MartinHafer If someone watches this film and starts looking for shortcomings, they'll probably find a reasonable amount. However, considering the film was made in 1918, it's an amazingly good film--even with its few mistakes and cheesy touches--which, relative to other films of the day, were few.This original Tarzan film was made in Louisiana. I live in Florida and I could tell by looking at the plants that it was filmed in this part of the USA, but considering that many later Tarzan films were filmed with houseplants all over the set, the backwoods of Louisiana (with all its Spanish moss) was a good choice for a domestic production. As far as the wild animals go, it was a mixed bag. Unfortunately, the elephant was an Asian elephant but I can't blame the film makers too much--the African variety are a lot nastier and dangerous. What I can blame them for, a bit, are the apes that adopt Tarzan. They are clearly people in cheap ape costumes--that look neither like gorillas or chimps--just people in ape costumes! But once again, given the technology of the era, it isn't that bad--plus, Stanley Kubrick did the same thing in "2001" and it's considered a masterpiece!! As for the plot, aside from the addition of a character and a few other small changes, it is essentially Edgar Rice Burroughs' book come to life. It's actually much more accurate than many of the later versions and because it stays closer to the book, it is more interesting and watchable...and less silly. In fact, as far as the writing, direction and acting go, it was all very, very good for such an early full-length film--and a lot better than the gobs of Tarzan films from the 1950s and 60s.Overall, very good and very interesting.

henry_ferrill Ever since I started reading Edgar Rice Burroughs' original Tarzan novels, I've been anxious to get my hands on the different interpretations of Jane's "forest god." Well, maybe silent movies aren't my thing, however, like the guy who said he likes to watch silent movies and imagine what it would have taken to create such a picture with the technology they had at the time, I suppose it was interesting. You think they would have had better cutting of the shot with the lion, seeing as it was touted as an actual lion kill. (Hell, just let the camera roll!) But I guess the stuff of legend is mysterious, cryptic, and inspired by what may have been.I cram to understand how somebody can call this "very interesting," but let it be said that I agree wholly with John G. Olson.

clh-1 I love Tarzan movies and this one did not disappoint. It was a very good film, Elmo Lincoln turned in a fair performance as Tarzan, sure he's no Johnny Weissmuller, but he gets the job done better than some of the others. I find the film to be pretty good, and the way it follows Tarzan's life is excellent, from childhood to his romance with Jane. I like how they would introduce the different stages in Tarzan's life like they are chapters in a book. However I assume there were different rules about children in films because there are several scenes where the young Tarzan is clearly nude. And one of the supporting characters is definitely a white woman in blackface. Although I find the film to be highly enjoyable, a person of a sensitive nature may not.I rate it a seven out of ten. God Bless!

Vigilante-407 This original silent version of the Lord of the Apes is perhaps the truest screen representation of the way Tarzan is envisioned in the books by Edgar Rice Burroughs. It is seems very crude but really isn't. It follows the first story (in as much as it can in the limited time of the feature) very closely. Elmo Lincoln, while no Adonis, is very adequate in the role. He's not Johnny Weissmuller...but then Johnny didn't really look all too much like Tarzan should have either.