User reviews

After 50 years of Tarzan movies, Greystoke was really the first proper version of the story to get made.

Gone was the fighting crocodiles and baddies and the epic 'call' (if I could spell it I would!) in the forest, replacing it was an, essentially, mentally affected child/boy/man who was left in the forest to scavenge an existence.

They then traumatise the boy/man more by taking him out of the only environment he is familiar with to become an amusement for the upper class.

Its presented as a tale of woe and wonder and romance.

This movie has a soul.

A bit of an oddity, this: a few years ago I read through the original Burroughs novel and was eager to find out how this adaptation held up. The answer is that it follows the story in the book extremely closely – especially in the first half – depicting events with a kind of vicious believability that's miles away from the chest-beating, vine-swinging Tarzans of old.

It's not entirely accurate – there's far less of that grisly business involving the hostile tribesmen – but what I saw, I liked. The apes are played by men in pretty convincing suits, and watching Tarzan growing up to become lord of the jungle is a lot of fun. In addition to that, the film plays an ace in the casting of Ian Holm as the Belgian captain who 'civilises' Tarzan. Holm gives a subtle, mannered, quite excellent performance, one that's filled with emotion and is the best in the entire movie.

That's not to say that Christopher Lambert, as the title character, is bad. It's a memorable debut turn, carefully judged and entirely physical. He gets the movements and mannerisms of a jungle-born man just right, which is why it's a shame that the ridiculous decision was made to rub him over with animal noises. If he's angry, a lion's roar comes out of his mouth, etc. The filmmakers rely on such things a lot, especially in the second half, and it's a real shame.

That's not the only problem with the second half. Once the action shifts to England, the pacing slows right down and the film feels devoid of incident. Andie MacDowell is fairly uninteresting in playing an insipid Jane, and even a final, unexpectedly touching turn from Ralph Richardson fails to liven things up. As I remember, this part of the film deviates quite substantially from the book, and it suffers for it. Basically we get an hour of Tarzan wandering around his mansion and it's all rather depressing. It's a shame, because earlier on a great deal of effort was made to bring those jungle scenes to life, and it all fizzles out at the end.

This begins a series (which I'll hopefully keep up every week-end) of films that came out during my childhood – in this case, it's one I've only managed to catch now. It was clearly intended as the last word on the subject, which basically had been debased to the level of hokum over the years; however, in its uncompromising striving for a serious-minded approach (a sure measure of which is that the protagonist is never once referred to by the name he's been known all this time the world over!), the film-makers rather lost track of the fact that the thing was intended primarily as entertainment! Consequently, we get a decidedly staid representation of events – with more care given to meticulous period reconstruction than in providing a functional thematic environment for its mythic jungle hero! Even so, Christopher Lambert rose to stardom – as did another debutante, Andie McDowell, playing his love interest (named Jane, of course) – with the title role, which he handles creditably enough under the circumstances. However, Ralph Richardson (to whom the film is dedicated, this being his swan-song) steals every scene he's in as Tarzan's natural grandfather who, in spite of showing obvious affection for his long-lost kin, can't bring himself to forget tradition in an effort to understand his predicament; the hero, in fact, is much more comfortable interacting with primates (even contriving, after having gone back home, to save his adoptive 'dad' from captivity). The film is otherwise very good to look at (with cinematography by Stanley Kubrick regular John Alcott, no less), features an appropriately grandiose score as well as remarkable make-up effects (by Rick Baker) – and, while essentially disappointing as a Tarzan outing, retains considerable value nonetheless as a prestige picture of its day.

Greystoke stays close to the first Tarzan novel which makes for a striking contrast between this film and earlier Tarzan flicks.

'Christophe' sticks to his French accent for most of this film, which is a relief as he concentrates on his acting and, for the most part, gets it spot on. His reversion to ape behaviour in moments of emotional stress is funny and touching. Ralph Richardson's potrayal of the Sixth Earl is full of humour and subtlety, only to be expected from a master of the art. Ian Holm, again, a masterful performance. They put Andie MacDowell to shame.

