Excellent but underrated film

best movie i've ever seen.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

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.

An orphan child is brought up by apes and is latter introduced to his aristocratic family.Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes is based on the original writings of Edgar Rice Burroughs. Made in 1984 director Hugh Hudson offers an origin story made in a time before origin films were common place. Hudson offers the same epic operatic grandeur he'd brought to Chariots of Fire (1981). Uncredited screenwriter, Robert Towne (Chinatown), goes under pseudonym of his dog (P.H. Vazak) and second screenwriter Michael Austin offer an interesting three act affair, beginning in 1885 the downfall of his parents and Tarzan as a child, then as an adult assisting Capitaine Phillippe D'Arnot (played excellently by Ian Holm) out of the jungle and Tarzan back in the United Kingdom. Christopher Lambert' gives a fine performance as he learns to speak English and comes to terms with his heritage. Death hard hittingly runs though this adaptation, humans and animals are all put on the chopping board and it's quite a slow paced emotional journey. Notable are Ralph Richardson (in his last film) and Eric Langlois as preteen Tarzan. Interestingly, despite the title, the name Tarzan is never mentioned and Andie MacDowell's Jane is curiously dubbed by Glenn Close. Makeup genius Rick Baker's ape characters are for the most part convincing suit designs. With cinematography by John Alcott it's visual rich from the African jungle to Victorian Britain and the London Natural History Museum. Greystoke oozes atmosphere and even though a somber affair it leads to the film's unsurprising conclusion. It's visuals and time passages are far more interesting than the central character and this is debatably why Greystoke isn't critical revered as it possibly could have been. Overall, this is a serious retelling which takes a chance on effects (refreshingly pre CGI), storytelling and casting, they simply don't make films like this anymore.

Released in 1984, "Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes" stars Christopher Lambert in the title role with Andie MacDowell as Jane, Ian Holm as his French friend, D'Arnot, and Ralph Richardson as his likable grandfather who's nearing senility. James Fox is on hand as Tarzan's stuffy "high class" nemesis in Scotland.One thing that sets "Greystoke" apart from previous Tarzan flicks is that the filmmakers were determined to depict him the way Burroughs did in the books, as an extremely intelligent, talented man who happened to grow-up with a tribe of apes and not as a dim-witted wild man who had a hard time construing five proper words in a sentence. Lambert was only 26 during filming (but looks & acts more mature) and perfect for the role. This is a more realistic version of the ape man, moving away from the whole "me Tarzan, you Jane" cliché that (presumably) started with the Weissmuller flicks, which explains why the movie's called "Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan" and not "Tarzan..." The first half is the best part, shot on location in lush West Africa (and, presumably, some parts in the studio, although you can't tell). While the apes are people in ape costumes they look amazingly realistic, particularly considering "Planet of the Apes" came out a mere 16 years earlier. The progress made with F/X in that short time is amazing (fifteen years later and CGI would take over most F/X). There are a number of great scenes, like Tarzan's fight-to-the-death with the ape leader and D'Arnot's introduction to Tarzan with a couple of curious apes behind him, causing D'Arnot to pass out.The second half switches to Scotland and this is where most people have a problem with the film. They say it's too slow, blah, blah, blah, and they're right to a point. I think the last discussion at the mansion before going back to Africa could've been cut almost entirely. After all, by this point we've already seen Clayton (Tarzan) confront Fox' character multiple times with intimidating animal sounds. So it was redundant and unnecessary. Nevertheless, I think the second half reveals a lot of character-defining stuff about Tarzan: His loving kinship with his grandfather, his defense of the lowly, his uncanny intelligence & talents, his compassion for encaged creatures, his passion for Jane and his reviling of the pompous.MacDowell is fine in the role, even stunning, and I didn't even know she was dubbed by Glenn Close until someone pointed it out, which shows they did a quality job with the dubbing. MacDowell is one of the reasons the love scene works so spectacularly, possibly my favorite love scene in the history of cinema. She and Lambert had great chemistry.The ending is a turn-off until you think about it ***MILD SPOILER***: Tarzan's rejection of his ancestral estate in Scotland is akin to him rejecting Western Civilization in general. I'm assuming that Jane would decide to later join him in Africa. Too bad there wasn't a sequel (I should add that 1998's "Tarzan and the Lost City" is SAID to be a sequel of this film, but it lacks Lambert and MacDowell in the key roles, plus it's mediocre by comparison, yet still worth checking out if you're a Tarzan fan).The film runs 143 minutes and was shot in Cameroon, Africa, and England.GRADE: A- (keeping in mind that Tarzan is my all-time favorite fictional hero)

