Realização:
David YatesCâmara:
Henry BrahamMúsica:
Rupert Gregson-WilliamsElenco:
Alexander Skarsgård, Margot Robbie, Ella Purnell, Samuel L. Jackson, Christoph Waltz, Djimon Hounsou, Jim Broadbent, Casper Crump, Simon Russell Beale (mais)Streaming (3)
Sinopses(1)
It has been years since the man once known as Tarzan (Skarsgård) left the jungles of Africa behind for a gentrified life as John Clayton III, Lord Greystoke, with his beloved wife, Jane (Robbie) at his side. Now, he has been invited back to the Congo to serve as a trade emissary of Parliament, unaware that he is a pawn in a deadly convergence of greed and revenge, masterminded by the Belgian, Captain Leon Rom (Waltz). But those behind the murderous plot have no idea what they are about to unleash. (Warner Bros. UK)
(mais)Vídeos (11)
Críticas (12)
Alguns podem desfrutar do aborrecimento como um guilty pleasure, mas eu achava-o cada vez mais irritante a cada minuto que passava. E teve um começo tão promissor. Favreau com O Livro da Selva ganhou totalmente.
()
Independentemente do facto de alguns dos motivos serem provavelmente retirados das várias sequelas do livro modelo, o enredo do filme parece desesperadamente feito sem criatividade e todo o filme parece como se nenhum dos cineastas soubesse como lidar com ele. É como se três realizadores com visões diferentes o filmassem sucessivamente, ou como se o diretor David Yates o quisesse filmar de três maneiras diferentes ao mesmo tempo. A mistura resultante é uma combinação de Tarzan, duma literatura romântica ao estilo de África Minha, e duma aventura que faz lembrar Indiana Jones. No entanto, o filme carece de suspense, ação, humor e diversão. Por outro lado, não há falta de má edição e de efeitos digitais de qualidade flutuante. Os atores ou são mal escolhidos, ou atuam abaixo da sua capacidade, ou ambos. A última salvação dos cineastas seria argumentar que tentaram reproduzir a atmosfera ingénua e de paraliteratura dos romances de aventura dos anos 20 e 30, o que explicaria muita coisa. Mas mesmo assim, isso seria uma desculpa bastante frágil. A
()
Perfect casting, but a terrible digital mess. The biggest positives are Samuel L. Jackson, Christoph Waltz and Margot Robbie, and I was intrigued by the different retelling of Tarzan's story, but the visuals and the look of the digital animals might have pleased me in 2008, but today it looked a bit off to me, and the ending with the bison seemed like a bad joke. The action is also from a weaker barrel, Alexander Skarsgård is a bit too thin in the fights and we don't even hear the impact of the blows, which disappointed me, but on the other hand, it's at least entertaining and it's easy to watch without any deep disturbance. Jungle book will definitely be two levels better. 55%
()
Animals versus colonialism or the Swedish model makes Africa great again. When the creators are already pushing so hard on the racial and colonial aspect, the character of the scattered and theatrically very faint Aryan is very interesting, by which I do not want to suggest that anything from The Legend of Tarzan deserves to be taken seriously. Attempts at moralizing are as rigid as trying to tell two stories at once (both the "origin" and the new storyline drag on). Christopher Waltz could send his less talented double to the set to play the villainous roles, and David Yates confirms that he is a boring director, especially when the screenwriters don't give him brisk dialogues. Plus, it sometimes looks like some of the shots disappeared, so Samuel L. Jackson fires like a rich Texan. I can also forget that the film opens a meaningless amount of storylines and tells them very roughly, and sometimes not at all. Favreau didn't try a tenth of the "serious overlaps" in The Jungle Book, yet his film looks ten times more mature than this CGI nonsense. One then notices with fascination all the bullshit, such as the fact that a man living his whole life among gorillas is shaved like a real Dandy. Well, the nobleman's son won’t be denied.
()
At first I was surprised with the story itself. The thing is that the film does not offer the classical view of Tarzan’s life in the jungle, but it starts at a moment when Tarzan is already a cultivated and respectable English subject with an aristocratic past and the manners or a true elderly gentleman. The beginning seems really good and it is really entertaining. But after about half an hour, Tarzan sets off on a journey to his original homeland. There is a plot twist and the story goes back to its beginning. So once again Tarzan is flying around on endless lianas – a liana in one hand, the beautiful Jane in the other – and he’s fighting against British colonists. At that point, the excitement starts to wane and unfortunately it doesn’t get better again. It’s fine, but this movie doesn’t deserve more than three stars to be swung towards it on a liana.
()
Publicidade