MovieChat Forums > The Legend of Tarzan (2016) Discussion > Trust the Rotten tomato critics

Trust the Rotten tomato critics


The legend of Hollywood Blockbuster same recipe, yes and 3D to see better lack of artistic composition. weak dialouge balanced by the CGI and Action, a movie for people who are very easy pleased.

reply

No by people who enjoy good entertainment cretin.

reply

Every time I read a negative comment on a movie that insults anyone who liked it,I know I'm dealing with a troll. Why? Because people have different tastes in just about everything and most of us learned by the time we were 12 or so that not everyone likes what we like and we should respect someone else's tastes. Therefore anyone giving a negative review ( to which anyone is entitled ) on this or any movie while insulting those who liked it is either a child or someone who is deliberately trying to be offensive towards anyone who has different tastes. My motto is" don't feed the troll".

reply

I agree...I have been an avid reader/poster of IMDb for a long time..and it is the one place I do not go to for reviews, but it is always there when I need a good laugh...honestly, I read some of this stuff and it amazes me...and then again...we have to face the rest of the world with our Presidential election..so I shouldn't be surprised.

reply

Well said. Good comment.

reply

Well said Maggie! Those of us with actual, open-minded and functioning brains thank you. 


"Sir, can we take a break? It appears my intelligence circuits have melted." Kryton/Red Dwarf

reply

Those of us with actual, open-minded and functioning brains thank you.
If that was true, then what did your functioning brain tell you when Jane had the CGI butterfly land on her shoulder and they couldn't even come close to getting her eyes synced with the motion of the butterfly? Or the scene where the apes came to Tarzan's aid and the savages were standing around with their spears reacting to the directors instructions and not to the actions of said apes? And so on and so on throughout the entire film. CGI crapfest, this movie was, said Yoda.


Example of senility.http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2779/paintx.png

reply

My functioning brain was way too busy with the drama of the moment and thinking about proceeding and preceding events to be pecking about for such details that only those with bird brains ever notice. You know perpetually looking for the slightest sign that another worm may be available so peck peck peck in and around the site where the first worm was found. Forget about the big picture and the fact that a cat is about ready to swoop down and eat him. He just keeps pecking away. You are of course,welcome to your birds eye view of the world but would be better served not attending CGI crap fests Less disappointment for you that way.

reply

More than one account and praising yourself? I replied to Janine, not you. Your pathetic attempt at an analogy just shows the world how hopeless you really are. Here's a link to an article that thoroughly explains people like you. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-pseudo-intellectual-and-an-intellectual-1

Maybe, just maybe, after reading that article, you'll understand why some people ask "why?". Analytical, rational, scientific, thorough, logical, etc. Maybe you should brush up on the meanings of these words before replying again. The OP said this movie was for the easily entertained and they were correct.

Example of senility.http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2779/paintx.png

reply

I agree, the movie was no masterpiece, but enjoyable if you are looking for a simple flick at the end of the day... I rate it a 6.5, but since that isn't possible, I gave it a 7 because a 6 felt like too low for the ammount of enjoyment I got out of this movie

1101K

reply

[deleted]

Maggiesview
Where's the Like button for your comment 

reply

totally agree

reply

I disagree. Some movies are *objectively* crap and someone has to be willing to stand up and call them that. When a poster does so, they are automatically calling out the viewers who think the film has value and consequently a large percentage of them will feel insulted. The only thing I find unacceptable is bashing a film without offering the least bit of support for your position.

But some movies are a joke, most in fact. We need higher standards or we will continue to be fed crap.

P.S. I haven't seen Tarzan and am not in any way commenting on it.


reply

OP rated Hot Tub Machine a 7. Hardly the best critic, in my opinion. :)



I do not have Attention Deficit Disor... Ooooh! Look at the Bunny!

reply

A poor defense for a rather average movie..
Sure it's not horribly bad, but it sure wasn't great either. I'd still take the 80's version over this hollywood version any day of the week.
It's not worth paying it out nor defending it.
This movie has average ratings which sums it up pretty good imo.

reply

I agree, the 80s Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan was much better. This 2016 version was full of many other flaws that no one has mentioned, most annoyingly Samuel Jackson's same character as every other movie he's in. As beautiful as Jane was, I didn't like that she acted like someone from the present, like Jackson did. They weren't time travelers! As often as Christoph Waltz plays the bad guy, he is never the same character, unlike Jackson. Besides those 2 flawed performances, the other flaws are in writing, so uneven.
I even tried to ignore the infinite length of the vines when they were catching up with the train. When Rom commented that Tarzan's yell wasn't like he imagined it would be, I thought maybe it was supposed to be a satire. It would've worked better, and could've been easily done with a few adjustments. He's nearly killed in more than one scene, but the most ridiculous was after being beaten and submitting to the apha ape, he runs miles--SL Jackson following not far behind--then gets to the chief and his hundreds of grey men, who all look like weight-lifters, and he commences to womp some grey painted African butt, when not getting thrown to the grown or water by the chief. It definitely was entertaining, but it lacked so much. The director lost his focus early.