The first half is mainly in the jungle and is fascinating to watch. A huge amount of research about ape behaviour is put to entertaining use. It comes to a close when some amusingly nasty English explorers and a disdainful Belgian appear in the jungle. The second half, when Johnny (Lambert) is introduced to Victorian society touches on what it means to be 'civilized'. He meets his grandfather and is expected to take his place in society but then discovers what society is like.

A great adaptation and an entertaining film.

I really liked the first part of this film in Africa for about an hour or so until the animal cruelty by civilized humans in Scotland got to me in the second half and made me so sad I couldn't watch some of it. However, this was done by the filmmaker to make a point that early natural scientists ruined everything alive they didn't understand by "studying" it literally to death without considering the rights and comfort of the animals studied, which we know now shouldn't be studied anywhere but in the natural world they inhabit, and as unobtrusively as possible. I do recommend this film as it was a mostly serious and honest story of Tarzan and made a point of showing the gross animal cruelty that was rampant in the 19th century scientific world as well as the pure and simple, beautifully primitive life Tarzan lived as a young man who was found as a baby and raised by chimps after the violent death of his parents in the African jungle.

Christopher Lambert was wonderful and very soulful in his life of Tarzan role, as was Ralph Richardson in his last film role as Tarzan's ultra-rich, nobility-reeking gramps in Scotland. Andy MacDowell was pretty and pretty good as Tarzan's gussied-up and civilized "Jane" in her first movie role. From his charismatic work in this film and his very haunting eyes, I cannot understand why Lambert did not later become a big star, but his really bad movie choices later may have done him in. The terrific Ian Holm, as a wounded Frenchman in Africa helped by Tarzan and who then escorted Tarzan back to his previously unknown, ancestral home in Scotland, was great as always.

I am so glad Tarzan got sick of and didn't stay in the animal-cruel civilized world at that time and went home to Africa in the end to live out his life with his gentle and loving ape "relatives" who raised him instead of staying in Scotland and living like royalty, which would have ruined him if it didn't kill him first.

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.

I confess to having never read Edgar Rice Burroughs novel that GREYSTOKE: THE LEGEND OF TARZAN LORD OF THE APES is based upon but I got the impression it stuck to the original very closely . Too closely perhaps since much of the first half of the film is taken up with Lord Jack Clayton relating events in a diary and then there`s no dialogue except for the grunts of apes for a while . In other words much of what worked in a literary novel is obviously unfilmable and has been translated poorly to screen . But stay with GREYSTOKE because it really does pick up with the arrival of a British zoological party and the film turns into an innocent abroad type film as John Clayton ( Tarzan ) arrives back at his ancestral home.

There`s a lot to recommend about this movie . It makes some very stinging criticisms on the British class systems and mans contempt of nature , and is very well acted by all the cast especially Ralph Richardson in his last screen appearance and Christopher Lambert who unfortunately only seems to appear in straight to video films nowadays . It`s also worth watching for the final scene of a landscape with a volcano in the distance which reminded me of a recent film featuring Ian Holm which ended on an indentical scene . Can you guess what film I mean ?

I've read through a lot of the comments here about how this movie sticks to the book.. I don't think any of them have actually read it. Edgar Rice wrote about a dangerous African Jungle and Apes were killers and hunters. We know differently now and this movie portrays Apes in a more modern view. I've never seen a Tarzan movie that even comes close to Edgar's vision. Maybe one day Hollywood with trust talented and respected authors to tell the story. So, if you've never read the book and enjoy a good story about feelings and a fluffy bunny view of wild animals, maybe a good cry, see the movie. I hope John Carter of Mars get's more respect than Tarzan has. We miss ya, Edgar!

