Tarzan (2013) User Reviews (67)

Seemed Unnecessary

[3xHCCH · 4/10 · 19 January 2014]

The story of Tarzan of the Apes written by Edgar Rice Burroughs had been interpreted in many films since the 1930s. We all remember those classic films starring Johnny Weissmuller and Maureen O'Sullivan as Tarzan and Jane. In the 1980s, there was an acclaimed film version starring Christopher Lambert and Andie McDowall as the legendary couple. In the 1990s, Disney gave us its own take on the story in its traditional 2D animation with a pop musical score by Phil Collins.

I was very surprised that this year, another version was being announced on ads. I saw the name of Kellan Lutz, and thought this was a live action film, starring this Twilight actor who just recently took on another classic film character Hercules. It turns out this was another animated production, but using motion capture technology.

This incarnation of Tarzan gives the new generation an updated origin story. There is a comet from outer space that unscrupulous power companies are fighting over as an unlimited energy source. Instead of the shipwreck, we have a helicopter crash this time. The young Greystoke here was already a talking toddler rather than a newborn baby.

The whole first hour was rather bland and boring. There was a lot of scenes which were dedicated to the romance between Tarzan and Jane. Only later when the villain character Clayton makes his appearance, it was only then that the action picked up.

But by then, we can see that this version of Tarzan was very much influenced by the film "Avatar" with its environmental message, the layout of an army of technology, down to the rocky peaks in the setting. A hilarious modern day reference was the presence of a worker who was dressed like Bob the Builder.

The quality of animation is not at all bad, to be honest. The story though had already been told so many times, and the modern upgrades were too incredible and too familiarly derivative to accept. This is not essential viewing, only when you have restless kids and nothing else to see at the mall. Only an hour and half long, it will be enough to keep their interest. But afterwards, they will probably still remember the Disney version more.

Derivative and unoriginal, with the good being far outweighed by the bad

[neil-476 · 6/10 · 9 May 2014]

US industrialist John Greystoke perishes in a helicopter accident in Africa while searching for an energy-bearing meteorite which crashed millenia ago: his 4-year old son JJ is the only survivor. Fortunately, the child is found and raised by maternal ape Kala: he calls himself Tarzan after his childhood fantasies surrounding his favourite ape doll. Then, in his teens he encounters Jane, the daughter of his father's colleague and environmentalist Jim Porter. They are both involved several years later when William Clayton (who is now running the Greystoke business) goes in pursuit of the meteorite once again with not a thought for the environment.

This is a curate's egg. There is some terrific stuff here, chief among which is the realisation of the jungle environment. And, if you have to update Tarzan's origin, I suppose this is OK (personally, I have trouble if he is not the long lost son of English aristocracy, but that's just me. And quite a lot of other people).

There is also some startlingly bad stuff here, too. The kid JJ is whiny, clingy, frightened of everything, and pretty much tied to his cuddly ape doll. He is such a complete wimp (OK, he's 4) that his abrupt switch to muscular heroic teen/man strains credulity, but at least it means that we are out of the overlong introduction.

I now know why they go with established names in animated movies - they are good. I hadn't heard of most of the people providing voices here, and they are mostly bad. Les Bubb as Jim Porter is particularly poor, but Spencer Locke as Jane reminds me of Cameron Diaz in harsh nasal mode. She grates.

My biggest problem, though, is the meteorite, which carries with it a bucketload of unanswered questions. If they can't find it, how do they know it's there? And how come they can't find it? It's the size of Mount Everest, and it isn't always shrouded in fog. How does the energy thing work, anyway? What is the point in seeking to blow it up? Taking a step backwards and looking from a distance, this isn't actually a Tarzan film at all: it's Avatar, with a bodged Tarzan origin nailed on at the front and Superman Returns' kryptonite mountain nailed on at the end.

Maybe kids won't have so many problems with it.

The 3D should have been great: it is indifferent.

if batman and superman can have alternate story, why not this ?