reply

Correct. Good comment.

reply

Wait. The rating here is 6.2, which is weak. That is the rating of the public. People who have seen the movie. On Rotten Tomatoes, the public rating is a mere 61%, while the critics' rated it a paltry 38%.
I don't know why guys are attacking the original poster. And someone voicing his opinion does not make him/her a troll. You guys ought to stop the bullying. The poster merely warned people that the ratings show that the movie is not very good and you may want to save your money. Should thank him, not attack him. It's awful that people can no longer voice an opinion without getting verbally gang raped.

reply

Im not a troll, im just a film fan who are very disappointing to see how cinema and movies are worst and worst every year, yes you are right .. we are different, But movies are not , Movies are art, artisic composition, and art have a standard... now if this is true, how you can tell me that this movie is good? especially compared with other movies ? can't you see it s all abot the money... 3D for extra money, lack of substrat, lack of chemestry.. and is opposite , kids like this movie more than adults..
i say it one more time , critics are right.

reply

As an artist, I will tell you that art is subjective. Everyone has their own version of what they find pleasing to their senses. The old "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" line. I don't know what "standards" you are referring too because I've seen absolute garbage sell for millions and gorgeous pieces of art sell hundreds. What makes art commercial, is a general consensus from the public, that they like and enjoy something. Based on the IMDB ratings I would say Tarzan is liked by many and is currently #1 on IMDBs starmeter.

reply

You are right that there are certain standards. But even breaking standards might sometimes be a productive thing - the invention jump cut for example. And the standards probably make up about 20% of the opinion you have about the movie. The other 80% or so is just subjective. Your taste influences that a lot, even your mood of the cirumstances of how you saw the film.

I'm a film critic for about 20 years now and a film lover all my life and never ever would I have claimed that my view on a movie is objective. I might however get upset when someone thinks "Ride Along 2" is a better movie than "Touch of Evil" and will try to argue by using technical points, film history and what not. In the end it's still a matter of taste ...

That said I'm watching Tarzan today. Perhaps it actually IS bad :)
(I'm not the biggest fan of Yates' dark and look-at-me-I'm-so-moody-style)

reply

say what you want, zippy, but THIS viewer found myself wanting a sequel within the 1st half hour.

this movie did a GREAT job of capturing the mood and style of burroughs.

the cinematography was wonderful, the writing was taut, the movie was JUST the right length, being neither too long or short and the film itself was well paced with little if any wasted time.

what movie did YOU see?

reply

you cant make movies without money. Now, its true that you could make twenty really good films with the cash they spend on special effects for these blockbusters but you have crap like Star wars and super hero drudge turning it into a arms race of sorts...yeah its crazy, welcome to america

reply

The original Star Wars was one of the best movies ever made. To me it was mostly about the story. Sure I loved the special effects at the time. If you can't enjoy STAR Wars I simply feel bad for you.

reply

movies are worst and worst every year


This coming from the guy who gave Godfather a 1 and Dude Where's My Car a 10.

reply

Maybe someone's in the mood to be "easily pleased." Maybe after watching deep thinking movies with layers and layers of philosophical meaning people prefer to sit back and take in a light movie. There's room in the world for more than one kind of movie, just like there's room in the world for cranky pissants who have an unfounded high view of themselves and their opinions.




´¨*¨)) -:¦:-
¸.•´ .•´¨*¨))
((¸¸.•´ .•´ -:¦:-
-:¦:-(ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง

reply

Seeing as you gave 10 to Don't mess with the Zohan, Ghost Ship, Amazing Spider-man and Shrek the turd.. ehm third, I wonder if you are not the first of the easily pleased....

I haven't seen this movie, perhaps I won't, but I can't stand people generalizing for no reason at all.

