Richie-67-485852 Yes to a more natural and down to earth version of Tarzan as the author would have intended it to be. The scenes presented unfold quite nicely helping us to come to understand the tale and it becomes very interesting to see how life in the jungle and all that comes with it takes place. Edgar Rice Burroughs genius story of how an infant grows up in the Jungle to not only survive but to eventually become Lord of all apes by using his unrest to find out who he really is. When it dawns on him that he is not just a white ape, he is self-empowered to become all he can be and more. The scenes of his development are believable and his mentor entering into his life makes good sense as presented. I have read all the Tarzan books by Burroughs and they make for a great read and adventure story. Just when we come to accept the Jungle part of the story, we are shifted into the civilization part where again we become fascinated seeing Tarzan trying to adapt and conform to this new world. He gives it a good go, experiences quite a bit and it doesn't hurt that he is wealthy beyond belief but it doesn't matter to this ape man. He appreciates the wonder of life and not all the material artificial forms in can take. We also get to see a universal concept of how our upbringing affects us all our lives and how we return to it now and again as we travel on. The cliché of you can take the man of the jungle but not the jungle out of the man comes alive but we see it as a good thing not a bad. In the end, what matters most is this one little word of which the movie makes a great point on i.e. to be happy. Happiness is different to each one of us and to Tarzan, a romp in the jungle, out in the open, with the familiar sights and sounds does it all for him is what we are expected to believe. A sequel would have done us all good to see the proper balance to include a lifestyle of perhaps jungle and city life with Jane thrown in. However at the time, the movie was not well received for its day which is the kiss of death for any sequel talks. Too bad as the potentials are there. They got this movie right. I have no trouble believing that this is what happened. Perhaps you will too. Highly recommended with a tasty snack and drink, and for two hours, let yourself go as the star of the picture does so quite nicely....

Python Hyena Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes (1984): Dir: Hugh Hudson / Cast: Christopher Lambert, Ralph Richardson, Ian Holm, Andie MacDowell, James Fox: Another attempt at a Tarzan adaptation although it might appeal better without its cheesecake title. It stars Christopher Lambert as Tarzan who grew up in the jungle and raised by apes. Ian Holm shipwrecks onto the island and is founded by Tarzan. Holm studies him closely and observes his authority amongst the apes. Soon he is shipped to England where he meets his grandfather at the Greystoke manor. Directed by Hugh Hudson whom gives the story an artistic approached never seen before but its more adult appeal strikes against the very audience it should fancy too. Hudson previously made the acclaim Chariots of Fire. The screenplay is predictable but detailed with terrific art direction. Lambert does a tremendous job with the mannerisms of Tarzan but his concluding decision is somewhat hopeless. Ralph Richardson as Tarzan's grandfather provides wisdom. Holm steals scenes early on with his introductory to Tarzan. Only Andie MacDowell as Jane is subdued in predictable drivel that render her more as a romantic fling than a personality. More adult oriented than fantasy adventure and that greatly works against it but it is unique in its presentation nonetheless. Score: 5 ½ / 10

James Hitchcock This film is officially known as "Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes", but the name "Tarzan" is never used in the dialogue. (The central character is always referred to as "John", "Jean" or "Lord Greystoke"). It tells the story of Tarzan before he became Tarzan, or, if you like, before he became Johnny Weissmuller. The film starts with Tarzan's parents being shipwrecked on the coast of West Africa, where his wife gives birth to a son. Both his parents die soon afterwards, but the young child is adopted and raised by a tribe of apes. In Edgar Rice Burroughs' original novel, Tarzan's foster- family belonged to a fictitious species of ape known as "Mangani", who had the power of speech. (Burroughs even introduces a few words of their language). Here, however, they are gorillas, and do not speak. The film- makers clearly felt that it would be more difficult to persuade people to believe in talking apes than it had been for a novelist in 1912. Tarzan grows to adulthood in the jungle, but is eventually discovered by a Belgian explorer named Philippe D'Arnot. Through some abandoned papers, D'Arnot discovers that Tarzan is the heir to the Earl of Greystoke, a wealthy British aristocrat, and arranges for the young man's return to the ancestral family home in Scotland. Tarzan, now named John after his late father, is warmly welcomed by his grandfather, the current Earl, and quickly learns to speak English. Adapting to the strange new world in which he finds himself, however, proves to be more difficult. Burroughs' novel was very much a product of its time. It was clearly influenced by Darwin's evolutionary theories, stressing the links between men and apes- in the ape language "mangani" can include humans as well as the apes themselves- but it also reflects the values of Edwardian colonialism. It is notable that Burroughs made his hero both a white man and an aristocrat. These values did not seem to bother too many people when the numerous "Tarzan" adaptations were made in the thirties and forties, but by the more democratic, post-colonial eighties they were starting to seem more problematic. That decade, however, saw two major attempts to revive the character for the cinema. The first was 1981's dreadful brain-dead "Tarzan the Ape Man" with Bo Derek, arguably the worst actress ever to become a major Hollywood star, although here she faced considerable competition in the bad acting stakes from her male co-star Miles O'Keeffe. "Greystoke", however, represented a much more serious attempt to rethink the story for more modern times. Unlike most earlier "Tarzan" films, it no longer assumed the superiority of European civilisation over other cultures, or even that of humanity over the animal kingdom. Europeans are seen at their worst in the form of that hunting party, blasting away with their guns at any animal that comes within range, and Tarzan finds as much love and compassion among the apes as he does in his stately home. His ultimate rejection of his new life can be seen as a critique of Western civilisation. This was Ralph Richardson's last film, and it was not released until after his death. He received a posthumous nomination for a "Best Supporting Actor" Academy Award. Christopher Lambert was not nominated for "Best Actor", but his interpretation of the role was much praised. Whereas Weissmuller and other earlier actors had made Tarzan something of a muscle-bound simpleton, Lambert's character is a sensitive and intelligent young man, doing his best to cope with the difficult circumstances in which he finds himself. There is also a good performance from Ian Holm as D'Arnot. The film was directed by Hugh Hudson who had earlier made "Chariots of Fire"; Holm was one of several actors, also including Cheryl Campbell and Ian Charleson, who had also worked with Hudson on that film. The film received three Oscar nominations overall, the first for any "Tarzan" film. Bizarrely, one of these went to a dog; following a dispute with the producers the screenwriter Robert Towne had insisted that the screenplay be credited to "P.H. Vazak". (Apparently Towne had also wanted to direct the movie, and was disappointed when the job was given to Hudson). The Academy, however, apparently unaware that this was the name of Towne's dog, nominated Vazak for Best Adapted Screenplay. I wonder if he would have turned up to collect it in person had he won. Towne's script is, however, a good one. (I am not sure how much Vazak actually contributed to it). The acting is generally of a high standard and the film is visually attractive, with a sharp contrast between the world of the jungle and that of Greystoke itself. I wouldn't rate the film quite as highly as "Chariots of Fire", in my view one of the greatest British films of the eighties, but it nevertheless rates as an interesting, thought-provoking contemporary take on an old legend. 7/10

aramis-112-804880 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.