[bangjamz · 6/10 · 16 May 2014]

people always complaining about the origin of Tarzan. as for me, i'd love to watch some alternate story, just like this.

although it has some kind of sci-fi plot, but who cares. at first, like some other guy, i thought that this was a life action because of kellan lutz played a role, but then, ow, this is some CG movie.

some people said that the animation are bad, but for me, is not. it has some potential for animated movie which didn't made from Hollywood, as far as i know.

in my opinion, don't trust the review too much, and give it a try. perhaps you would enjoy this movie as well as me, because watching movie is not always about plot or something you'd expect.

What a waste of my time

[gabseqdu · 1/10 · 23 May 2014]

Bad plot, awful human animations... in all a waste of my time.

Predictable story line you know all the things that will happen before they do. The mix some people are doing on topics is absurd... kind of the Cowboys and Aliens movie !! what a joke and here meteors, extinction of the dinosaurs, and Tarzan??

The other thing that was just enough for me was the gorilla behavior, even they seem to know how to use a knife (and the meaning of it for a kill) and to open a door... truly people?!!

This types of movies are a slap to your intellect... please do not waste your time like I did mine, hope producers and writers could give me back the hour I could stand of this nonsense.

Very disappointing...

[jonathancolley-885-704860 · 3/10 · 16 May 2014]

When I heard that there was a new Tarzan animated movie being released I was really quite excited because despite my love of big robots and monsters smashing things up and things going BOOM I do have a soft spot for Tarzan, I have fond childhood memories of running around with a tea towel loin cloth and a potato peeler shouting Ahhhh ah ahhhh!!!!!

But this, was poor... Very poor... and a little piece of my childhood feels violated :(

So, the animation is like something from an average quality PS3 game cut scene and is the style that I would expect to see on a kids TV show (although the motion capture was put to good use, the poor animation at least moves well).

The potentially interesting story was diluted to focus on nothing in particular.

There was (in my opinion) totally needless narration at certain points to tell you what was in front of your face.

If I didn't know any better I would have said that this was developed to promote a new range of dolls for girls (Jungle Barbie and long haired, loin clothed Ken?).

Save your money, watch something else or if you really want to watch an animated Tarzan look to Disney's offering which while being a little more childish trumps this one in EVERY way!

That wasn't so good.

[SoulsKingLucifer · 3/10 · 13 May 2014]

I must say at first I'm not a Tarzan fan or a fan of the concept. I will not compare it to the Disney version. This movie is a bit confusing to me cause I don't know if it is for kids or adults. There is a little bit of Sci-Fi stuff in it that shouldn't be in it in my opinion. It is nice to see people dying and get poisoned in a Tarzan movie for a change. The overall ethos of the movie is closer to the comics and books then any other Tarzan film because it is not all one big happy family moment. However it does lack in spirit and story. The non-talking animals make it a little bit better. It is not a stupid movie. Just a bit bad for my taste. It is interesting to watch once. Greetings.

The Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth......

[Rob_Taylor · 7/10 · 20 May 2014]

Honestly, that is all you will find if you read some of the other reviews of this version of Tarzan. People decrying the fact that it isn't like the (fill in Tarzan version of your choice depending on your age) and how it has ruined their childhood...

Seriously, some adults shouldn't be writing reviews of kid's films.

This version of Tarzan is bright and simple as far as the animation goes. The plot, I admit, had me scratching my head at the start until I saw where they were going with it. However, putting aside the fact that it is nothing like the Disney version, the Weismuller movies, the books, the Lou Scheimer cartoon series or any other version of Tarzan you care to prefer, is it any good? To be truthful, it isn't bad. Certainly nowhere near as bad as some would make it out to be. It needs to be remembered that this isn't aimed at adults. The bright, overly coloured backgrounds should be your first clue here that it is aimed squarely at kids, and youngish ones, at that.

Whilst the slightly scifi premise that sets up the plot is a little surprising, let us not forget that the original author (Burroughs) was not exactly fond of gritty realism. His works contain all manner of scifi goodness and the one comment I did laugh at was the one that bemoaned the presence of monsters and dinosaurs in this movie. Clearly these people haven't read a single Tarzan novel, which is replete with every conceivable monster Burroughs could think of. Try reading Tarzan the Terrible, for instance, before commenting.