SPOILERS Edgar Rice Burroughs's famous character was adapted thousand of times for the screen til one's thirst is quenched, notably during the thirties and the forties by Hollywood. Its productors made Tarzan one of the most successful cinema characters. Several years later, Hugh Hudson decided to make a more ambitious version of the monkey-man and it's a more natural, more wild and more down-to-earth Tarzan that he gives away here. Hudson skilfully avoids the clichés that you usually grant to Tarzan such as his famous scream or his friendly pet, Cheetah. Not only, are we far from the designed and invented character made by Hollwood but we are also far from the film set used to make his stories. The movie was partly made in Africa (more precisely in Cameroon). The movie introduces two obvious parts: the first one which takes place in the jungle where Tarzan lives among his adoptive friends, the apes and considers himself as their lord. But he ignores his real origins. The second one in England where Tarzan discovers the English society. Ian Holm epitomizes the link between the two parts and Hudson avoids all that could make the movie falls into the ridiculous thanks to a clever screenplay. Indeed, Holm teaches Lambert basic rules of manners so as to behave correctly in the English society and the result works. Moreover, in the second part, no-one ever laughs at Tarzan and he's even really appreciated. As far as the end is concerned well it's a both bitter and happy end. Happy because Tarzan comes back to the jungle and meets again his adoptive close relatives. But bitter too, because this homecoming means that the Greystoke line won't be ensured and is condemned to disappear... Christophe Lambert finds here, his first (and last?) great role. Sadly, he'll never equal the achievement of his performance in this movie and he'll play in poor and insipide action movies. Nevertheless, as I said previously, a clever screenplay, a performance of a rare quality, some impressive natural sceneries (both the jungle and the English country and we get a gorgeous movie. It's also an excellent rereading from a popular novel. So why is it only rated barely (6/10)?

Upon release mixed notices greeted this attempt to get to the crux of Edgar Rice Burroughs' jungle man creation, The Lord of the Apes, Tarzan. It's a bold movie in many ways, one of those occasions when a fondly thought of character from days of yore is given the serious make - over treatment. Which as film history tells us is often very tricky.

Plot trajectory has a lost child of the British aristocracy reared by apes in the African jungle after his parents were shipwrecked there. Feral but wonderfully skilled with it, the child becomes a feral man of some substance but is discovered by explorers and returned to Britain and his ancestral home. Lord Greystoke becomes his title, but his loyalties, confusion and emotions continue to pull him in two directions.

The story as written obviously becomes a two-parter. The first part is the best as Greystoke is born into the jungle and we are up close and personal with the ape community. The action is very well marshalled, the effects work of a high quality, and the realisation of the situational dynamics is superb. Not forgetting, either, some mighty emotional thumps as the dangers of mother nature's creatures tugs away at the old heart strings, the rules and brutality of the jungle given weighty filmic thrust.

Shifting gear to the "jungle man in aristocracy Britain" thread, the pace slows down considerably as Greystoke dons a tux and gets the hots for Miss Jane Potter. It's this section of film that proves problematic. Narrative is bogged down by philosophical brain farts, further compounded by Andie MacDowell's (Jane) voice being dubbed by Glenn Close and the fake noises coming out of Christopher Lambert's (Greystoke) mouth, they are both very disconcerting issues. Thankfully Ralph Richardson (in his last film before he passed away) is on hand as Grandfather Greystoke to give the pic a warm and tender center.

Tech credits are a mixed bag, with John Alcott's photography impressive on both continents and Rick Baker & Paul Engelen's makeup work is from the high end. Sadly, John Scott's musical score is not nearly epic enough, while director Hugh Hudson is guilty as charged when it comes to not keeping seamless the transitional change over from jungle to mainland, more so as the great Ian Holm gets short shrift here. What a waste!

Yet it's a film that's easy to warm too. Stirring and touching in equal measure, it has enough qualities to off-set the flaws. 7/10

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.

