Waltz, Robbie and Jackson are given completely underwritten roles but are charismatic enough to shine through anyway. Skarsgård is a capable Tarzan, and he might have even been a good one if the film didn’t force him to mope around all the time. The Legend of Tarzan isn’t a catastrophe. Tarzan has been thrilling audiences for over 100 years, but he seems to have stopped now, falling victim to filmmakers who are more interested in capturing a sense of reverence than one of exhilaration. It doesn’t help that all the actual adventure is generally presented with that same lack of enthusiasm. It huffs and puffs from one set piece to the next, doing away with plot points instead of building dramatic tension around them. So The Legend of Tarzan comes across as a mostly perfunctory experience. The film doles out this particular history of Tarzan through flashbacks, but those flashbacks are spread thinly throughout the film, and usually only pop up just moments before the information actually becomes relevant to the plot. His backstory here is in some ways iconic and in some ways very specific, and it doesn’t necessarily conform to every version of the character that we’ve seen before. That baggage is the reason why The Legend of Tarzan feels so much like an orphaned sequel. Jackson), an American investigating the Belgian slave trade, and so back he finally goes with Jane by his side, to deal with the villainous Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz) and to confront a lifetime of baggage. He’s so over it that he has to be guilted into returning to the Congo by George Washington Williams (Samuel L. The weather is nicer in England, he’s got a big fancy house and is married to the woman of his dreams (Margot Robbie). Instead of focusing on the wonders of Tarzan and his adventures, The Legend of Tarzan opens with the title character (Alexander Skarsgård) long since retired, and devoid of any interest of returning to his roots.
0 kommentar(er)