In any event, this version of Tarzan, whilst not overly engrossing for me as an adult, was not boring. It was actually a nice little change.

So... was there anything wrong with it? Sure. The human faces aren't really that good. Also, I think the Tarzan/Jane romance subplot was a little ham-fisted, despite it being a staple of the Tarzan franchise. Again, with the Tarzan and Jane thing, I think that it was a little over the top as far as the target audience was concerned. Little kids would no doubt find it boring.

One other thing to consider is that this was a German production, not a Hollywood one. There are complaints that it isn't anything like the Disney version, but I say that is a good thing. Tarzan, as a franchise, has been around a long, long time. Endlessly rehashing the same territory is just plain boring and insulting, so maybe something a little different, not done by Hollywood, shouldn't be shouted down so much. Otherwise we end up with scene for scene remakes such as True Grit, and only a crazy man would want that.

Finally, remember it is made for kids, not adults. There really isn't anything much here for adults to get involved with. Summon up your inner child and try to enjoy it for what it is, not what you'd like it to be.

SUMMARY: Decent enough version of the classic aimed squarely at kids. Put aside your own Tarzan memories and enjoy it for what it is. A lot better than the ratings would suggest.

WORST Ever Remake

[praetorian-titus · 1/10 · 23 May 2014]

I would give it 0 / 10.

The story has nothing to do with the Tarzan stories.

Point 1. The emphasizing that the boy was from an American family.

Point 2. The period in which the cartoon is set

Point 3. Sci - Fi element.

Point 4. The only thing common to the "Tarzan" is the title and that is it.

If this cartoon would have any other title, I could buy it. But Tarzan, and one more steeling of a classic story with origins in Europe. This Mercia's trend is becoming down right annoying.

Solid Entertainment

[ol-11 · 7/10 · 22 February 2014]

I have seen this movie today (the German version), and, honestly, I can't understand why this movie is getting such a poor rating on IMDb. Probably it's a misunderstanding: Many reviewers compare it to the Disney-version, and this is obviously nonsense: As it is the case with Disney's "Jungle Book", Disney's "Tarzan" has hardly any in common with the literary template. Disney's "Tarzan" is a movie for kids! This new version ... Well, I am afraid the director & author wasn't quite sure if he wanted to make a movie for kids or for grown-ups; this is one of the problems of this new version. It is certainly a more grown-up-version: There are no talking animals; there are people dying (offscreen, of course), and the mood is generally more somber. Okay, the SciFi-elements were not really necessary, and the evil corporation, yes, that's quite cliché. But all in all this version is much closer to the spirit of the books than the Disney-Version, and having a bit of nonsense in the plot, I think this is okay: There is a lot of nonsense in the books, too. And the animation is quite good; the 3D-effects are well done. If you don't take the plot too serious, you can have fun watching this movie!

Who were they aiming this film at?

[ebyandsmartie · 5/10 · 2 May 2014]

Took the family to see Tarzan. 4yr old cried at the sad bit, but got VERY board (FYI to film goers- cinema was very noising from board kids talking, crying, moving around, playing on phones!!!) 11yr thought it was very poor, compared to other animation and the Disney version he grew up on. To quote him, "why did they bother if they couldn't do it better?". My misses and I thought the animation kept pulling us away from the film, you cant be immersed into a story if it keeps distracting you. The motion capture just seemed weird; clunky and off putting. Not 100% terrible, but needs a lot more to be worth the £60 we spent on tickets and treats! It's not as if the story is even public domain, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc. still hold copyright on Tarzan, so again why did they bother?

Ignore idiots!! Great 3d great film. Loved it!!

[joiningjt · 10/10 · 13 June 2020]

Not sure why so many negatives about this version, the 3d was awesome the story was excellent, well paced, not a kiddie movie maybe that was it people wanted a kiddie version. not every animated movie has to be a Pixar or disney!!, watch without prejudice and if you can watch it in 3d please do!!!

