Michael_Elliott
Tarzan and the Trappers (1958) * 1/2 (out of 4) The twentieth film in the original MGM-to-RKO series wasn't originally meant to be a movie. No, instead producer Sol Lesser decided to save some money and try to produce a TV series so he brought in Gordon Scott to make three pilots. He showed all three pilots to the television networks but they all turned it down so instead of eating his losses the producer instead edited the three episodes together and turn it into this film. WIth this in mind, there's a reason everything is so messy. In the film, Tarzan (Scott) must battle an evil man wanting to steal animals from the jungle. After Tarzan stops him the man's brother comes and decides to hunt the ape man THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME style. Then, after that business is taken care of, Tarzan must try and stop some men looking for a lost city. All three "stories" don't mix well together and especially when the first one ends and then minutes later the guy's brother is already on the scene looking for revenge! It's really hard to take any of this movie serious considering how it was made but even if you just view the stories as three separate TV shows it still feels rather cheap. The previous movie had the producer spending a pretty dime as he sent the company to Africa, shot it in color and obviously those high standards are missing here. We're back to B&W, poor stock footage and rather cheap stories. Scott doesn't look overly thrilled in any of the stories but I'm going to guess that he wasn't too happy about the TV stuff. He's always made for a good Tarzan but this here was certainly a weak spot. Eve Brent shows up as Jane and Rickie Sorensen appears as Boy but neither are too memorable and neither have their roles written too well. TARZAN AND THE TRAPPERS should have been left unreleased but you know a producer has to make his money back and that's the only reason this was released. That still doesn't mean people should waste their time watching it.
Gunn
Gordon Scott with his well coiffed hair, hourglass figure and weird pidgin English has to be the worst of all the Tarzans. As for the other actors in this mess, they're on a par with any 4th grade elementary school drama class. I've seen Used Car Dealers in TV commercials who can act better. They make Clayton Moore look like Laurence Olivier! And where does Jane (the dull Eve Brent) get her lipstick and eyebrow pencils in the jungle? I realize these were made for kids but Wow! The plot line seemed OK but the director should have required more from his actors. I realize even the Weissmuller films have a few flaws but this one seemed so "low budget".
clh-1
Gordon Scott made an excellent Tarzan, he brought an interesting flair to the role, that was almost a compromise between the smart Tarzan of the books and the ignorant Tarzan of most of the films. In this film, he actually picks up a book and tries to read, but still speaks in a broken manner, however he is still full of wisdom that comes from life in a dangerous jungle. This actually one of the better films, despite some negative publicity from "purists" (read Weissmuller fans). It is entertaining, the jungles all look real, and the double point of anti-poaching/anti-grave robbing is especially poignant. If Tarzan really did exist, that would be the kind of life that he would lead.Excellent ****/****
dinky-4
The Tarzan you grow up is likely to always be "your" Tarzan, so for the generation which came of age in the 1950s, that means Gordon Scott. He might not have been the best Tarzan, (that's always a matter of debate), but he was certainly a good one. His "Tarzan and the Trappers" is a minor work, apparently stitched together from some TV episodes, but it demonstrates how the Tarzan character reflects the changing moods of the times.
In this case, the times are the Eisenhower Years and so Tarzan, Jane, and Boy come across here as a typical suburban family not that far removed from, say, "Ozzie and Harriet." Of course, the father in this particular family seems to speak with a third-grade education and he must spend an awful lot of time in the gym, but these are minor points."Tarzan and the Trappers" also reflects the prudish morality of the 1950s. Tarzan and Jane, for example, seem to have two side-by-side but separate treehouses which allows for "proper" sleeping arrangements. Care has also been taken to downplay Tarzan's sexuality, moving him away from his powerful masculinity toward a tamer, almost neutered status. Gordon Scott's loincloth, for instance, rides high enough on his torso to completely hide his navel, which must have caused some problems during filming. ("Sorry, Gordon, you'll have to do it again. We saw your belly button.") And in that inevitable scene in which Tarzan is captured and put into bondage, his arms stretched up and tied high above his head, we see that Gordon Scott's armpits have been carefully shaved. Apparently male body hair, either on the chest or in the armpits, was a "no no" because it emphasized the actor's sexual nature. Despite these efforts to "housebreak" and "domesticate" Tarzan, however, Gordon Scott still manages to exude an undeniable appeal and for us Eisenhower kids, he'll always be "our" Tarzan.
AD
