It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

If you have read the book or seen a Tarzan TV show then prepare for a disappointment; it isn't quite like them. However it is arguably better in its own right than either.I guess some folk will find the whole premise unbelievable, but suspension of disbelief is a prerequisite for a whole swathe of films (indeed whole genres) so that is nothing unusual and shouldn't be a valid criticism of this film.At its core, this is a beautifully shot, mostly very well acted, and otherwise nicely made film. Along the way the script asks a few questions about what constitutes 'civiIisation', 'humanity' and 'family'. The ape suits etc mostly work well enough and the human acting is nearly all first class, with (of course) Lambert, Richardson, and Holm giving stellar performances. McDowell is a beauty and tries well enough not to let the film down, but she wasn't a well-trained actress at the time; she had her dialogue dubbed (by Glenn Close) in post-production.Other troubles with the production included the screenwriter (Robert Townes) being piqued at being passed over for directing this film; he had his dog credited with the screenplay and an Oscar nomination (for best adapted screenplay) was even issued with his dog's name on it.... I saw this film when it first came out (when I'd seen no more than about twenty other movies ever in the cinema) and it left a distinct impression on me. I watched it again recently, and it was no less impressive and enjoyable than I remembered.

Coming off his best picture-winning Chariots of Fire, I have to imagine director Hugh Hudson thought to himself, "Hmm, how could I make Tarzan as boring as possible?" Whatever the answer to that question, Hudson succeeded with flying colors. This is about as boring as the story can get. 90% of it takes place in England and the 10% that takes place in the jungle is only marginally more interesting. Christopher Lambert plays Tarzan (never called that) and is silly. I mean, the story's always going to be silly, but Hudson wants this to be played seriously, and he failed by casting Lambert. Sir Ralph Richardson died shortly after production wrapped and scored a posthumous Oscar nom for his role, but I barely remember him in the film. Ian Holm is a little more memorable as the Frenchman who discovers Tarzan on his jungle exposition. Andie MacDowell, playing Jane in her film debut, was apparently so awful they had to hire Glenn Close to dub her voice. The ape costumes aren't bad considering. I would have been much better off throwing in the first two Weismuller Tarzans, which combined would have run about the same length.

Fresh from his deserved success with "Chariots of Fire" (though Warren Beatty won the director's Oscar that year) director Hugh Hudson was handed the story of Tarzan, which he tried to do more like the book (though he still deviates significantly).The name "Tarzan" is never mentioned in "Greystoke." This might because of its risible quality. Two years earlier a version of "Tarzan" was released starring Bo Derek (taking the limelight as Jane). Derek's "Tarzan" had neither the class to be palatable to normal film goers, nor enough nudity to appeal to the raincoat brigade.With the embarrassment of the Derek version still strong in people's minds, it's surprising another Tarzan film was greenlighted. But Hugh Hudson was riding high on his success with "Chariots" and, as mentioned, the script never mentions Tarzan by name.Hudson cast several "Chariots" alumni in small but pivotal roles: Cheryl Campbell, Nigel Davenport, Nicholas Farrell, Ian Charleston and Ian Holm.In fact, of all the notable British actors listed in the cast, only Ralph Richardson and Ian Holm have lots of screen time, with James Fox coming in a distant third. In the biggest waste of talent since "McKenna's Gold" many of these fine actors -- Charleston, David Suchet, Tristram Jellinek and Paul Brooke -- are dispensed with in one scene; while Davenport's role is short and Farrell went all the way to Africa for a blink-and-you'll-miss-him reaction shot.Richardson was overdue for Oscar consideration; and in his final big screen role picked up a supporting nomination here. Fine actor Ian Holm does less well with a Belgian accent Hercule Poirot would disdain.And what of Jane and Tarzan (or "John" as he he is invariably referred to)? Andie MacDowell is lovelier than ever in her first movie role, but though she's an American her Carolina accent is overdubbed by another actress -- well, who knew she'd be a big star and thirty years later we'd know that wasn't her voice?). And Christopher Lambert's John is smoldering more than anything else, preferring to look up at people from beneath his eyebrows."Greystoke" is exquisitely shot. Both the African first half and the second half in England are picture postcard perfect. Unfortunately, neither half is particularly well-written. In the first half the apes look wonderful but it drags with the necessary shortness of dialogue. The second half is a fish-out-of-water story where John is alternately admired (by the Earl of Greystoke and Jane) and condescended to (by James Fox's upper crust Brit who is in love with Jane himself), is good enough. But the movie claims to tell the "real" Tarzan story, then deviates significantly from the book in order to nail home petty points about British imperialism and so forth (I suppose). What a downer.But John does swing through the trees on vines. The one nod they left in to old Tarzan movies is a physical impossibility.I won't tell you the ending. Will Jane choose John or Lord Esker? Will John choose the jungle or take his rightful place as the new Earl of Greystoke? What was Ralph Richardson thinking with that tray? What was Richard Harris thinking when he made the Bo Derek travesty? All the Hugh Hudson movies I've seen are beautifully shot. His next movie, "Revolution" -- with Al Pacino and Nastassja Kinski -- was one of the loveliest movies since David Lean. Unfortunately the story was so muddled and the end result so ridiculous it all but ended Hudson's career as a director. "Greystoke" actually started Hudson on the downward slope to "Revolution." As David Lean knew in his better movies, without a solid story the loveliest movie in the world comes to nothing.

This film is a retelling of the Tarzan legend. The main differences from this one than those in the past is that the film is a bit more gritty. The focus is of a more mature nature than a man swinging from vines and doing that famous call. Not to say this film is entirely serious or anything as it does have a few humorous moments within it. The story has a family that has been stranded in the jungle. The wife is dead and all that remains is the father and his infant son. Well a gorilla soon comes upon his doorstep and kills the father and a female gorilla ditches her dead child and takes the young infant baby. We watch as this young boy grows up among the apes and runs afoul of this mean looking monkey. After this segment, the boy turns to a man and stumbles upon an explorer who is running from natives and not in very good shape. For some reason he is nursed back to health and the man takes the jungle guy back with him to the uncle he never knew. The film is rather good, I did not care for certain aspects of it, but overall it worked. Christopher Lambert plays his role very well and this has to be one of the better films I have seen him in. The apes are done rather good, and look rather realistic. The story does get a bit to tragic for my tastes near the end, but I guess it fits in with this being a more mature and gritty Tarzan film.