Different but Enjoyable

[valenciajr · 7/10 · 17 May 2014]

I'll start by saying that I don't know why this movie is getting such bad reviews. I feel as if many people are comparing this to the Disney version and that's not fair. I say it's not fair, because a lot of people grew up with the Disney version. There was a review where the writer mentioned their childhood. Tarzan is an old story, which has been made into many different movies. Just because Disney Tarzan was part of your childhood, doesn't make it the best necessarily. Having been born in the early 90's myself, yes, I couldn't help but notice the resemblances and differences between this and the Disney version but I came into this telling myself to be open minded. And man, do you need to be open minded for this one. The adding of sci-fi in this probably threw off many people, but I found it interesting. In fact, the one thing that probably annoyed me in this movie was whether or not it was directed to adults or children. It definitely deals with more adult themes but they kept it primarily PG. There were times I wished they crossed that line and made it PG13. The graphics and animation is excellent. There were no musicals like Disney, which I liked. I also liked the humor in this, especially from Jane's character. The movie tugs on some emotions. I found myself saying "aww" a few times. Overall, different but enjoyable. I kind of hope they recreate another Disney movie. It'd be nice to have a different take on them given I think they did a good job modernizing this one.

A very poorly planned out plot.

[zachargenbright · 1/10 · 13 December 2013]

Mistake 1: Remaking a film that was in league with the Lion King for best Disney movies ever, and had a Phil Collins soundtrack

Mistake 2: Adding dinosaurs, rare metals, and alien substances to this film

Mistake 3: Adding a greedy company as the main antagonist.

Mistake 4: making it a 3D film. Seriously? 3D?

Mistake 5: Actually spending money on this.

I am truly in shock that this even exists. It seems to be a mash-up of Kong, Avatar, Tangled, and Tarzan all mixed together to create this abomination. I am sorry for the company that thought this was a good idea. Way to ruin all that my childhood stood for.

On the plus side, the animation is pretty decent.

A failed and obsolete movie

[frank-758-830399 · 2/10 · 15 July 2014]

In general, I really love computer animated movies. Ever since Toy Story, this genre has a huge appeal to me. I still remember rendering my own pictures on my hobby PC in the attic. It was time consuming to create just one image, let alone a whole movie. But ever since Toy Story, there have been good movies (Antz), great movies (Incredibles) and bad ones (Robots), but this particular movie must be one of the worst I've ever seen. As a children's movie it failed. As an adult movie it failed miserably. The character animation is horrible, the sub-plot is far fetched and has nothing to do with the original story. Besides that, the movie is obsolete. It does not add anything to the Tarzan movies we know, being animated or real life.

So, my vote is a 2, for the jungle is beautifully animated.

Thrilling for the Parents

[i-yandiaghie · 3/10 · 12 January 2014]

I watched this movie with friends, and there were a lot of parents bringing their children to watch this, expecting a joyful animated movie.

1st. The aura was dark, it's a gloomy animated movie. The plot was so bad and the producer should feel bad. The twist was meh. They all just made no sense.

2nd. It's full of scenes where parents will feel the tremendous awkwardness as Tarzan can't put his pervert glare away from Jane, which glare very much welcomed by Jane. And there's the lovey dovey scenes. In Indonesia, scenes which contain teen's caressing between themselves physically are still considered an awkward scene to watch with your kids.

3rd. Brace Yourself, Feminists are enraging. Jane is a damsel who is always in distress, where Tarzan always came to help, you know the drill.

4th. If you think this movie is going to be even close as the Disney's version, you're gonna have a baaad time.

5th. This movie is bad. and i gave three stars was only for my deepest condolences to the team working so hard for this, while having to know that they're making a movie with a lame storyline like this.

It's okay but the CGI seems dated.

[planktonrules · 4/10 · 5 May 2014]

Tarzan is yet another version of this very familiar character. Aside from, perhaps, Sherlock Holmes, he must be the most all-time popular fictional character when it comes to movies. They've made a zillion live action versions as well as the Disney cartoon. However, now a German company has created a CGI version and it's appearing in theaters.