Fresh from his deserved success with "Chariots of Fire" (though Warren Beatty won the director's Oscar that year) director Hugh Hudson was handed the story of Tarzan, which he tried to do more like the book (though he still deviates significantly).The name "Tarzan" is never mentioned in "Greystoke." This might because of its risible quality. Two years earlier a version of "Tarzan" was released starring Bo Derek (taking the limelight as Jane). Derek's "Tarzan" had neither the class to be palatable to normal film goers, nor enough nudity to appeal to the raincoat brigade.With the embarrassment of the Derek version still strong in people's minds, it's surprising another Tarzan film was greenlighted. But Hugh Hudson was riding high on his success with "Chariots" and, as mentioned, the script never mentions Tarzan by name.Hudson cast several "Chariots" alumni in small but pivotal roles: Cheryl Campbell, Nigel Davenport, Nicholas Farrell, Ian Charleston and Ian Holm.In fact, of all the notable British actors listed in the cast, only Ralph Richardson and Ian Holm have lots of screen time, with James Fox coming in a distant third. In the biggest waste of talent since "McKenna's Gold" many of these fine actors -- Charleston, David Suchet, Tristram Jellinek and Paul Brooke -- are dispensed with in one scene; while Davenport's role is short and Farrell went all the way to Africa for a blink-and-you'll-miss-him reaction shot.Richardson was overdue for Oscar consideration; and in his final big screen role picked up a supporting nomination here. Fine actor Ian Holm does less well with a Belgian accent Hercule Poirot would disdain.And what of Jane and Tarzan (or "John" as he he is invariably referred to)? Andie MacDowell is lovelier than ever in her first movie role, but though she's an American her Carolina accent is overdubbed by another actress -- well, who knew she'd be a big star and thirty years later we'd know that wasn't her voice?). And Christopher Lambert's John is smoldering more than anything else, preferring to look up at people from beneath his eyebrows."Greystoke" is exquisitely shot. Both the African first half and the second half in England are picture postcard perfect. Unfortunately, neither half is particularly well-written. In the first half the apes look wonderful but it drags with the necessary shortness of dialogue. The second half is a fish-out-of-water story where John is alternately admired (by the Earl of Greystoke and Jane) and condescended to (by James Fox's upper crust Brit who is in love with Jane himself), is good enough. But the movie claims to tell the "real" Tarzan story, then deviates significantly from the book in order to nail home petty points about British imperialism and so forth (I suppose). What a downer.But John does swing through the trees on vines. The one nod they left in to old Tarzan movies is a physical impossibility.I won't tell you the ending. Will Jane choose John or Lord Esker? Will John choose the jungle or take his rightful place as the new Earl of Greystoke? What was Ralph Richardson thinking with that tray? What was Richard Harris thinking when he made the Bo Derek travesty? All the Hugh Hudson movies I've seen are beautifully shot. His next movie, "Revolution" -- with Al Pacino and Nastassja Kinski -- was one of the loveliest movies since David Lean. Unfortunately the story was so muddled and the end result so ridiculous it all but ended Hudson's career as a director. "Greystoke" actually started Hudson on the downward slope to "Revolution." As David Lean knew in his better movies, without a solid story the loveliest movie in the world comes to nothing.