Spoons? Where we are going we don't need spoons
Matrix to the future 

reply

yes , you are right , and good point.
I gave those movies good ratings when i was 18 . when my movie culture was 0. now those movies are totally sh.. for me , but that's the idea , in long time you shold improve your culture (i want to write more elaborate reviews, but the fact that im not native english or speaking english country, it s hard to writte a full review with good arguments)

reply

i will never accept movie recommendations from someone that gave Zohan a 5 ... let alone a 10!

http://trakt.tv/users/pedro
http://mooviestats.com/

reply

Right. actually this is boring and bad movie. only CGI was good. Nothing else.
waste of money and time. better to rewatch rains of castamere.

reply

I actually thought the CGI wasn't that good. In some scenes the green screens were way too obvious and the scene where they jumped from the mountain onto the train was total sh* imo.

reply

There are two instances of subpar CGI in the film:

- When Tarzan & crew swing on vines over the train as it passes through a gorge
- When the commander of the mercenary fleet is being rowed towards shore in a skiff

Otherwise it's fine -- especially the animals.



Send her to the snakes!

reply

I agree with the OP, how anyone could give this movie an 8 or 9 is beyond me let alone a ten. This appears to be common practise now on IMDB, rubbish movies getting very high scores. This was not a good movie let alone a great movie. And to those people who claimed it was more true to Edgar Burroughs, can someone tell me where Burroughs writes the piece about Apes hearding Wildebeests, what a joke. As to the piece with the Elephants, what was that all about, it was like someone on the production team said, oh it's the jungle, we got to have elephants in and someone came up with that nonsense we saw. As to fellas leaping off cliffs into trees, come on, more nonsense. No this was not a good movie, not a good movie at all. The OP is correct, RT critics have the right of it.

reply

It was slow in many places. Fortunately I watched it at a drive in so I switched over the Conjuring 2 during those times. And I've already seen that. Jackson was a bad choice for this artificial made up role, that didn't help at all.

reply

It really depends on why you went to the theater -- I don't think that anyone going to see a Tarzan film, who actually knows the character, either from the books, or from previous films, is going there to see a 'quality film'. They are going for mindless entertainment.

If you don't know the character from British literature, he was the representation of British Manifest Destiny, and the superiority of (white) British Nobility vs. the natives, animals, and common folk. In essence, he's a 19th/early 20th century comic book character with all of the sensibilities of his time and place. His superpower does not stem from being bitten by a radioactive ape; it comes from his noble birth. And Burrough makes a big thing about that in the books. He's a nobleman, so of course he'd become King of the Apes, and the rest of the Jungle, besides.

There was also the Johnny Weismuller "Tarzan", a product of IT'S time, pure comic book entertainment (and I don't mean like the modern comic books made for adult sensibilities, but the adolescent comic books and pulp stories of that era.

As we move closer to the 21st Century, we had the truly awful "Tarzan, The Ape Man", with Bo Derek (and it's quite telling that Bo Derek is the only person that most people remember from that film), then the mediocre "Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes". Certainly that version was an attempt to make a smarter Tarzan film. It worked to a limited extent, but only a very limited extent.

Tarzan is best as mindless entertainment. And this film doesn't have the aspirations to be anything other than that. And certainly it isn't anything more than that. And that's fine. Like most films of this type, you should turn off your brain prior to the opening credits, because that's how films like this are most entertaining.

reply

Thank you haldurgz!

While I haven't decided whether or not I want to see the film in a theater, I greatly appreciate your ability to lay out a concise analysis of the film that includes the original story, a TV series many of us grew up watching and the difference between a variety of remakes and the original comic book version.

What you said was informative, pertinent, and useful for anyone with enough of a brain to understand just exactly what they'll be getting for their dollar if they choose to see the film on the big screen. Along with what not to expect, given that we are fast becoming a society dedicated to having it's expectations met at every opportunity.

It's more then a little rare that a response like yours is made without any kind of bias, hostility or accusations of any kind and it is all the more valuable and considered due to the lack of those qualities. So thank you for the time and thought you put into your post and for engaging the brain that is so clearly behind it.

You wouldn't happened to have done a review of your own on it would you? Because I'd be genuinely interested in your take of what's been put onscreen. 

"Sir, can we take a break? It appears my intelligence circuits have melted." Kryton/Red Dwarf

reply

https://haldurson.wordpress.com/2016/07/17/the-legend-of-tarzan/
I don't say much more than I said above (the above post was partly me laying out my thoughts before writing the review).

reply

I don't know about that. Currently Rotten Tomatoes is giving a 73% to that godawful Ghostbusters reboot (shudder)

reply

Not to mention the Secret Life of Pets. gag. This is easily the best Tarzan movie since the first two from the 1930's. It did a great job of working in history, character, backstory, love story, and action. Most films out of Hollywood these days can't master any of these things, let alone all of them. Most people judge films as thrill rides, so I don't even depend on mainstream audiences liking a good movie, and haven't in a while. I'm just glad they make them from time to time, and know they won't succeed, and it will be a while before another good one. In between we have Furious and Purge movies to ignore.

reply