It begins with a gorgeous outer space scene showing a giant meteor heading to Earth. However, this is the Earth of millions of years ago, and you see lots of dinosaurs milling about…and you wonder if perhaps this is NOT Tarzan! However, it's only the prologue and some of this (especially the meteor) comes into the story much later.

Much of the film is typical of any Tarzan film. A boy is in the jungle with his parents, they die, he's then raised by gorillas. And, when Jane arrives, again, it's all pretty typical of the Tarzan films. The big difference is the evil corporation angle. A jerk named Clayton is intent on finding some giant meteor (the same one from the beginning of the film) and he's willing to kill Jane, her father, Tarzan and all the cute animals in the film. He's a pretty typical film baddie but the corporate angle is a cliché we've seen a lot in recent years. Aside from the evil corporation, the film is a fairly typical retelling of the story.

So is it any good? Well, the story and voice acting are nice. But the film suffers when it comes to the animation. One of the most difficult things to get right with computer generated animation is a realistic human. Sure, cartoony and exaggerated ones are not difficult to make but trying to make a real looking person is tough—and because of that, filmmakers have only recent been trying to make people who look like people. But, all too often these characters come off looking a bit creepy, as the CGI quality is getting a lot better overall but it's still not exactly right with humans. Because this is a commonly understood problem, I am VERY surprised that the German filmmakers who made Tarzan even attempted to make a hyper-realistic computer animated film about this Edgar Rice Burroughs character. And, in hindsight, I don't think this was a great idea, as too often the people in the film just look vaguely creepy. The effect is made worse by the sad fact that the CGI simply isn't close to the quality being made by Pixar, Dreamworks, Fox or Universal. It really has a look like it was made a decade ago—and the film's graphics vary tremendously. The people, leopard and movement of a jeep in the jungle look downright primitive, though some scenes, like the waterfalls and chameleon, look great. It's a real shame, as I am sure it took a lot of work by a lot of people to make this film but the graphics simply aren't up to even a typical made for DVD release—yet this has been released in 3D for the theaters.

So, what you have here is a poorly animated but otherwise reasonably entertaining film. I do not strongly recommend it, but you could do worse as far as family films go. But, it probably will bore young kids and older ones will probably just sit there and make comments about the sub-par animation. It's probably one more to rent than to own or take your kids to see in the theater.

By the way, it probably was just the problem with the copy I had, but the sound quality was pretty poor—very tinny. But, as I said, I doubt if this is what it will sound like in the theaters. And, in fact, the soundtrack itself is probably the strongest thing about this film—even with sound issues.

Surprisingly much better than your first impressions will offer.

[face-819-933726 · 6/10 · 18 May 2014]

This is a mess of a movie, the real problem is the animation style that just looks like plastic people. Not the Disney story, but no blood, or death is really ever shown so it might as well be. The water physics are good, but as soon as you add the characters to that water it all goes out the window. The world is beautiful, but as soon as you put most of these plastic people into it it just makes them look more like dolls in a play set that is kind of mixed up. The main story is good, and some of the moving shots are really well done. I found myself on more than one occasion really impressed with 2 or 3 seconds here or there, just not often enough to make up for the problems. There are glaring collision issues that are never fixed, and there are entire scenes that feel like they have not been finished which really makes this production suffer. Now there are also issues with the story that are incredibly stupid, and any child will take these things as insults to them directly. Take just one example as the area that Tarzan, and Jane enter around midway through the story that the narrator (who is uncredited, and sounds like Nathan Fillion)describes as having never been seen by man, the entrance to which is overlooked by 2 large carved heads, and there are stairs through out. There really is something here though when you dig down below the awful look of the movie, and the terrible way in which the entire production was handled that you have not seen, some really amazing shots of Tarzan traveling through the forest, and other motion shots which I really did Enjoy watching. However most people will find this whole thing to feel out of date, and 2 years too late. Hard to recommend for anyone other than a true fan of animation, or Tarzan fans who like seeing new takes on the Greystoke (ala Stark Industries) story lines.

Disappointed

[ethelgracekeebobis · 5/10 · 27 May 2014]

I had high hopes that this movie's gonna be a whole lot better than the 1999 version. The story is dull and the there are a bit dragging scenes. The 1999 version still remains to hold the crown. It had a better plot, soundtrack and character selection.

