gorf Yes, Tarzan of the Apes is pretty faithful adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs' first Tarzan story, but it isn't the best Tarzan movie, or silent adventure movie for that matter. Just compare it to The Mark of Zorro which came out only two years later.Imagine if they got someone like Fairbanks to do the stunts. Elmo Lincoln looks good enough as Tarzan (I don't know what people are talking about), but there are no impressive vine swinging scenes to be found here.The best thing about Tarzan of the Apes is the exciting fight scene at the end, where Tarzan kicks the big tribe member's buttocks. It's fun to see how fight scenes have developed over the years, from realistic punching and wrestling to overly choreographed dancing.The worst thing about Tarzan of the Apes is the part where the lion is killed. It's supposedly real (but looks very fake). If that's the case, shame of the filmmakers. I hate PETA as much as everyone else, but It's just wrong to kill animals for entertainment. One of the few good things about the CGI we have today is that filmmakers can fake a lot of action scenes featuring animals.I can't remember any racist content in the movie. Some people may complain about Esmeralda (white woman in blackface? Not sure), but she's not as bad as in the book. It's nothing compared to the racism in the first Weissmuller movies anyway.There's some mild (and non-sexual) nudity in some parts the movie that should have been left out. It's not offensive, but it doesn't add anything to the story either. All in all, there's nothing truly offensive about this movie except for the killing of the lion...and I'm not even sure if that part is real.While it could have been a much better movie, there's never a boring moment in it. And Tarzan is a character that has been on the big screen for almost a hundred years now, so it's very interesting to see where it all began...

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.

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!

jokk2155 ...because of his already established reputation as a Hollywood strong man (e.g. his role as the Mighty Man of Valor in the 1916 DW Griffith classic "Intolerance").Also, the image of Tarzan in 1918 was not that of a lithe gymnast like Christopher Lambert in "Greystoke", but of a man powerful enough to wrestle lions. Strength equalled bulk.There's an interesting piece of trivia attached to that movie and Uganda (that's in East Africa) where I'm now based. There's a popular myth around here that the 1918 version of "Tarzan of the Apes" was filmed on the northern shores of Lake Victoria. In fact it was shot, I believe, in Louisiana.