benjaminweber This is a strange film. Everything about it just seems off in some way or another. The animation and 3D modelling is of a high quality, almost too high quality, since many of the characters have an uncanny valley feel about them. The plot is ridiculous, and feels like something The Asylum CC would come up with as a mockbuster. Even then, it's so slowly paced that nothing really happens for a good half of the film, except for Tarzan stalking Jane. Many of the characters are one dimensional at best, and Tarzan has a weirdly diverse range of skills for someone lost in the jungle as a child, not to mention his superhuman speed and strength.Still, that said I'm still hoping for a sequel, Tarzan 2: Gorillas in New York!

A_Different_Drummer This movie could benefit from some serious therapy. As near as I can tell it is actually two movies joined together only the bad judgement and odd values of Reinhard Klooss, the writer and director.Such a huge amount of energy for such a strange result!! One film, the one I liked, and the reason I watched to the end, was a sweet (animated) take on the basic Tarzan arc, Tarzan grows up in the jungle, meets Jane, yada yada. Yes it has been done before but the animation and story for this movie (of the two which, combined, make the entire schizoid movie) were satisfying, sincere and fun. Had the movie stayed there, it would have been a decent film.And then there is the second film stuck into the crock pot. Almost as if the writer had seen Lord of the Rings once too often, suddenly a army appears in the jungle out of nowhere, led by a nasty corporate type chasing a very annoying meteor. Ugh. Double ugh.Again nothing here a good shrink could not fix over 200 hours of therapy. And maybe that same shrink could find out why the writer/director felt compelled to kill Tarzan's 'mother" in a scene of gratuitous violence totally out of place in a kid's film?

chaztoronto: ForWhatItsWorth I thought it incredible when I first learnt that the Tarzan franchise released another instalment to their catalogue of over 50 Tarzan movies because really, have we not had enough of this tired conceit of man-in-loin-cloth yodelling? Did not Disney further enhance this false Tarzan image in 1999? Did not Hugh Hudson prove that another movie was unnecessary back in 1984 with 'Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes' which in my humble opinion was the only Tarzan movie made that remained partly faithful to the storytelling by Edgar Rice Burroughs? Ah, but 2016 will produce yet another Tarzan film, this time from David Yates.Reinhard Klooss who directed the wonderful Animals United animated film not only directed but also wrote the screenplay for his offering of Tarzan. No doubt he's seen all the Tarzan movies, perhaps read the comic book versions but I'm betting he's never indulged in seating by a fireplace to read any of the 24 Tarzan classics by Burroughs. It is clear that his movie's many flaws suggest that it is inappropriately titled, distorting the image of Tarzan once again but perhaps not as cruelly as the Hollywood and Disney versions have done so in the past. This made-in-Germany Tarzan is as American as it gets since it is also based on previous 'Hollywood Tarzan' films and is certainly not the beloved and amazing character created by Burroughs some 100 years ago at around the same time when he wrote A Princess of Mars, on which Disney's John Carter of Mars was based. (see further comment re John Carter movie.)The screen opens with an asteroid heading toward earth. I almost jumped out of my seat, thinking I had either got a defected disc or put in the wrong movie in my player! It turns out that Klooss wants us to know that his Tarzan would eventually have a connection with an energy/oil conglomerates' destruction of natural resources, which I have to admit is an important message to the young ones. The storyline begins with an American named Greystoke (Burroughs' Greystoke was as English as Earl Grey tea) whose plane crashes in Africa, the only survivor being his son John Clayton. As I recall from my readings of the Tarzan novels some 40 years ago, he was actually marooned off the coast of Africa with Lady Greystoke who delivered an infant boy. So in fact Tarzan was actually born in Africa. Be that as it may be, this movie's John Clayton is then raised by an ape called 'Karla'. If you're going to use the name Tarzan for your movie why not keep the original names of the apes as well? And where was Numa? Every story about Tarzan's childhood featured Numa the lion. Another fact to consider is that Tarzan had a scar starting above his left eye that ran across the top of his head from a terrible attack with another ape when he was about the same age as Klooss' Tarzan whose face is as unmarked as a baby's bum. And so we have yet another Tarzan impostor. The narrator of the film tells us that an 'evil' ape wants to take over the tribe to which Tarzan has been adopted into. I find this statement to be a form of cruelty to one of earth's higher creatures because there are no 'evil' apes, in fact there aren't even evil animals. Doesn't everyone know by now that apes likewise to man also have this 'dominion thing'? As far as fantasy movies go, I enjoy them because you don't have to watch a movie scene containing more than 10 minutes of gun violence and unnecessary foul language which is exactly why I rated Peter Jackson's Lord of The Rings 10 out of 10. I was so looking forward not to hearing a single gunshot or apocalyptic explosion in this Tarzan movie but I guess the director succumbed to the major market of movie-goer demands. However if you don't take your Tarzan movies seriously and/or if you're one of many who have no idea that Tarzan books existed long before the movies, you will not dislike this film. Albeit reminiscent of Disney's Atlantis films in its storyline, this production has a certain artistic mix of fantasy speculation and cinematic technology utilizing state-of-the-art CGI rendering, which makes up for the weak animation skills. For example, animation fails to depict Tarzan's look of surprise when he first encounters his own race which is an important event in Tarzan's growing up stage. The voices are not exceptional but for Kellan Lutz and Spencer Locke's modest voice-overs. Oh yeah, and Andy Wareham's gutturals as Tublat are quite realistic. The 3D version is a delicious eye-candy treat. Of course, I am referring to the blu-ray edition of the film. And yet, perhaps the most outstanding quality of the film as far as I'm concerned is the par excellence of surround sound in DTS-HD high resolution 96khz. The soundtrack combines the dialogue as well as background music score to the fullest output of true separation of 5.1 channels, putting to shame many of the so-called 7.1 film soundtracks. Add a quick note here paying kudos to the sound engineer.If you do not consider the fact I have always been biased towards the Tarzan character and hold in contempt all false depictions of this fictional legend, then all in all the movie will be 94 minutes of a fun pastime no matter if you're an adult or a kid. Truth being in all probability I would have given the movie 7 out of 10 had it been entitled anything but Tarzan.

leonblackwood Review: Honestly, I thought that this movie was going to be really bad and after reading the reviews, I wasn't expecting that much, but for some unknown reason, I actually enjoyed it. Maybe that's because my expectations were low! Anyway, the animation isn't the best on the market, but some of the scenes were impressive. It doesn't have the catchy tunes or the witty jokes like most animation movies which is why it didn't go down well at the box office. As an adult, I did find the storyline interesting and it's always a plus when I don't fall asleep. The apes aren't as impressive as Andy Serkis as King Kong but they do move and feel realistic. Basically, the movie wasn't as bad as the critics are saying but I can see the kids wandering off after a while. Watchable!Round-Up: There isn't that many famous voices used in this film, which is surprising because it is a classic storyline which we have all grown up with. Maybe that's why it didn't get taken seriously. Although the movie got panned, it still made some money at the box office which is, most probably, due to hype and a big distribution. It will be good to see this storyline rebooted with some big names as the voices and a big Hollywood director because there is enough technology out there to make this concept a major blockbuster.Budget: N/A Worldwide Gross: $26millionI recommend this movie to people who are into there animation movies about a little boy who grows up in the jungle and gets brought up by apes. 5/10