But, comparing the 1999 and 2014 version, this one got my vote for graphics and animation. Most scenes appear true to life, especially the jungle, the water, sky, helicopter, meteor and so much more. When shot from a far angle, the humans look real. From skin tone to clothes and hair strands.

If you're looking for something worth your money, go get the 1999 version. But if you prefer graphics and animation more than the plot, this one's the film for you.

Nice animation

[ElliesWonder · 7/10 · 21 July 2017]

This is a very nice reversion Tarzan movie, I watched almost 2 years ago.

It is completely different from the Disney version. The story takes place in modern world, but it also comes with many magical fancy setting. Story line is clear, and 3D CGI is out of ordinary, yet chacter body movement is still stiff. Anyway, still better than many animation designs.

By the way, this Tarzen has 6 pack abdomen muscle, super long legs and tiny waistline. Also he has a pair of innocence doge eyes, very cute character image. 🤣

Couldn't recall more details, but at least, my impression of the movie is positive.

A less than inspired, or even good, take on the 'Tarzan' story

[TheLittleSongbird · 3/10 · 31 July 2016]

While adaptations of the stories of Edgar Rice Burroughs' hero vary in quality, most of them are very entertaining on their own terms. 'Tarzan' fares the weakest quite easily of the lot, there is very little if any Edgar Rice Burroughs in sight but worse is how poorly it fares as a standalone.

'Tarzan' is not completely irredeemable. The jungle itself is rendered very handsomely with nice vivid colours, while the music score has the right balance of spirit-rousing energy and whimsy (not so sure about the songs though which seemed like they belonged somewhere else). While the acting was not good at all, Andy Wareham does provide some effectively gruff menace to Tublat in the very little he has to do, while the film finally comes to life in a climax that does have some legitimate tension and urgency.

However, the rest of the animation is poor. The characters just look stiff and like they were lifted out of a very low-budget PlayStation 2 game while their facial expressions were either forced (Jane) or lifeless (Tarzan). Very little better can be said about the performances sadly either, there has never been a blander or charisma-free Tarzan than the one of Kellan Lutz, while Trevor St John goes through the motions as the one-dimensional and quite pantomimic Clayton.

On the other side of the acting spectrum, there is also Craig Garner's irritatingly whiny younger Tarzan, Spencer Locke's gratingly contrived Jane and Les Bubb over-compensates amateurishly and mugs as Jim Porter. The dialogue is embarrassingly clunky and nearly always sounds awkward, and there was really no need whatsoever for the over-used and over-explanatory narration, which was a classic case of more show, less tell, telling us what we can already see on screen and it got annoying fast.

Storytelling was a mess, with a particularly ponderous first hour, an underdeveloped and chemistry-less romance between Tarzan and Jane (an enormous problem when it takes up so much of the film) and the whole convoluted and out-of-place nonsense with the meteorite subplot. It honestly felt like a short film stretched and bloated to suit feature length, and even the gorillas and jungle wildlife felt thrown in and randomly inserted. The characters are little more than vapidly written, one-dimensional and annoying stereotypes.

All in all, less than inspired, or even good. Has even less swing than 2016's 'The Legend of Tarzan'. 3/10 Bethany Cox

Great movie for the kids

[jekmbabcock · 9/10 · 27 August 2018]

If you're looking for realistic animation or suspenseful action, this isn't the movie for you. However, my six year old son will sit through this entire movie. He doesn't sit for long periods of time at all. Great movie for family time.

Don't bother unless nothing else to do...

[zulukotka · 6/10 · 7 July 2014]

I loved this story as a young kid so when I saw this coming out I thought that I will take my 6 years old to watch it - I watched the trailer and it was not looking baby-ish which he can't stand... so deal... Unfortunately I had to after that forever explain to my kid that this was not actually the real story and that meteorites and Tarzan have nothing in common... Not very good and truth be told - there would have been a great market for this movie as (already mentioned) it would have called to the kids that have grown out of musical animations if it was representing the story as told by E.R. Burrows. As not the case I would not recommend to anyone. Still gave 6 as animation not bad at all.

