The king of the jungle has a new heir to the throne, in the newest character adaptation titled “The Legend of Tarzan”. Set entirely in the jungles of Africa, this story tells the tale of the human who walks among the animals. It has been years since the man once known as Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgaard) left the jungles of Africa behind for a gentrified life as John Clayton III, Lord Greystoke, with his beloved wife, Jane (Margot 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 rich and arrogant Belgian businessman, Captain Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz). But those behind the murderous plot have no idea what they are about to unleash. With a series of strange events unfolding before their very eyes, they begin to learn the legend of the jungle’s most dangerous adversary. “The Legend of Tarzan” is directed by David Yates, and is rated PG-13 for sequences of action and violence, some sensuality and brief rude dialogue.

Being someone who never quite got into the Tarzan character, “The Legend of Tarzan” did very little to convince me and other line-walkers of the character to embrace this story. At the very beginning of this film, we learn that screenwriters Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer decide to merge two Tarzan stories at different timelines into a 104 minute feature. I still think this was a great idea and really gave a fresh look at the vine-swinger outside of his familiar environment. The problem is two-fold. First, the story doesn’t follow our character and his encounters in the big city for too long. Once the opening ten minutes sets the plot devices in order, the film quickly changes landscapes for the greener surroundings, and I was left wondering why this decision was even made to feature that aspect of Tarzan’s human lifestyle. The second problem is that the flashbacks into the actual legend of Tarzan and his growing along the way is a much more inviting and exciting story when compared to the film’s very bland current day plot of Tarzan running from Rom. Sadly, this flashback gets used very sporadically until it is eventually abandoned midway through the film. Not very much is answered or told about Tarzan’s forming bond with Jane, or even his fears within growing up among the wild. It’s an interesting side that is never used for anything more than to fill in the cracks of a screenplay that frankly just isn’t appealing to anyone who hasn’t followed this character for their whole lives.

The creative tone for the film is also a little off, as this movie feels a great impact on that loss of fun for the character. This is a vine-swinging human who grew up among the many animals of the Congo, and yet the movie doesn’t explore the dreamy or fantasy side of such a story. Everything is played a little too seriously, and that doesn’t fit remotely for a story that is frankly difficult to take at such face value. Luckily, a supporting character who I will get to later really spices things up, inserting some much needed humor for this dull telling. When you compare this to a film like this year’s “The Jungle Book”, you realize a big lacking of adventure and desire to want to be in this world. For a character that appeals greatly to children, there’s seriously no crossover value, and that reveals that this film went in a direction for the movie that felt foreign to its very roots, sacrificing such a legend.

Some of the things it does do great from a technical aspect include the fantastic usage of CGI animals used for the movie. Everything feels believable here when compared and interacted with our live action cast, so I found myself easily embracing the only family that Tarzan has come to know. The landscapes are also beautifully documented in a cinematography style that really captured the miles and miles of Congo filled with such exotic creatures. There’s a rich look to Yates style of filmmaking, and no fan of the series will be offended to see how detailed such a landscape can be. I also greatly took pleasure in the very versatile style of filmmaking within this feature. There’s such physicality in the style of camera work by the crew of this story, and Yates is a big reason for that decision making. We follow the action with great detail and precision in the fast-paced revolving angles that encounter many chase sequences. It would be easy for this film to not register some of the heart-pounding action, but we’re always right there without feeling nauseous at the scenery flying by. It all makes for a gorgeous production that at least visually delivered for its compromising storytelling.

As for the performances, sadly this is mostly a disappointing and underwhelming effort. I love all of these actors is other roles that they have been in, but I feel that their chemistry is sorely lacking in this movie. Alexander Sarsgaard is void of any kind of human emotion that may feel faithful to his character, but doesn’t make for the most understanding of characters when the audience in the theater watching can’t register what’s going on psychologically. I found his performance frankly boring, and while he does have the physical look for such a character, he lacks greatly in leading man charisma. Margot Robbie is too good to be the damsel in distress here. The film strangely puts her on equal footing with Christoph Waltz’s villain character, and this is strange because we never feel desperation for any of our protagonists. What’s wrong with Robbie is that she’s very hollow in making you feel great empathy for her situation. If she takes Waltz as a joke, how are we to take him serious. This also circles my very fears in a winner like Waltz: He’s forgetful in this role. As one of Hollywood’s best villains, Waltz has earned a reputation as Mr. Dependable, but there’s nothing menacing or even believable about his portrayal of Tarzan’s adversary. The film does a poor job of equally stacking the deck here, and Waltz phones it in, leaving us without any hope for a memorable final showdown.

Thank the movie gods for Samuel L Jackson. He is simply the only actor in this movie playing it from the heart and ingesting the kind of fun that this movie needs. As the supporting role to Tarzan, I was happy to see the film embrace more of this character, as he was the only thing that I found myself invested in for more than two acts of this movie. Jackson just has fun, and that’s something that so many people who worked on this project lost sight of. Tarzan isn’t a powder keg of dramatic proportions, it’s a human ape who saves the day with cheesy dialogue. Jackson seems to be the only person who studied for such a role, and I am eternally grateful for his one-liners which gave me more than one legitimate chuckle.

“The Legend of Tarzan” does very little to embrace such a legend. It’s a beautiful looking, but unfortunately dull plodding mess that doesn’t care to teach us why we should care about such a legend. The film lost any kind of creative steam that it had going for it halfway, and the rest is an effort that swings and misses, as it hops from branch-to-branch of boredom.

5/10