Source: Blu-ray / Rating: 7

Disappointed. The story was random, scattered. I waited, glassy-eyed, for something to develop in the plot to catch my interest, but instead, it moves on to another scene that goes nowhere. It's a shame really. I can tell that Skarsgaard and Waltz are excellent actors who could have showcased their talents with better material. I tried not to be bored, but failed at every attempt. It wasn't for lack of trying. I tried to enjoy the film, but the totality of the story was flat - no peaks, no valleys - a flat-line, though Skarsgaard and Waltz were excellent cast- mates. I can't fault them; however, Margot Robbie did not fit. First of all, she needs elocution lessons. I couldn't understand a word she said, though I could understand the ESL Swedish and German actors quite well. She must be an exponent of the Brando school. There was plenty of overt social justice politics in it to destroy the movie as well. I give it a four because it's hard for me to give a movie less than that and seem fair. If sleeping pills don't work for you, try this.

Yet another adaptation of the classic Edgar Rice Burroughs character. And to this film's credit, it's nice to see an adaptation of another Tarzan book aside from Tarzan of the Apes. If only they didn't ruin the character in the process.It's somewhat noticeable that the Wikipedia article for this movie doesn't refer to the main character as Tarzan. He's John, John Greystoke, a former ape man that has returned to the land of his forefathers and become civilized. Which is precisely the problem. I'm not saying such a storyline couldn't work. The books themselves did it in The Son of Tarzan, and it worked very well. Rather the problem is that of tone.Let me explain. Tarzan as a character is a proto-superhero. His popularity paved way for the superheroes of the 20th century. And like those superheroes, he was essentially, at the core of his character, an ideal. A somewhat racially insensitive, overblown and colonially inspired ideal, but an ideal none the less. He was more than a mere man. In him intermixed myth, legend and the potential of mankind. Just like they do in modern comics and movies.Which is why it is so hard for me, as an avid Tarzan fan, to watch a movie where my beloved childhood icon loses most of his fights, barely survives in the jungle, is weak in spirit and in speech, shows disdain for Africa and overall resembles the original character only in the broadest strokes possible. And yes, I know that they were merely trying to make the character and the story more realistic and modernized in values. But this is Tarzan. It's like making a story about Zeus where the central conflict is Hera filing a divorce against him for cheating on her with multiple women, men and animals. It would be more realistic and modern, yes, but is that really what you would like to see.Aside from Tarzan the movie has its ups and downs. The cast is plenty strong with Christoph Waltz, Margot Robbie and even Samuel L. Jackson lending their talent. The CGI is okay, the costuming looks good and the aesthetics overall are pleasing. The ending is a bloated CGI mess. You know you probably should use a bit more money on effects when The Lion King did almost the exact scene more convincingly over two decades ago.The Legend of Tarzan failed to impress me. Its main character is horrible, its story is forgettable and overall it only has a few big name actors and some nice visuals to offer.

The movie was an 2 hours long and with a awful plot and crappy CGI. At no point in this movie did you feel attached to the actors and would not have cared if they died or not. The plot was shallow and predictable. Several scenes had no relevance to the plot and should be excluded such as the butterfly scene. Some scenes should have been longer so you would learn the characters but that didn't happen and you end up following a plot with no character development and mediocre entertainment and a lot of irritation by the plot and badly performed scenes. Tarzan or is it Captain America i'm still not sure because Tarzan defiantly has some over-natural powers since he can stand after being beaten by a 300kg giant ape monster!! Samual L. Jackson is the worst actor throughout the movie. He doesn't fit in and does no effort in adapting. He acts as if this was a Tarantino movie. Not to mention how a black man from the U.S could become a diplomat!?The apes are not realistically made at all and you do at no time feel they're scary but only extremely aggressive. I think the way Jane acted in this movie showed how pathetic the movie is and if i haven't told you yet Jane is American!! not even English as she should have been! The way she acts when she finds Tarzan is highly unrealistic unless she is very promiscuous because normally you would flee and by NO WAY LET A STRANGER TOUCH YOU!!I felt the many unrealistic scenes and the absolute lack of realism. I will never see this movie again and i can't recommend it.