It is just okay only but not as good as Disney/Pixar..Sorry! :P

[hooneyb · 4/10 · 23 March 2014]

Well, dad really got this animated feature not so right. It was an okay animated film for start-ups but where's the flow of plot or story. I can't feel it with this film. I don't feel connected to it, yes there is some music and sound effects but it is not close to even a musical like Disney/Pixar! Good effort though don't get me wrong but it is still not enough to make a cut for a even 5/10...The characters portrayed here are good the visual effects are okay but I still don't feel that I can get into this film unlike Despicable Me 2 or The LEGO movie whereby I can feel it and wanna remember the soundtrack: Everything is awesome as well as wanted to watch it again and again because it is fun and loving and meaningful too. I can be connected to its plot/story and its entertainment. Therefore, I can only rate it at 4.5. But in IMDb rating system, it is from 1 to 10. Unfortunately, gotta give a 4/10 then...Sorry no hard feelings but this is my honest POV..:P

Borrowed CGI Combines Avatar and Tarzan, and fails.

[dev-prkr · 1/10 · 24 June 2014]

The movie starts off with a giant "extraterrestrial" meteor plummeting into Earth, extinguishing all dinosaurs (except for three weird bird-dinosaurs which appear later in the film with no explanation whatsoever). Flash-forward to modern day where we see that the mystical meteor is shrouded in mist and for some reason, is protected by the apes of the jungle. John Greystoke, father of JJ (Tarzan) and CEO/founder of Greystoke Energies, is here on an expedition to find the meteor and harvest its alleged unlimited power.

Although he is skeptical of its existence, he manages to find it, and enrage it by stealing a piece of it (I was as confused as you might be). The meteor causes the weather to go crazy, a gorilla face appears in the clouds, and the helicopter that John Greystoke and family were trying to escape in, crashes into the jungle, killing everyone but Tarzan. Some deaths happen within the gorilla community and this causes mama-gorilla to wander the jungle mourning her lost child, whom she quickly replaces with Tarzan.

Flash-forward again past some awkward and nonsensical encounters with some other monkeys, a snake, the weird dinosaur-birds and a fat-stupid-tourist-kid, and Tarzan meets Jane. A few years later, Jane convinces William Clayton, new CEO of Greystoke Energies, to journey to Africa for what she thinks is a conservation mission. Tarzan meets Jane again and can suddenly speak perfect English, and the two plot to bring down Clayton and his "army".

Cue the weird stuff. Apparently the meteor can cause plants to become sentient and grow teeth? So this plant attacks Tarzan and Jane, Tarzan is able to subdue the savage plant beast with a small knife and the pair continue on to Jane's capture. Tarzan's mama-gorilla gets shot and next-to-no attention is paid to this.

Clayton continues trying to get the Unobtanium and Tar-Jane keep foiling his plan until Clayton is finally defeated by the jungle and the meteor? Jane decides to leave behind civilization and life as she knows it to stay with Tarzan in the jungle so that the two can protect the meteor forever. YAWN. The narrator continues to say that Tarzan has found the most powerful thing in the universe, the love of a woman.

The CGI is poor, the facial features seem wooden and cause an uncanny valley response and the voice acting is moderate at best. The story seems like a first draft of James Cameron's 'Avatar' and the poor script-writing leaves much to be desired. Do not waste your time or money on this film, and do not show this to your children.

Why god why have you done this to the world

[john-917-779947 · 4/10 · 8 February 2014]

This movie is the same story as all the other Tarzan movies . This one has bad animation and its just one of the worst movies to be made ever since transformers 2 of worse jack and Jill. It's better for the whole world if you just leave the original movies and not make more and more and more. As i mentioned before the bad animation, the animation is as bad as mars needs moms animation but a lot worse. If you remember the old better films and you thought they were good you will hate the Tarzan Movies. Gongraulations for all the 12 Razzies you are going to win. You will replace jack and Jill on the no. 1 spot on IMDBs bottom 100 movies. If you are going to see this movie you will want you money back. Im serious