It's not E.R. Boroughs, the ne'er-do-well story teller whose wife told him to get off his butt and write some of these fantastic tales down. He did and Tarzan became an icon of American literature. for better or worse. The story is classic. Feral child is imbued with all the goodies of apes and still retains his human faculties. Good work when you can get it, but, hey. In fiction, you can do it. Well, ERB did and the early films made movies out of the popular escapist books with the wonderful Elmo Lincoln and started a dynasty of superheroes that has only recently degenerated into TV crapola and, ugh, Disney pablum. Interesting enough, old ERB, never a businessman, sold rights to Columbia and RKO, so each came out with Tarzan in the 30s with olympic stars, Weismuller and Crabbe. Weismuller's version won out and Crabbe went on to the Flash Gordon serials which bring us back to this film. What has this story which focuses on the return of Greystroke to his "place" as a gentleman, to do with the fantasy tale of EFB's Tarzan? Not much, apparently, as the name Tarzan is mentioned only once or twice. The feral origins which bind him and bring him back to his primeval beginnings seem to be stronger than his love for the woman whom he woos with primate (albeit neither authentic or believable) aplomb. All in all, this is a very confusing version of the Tarzan story, one which likely would have left old ERB shaking his head. But, who knows, the old man might have liked it as much as I did. ERB's daughter married one of the early Hollywood Tarzans, named MacLean and the estate that ERB bought with his earnings from the novels, movie rights, etc., became known as Tarzana which is the present name of the town in Southern California. This movie was old Sir Ralph's last. In an odd sense, it is kind of a paean to this fine character actor who was as big as character in life as the ones he portrayed in films and on stage.

If you are looking for a modern film version of Buster Crabbe or Johnny Weismuller's overcoming the machinations of unscrupulous, white safari guides or cunning, black tribesmen, while saving the animal kingdom, this is NOT the movie for you. This is a recounting of the Tarzan "legend" from its beginning in intelligent, adult terms. It is beautifully filmed and faithful to the Edgar Rice Burroughs stories.

Tarzan is no action hero, but a man torn between two worlds - the natural and the civilized. In a stunning performance, Christopher Lambert portrays this angst with absolute realism. If he slips up just once the cat will be out of the bag: the audience (especially the adult audience targeted by the film) will laugh, and the film will completely lose its grip. It will plummet into the cheesy depths. But Lambert never lets that happen. (Forget what you may think of him in other movies; when I saw this film at the theater on its original release, I thought he deserved an academy award.)

The supporting cast is uniformly excellent, as other commentators have noted. I disagree with most of them in that I didn't find anything wrong with Andie McDowell's performance. I wouldn't have nominated her for an academy award - the role is undemanding - but she is completely up to it, such as it is. I don't know why her voice was overdubbed, either.

The cinematography of the African segment of the tale is absolutely beautiful. It captures both the beauty of the African wilderness and the exotic expectation it holds in the collective imagination of those who have never been there. The scenery is lush and exotic, and the colors are vivid.

But this is also a "period" film, and the cinematography also magnificently depicts Victorian England - the countryside, the city and the interiors. The costumes are outstanding. The soundtrack is beautiful without being overwhelming or obtrusive.

There are some disturbing scenes - especially for animal lovers - but no more disturbing than a few scenes in Dances with Wolves. This is an excellent film about the conflict between civilization and nature, personified in the young Lord Greystoke, convincingly portrayed by Christopher Lambert.

A spectacularly filmed story with gorgeous visuals and impeccably played, the movie's main plus is that it sticks closer to the original Edgar Rice Burroughs' novel than all the previous chest-thumping, vine-swinging Hollywood versions usually performed by Johnny Weissmuller, Lex Barker or Gordon Scott. The seventh Earl of Greystoke becomes a shipwrecked orphan and is raised by apes. In 1886, following a shipwreck off the west coast of Africa, an infant child became part of a family of apes who raised and protected him. He was a boy alone in the jungle, innocent of its dangers and awed by its beauty. He became part of a family of apes who raised and protected him. It was the start of a bond that was never broken and it is the beginning of a timeless and classic adventure. As he grew, he (Christopher Lambert) learned the laws of the Jungle and eventually claimed the title, Lord of the Apes. Ruling the ape-clan in the vine-swinging persona of Tarzan. Yet, years later, he is discovered by an anthropologist (Ian Holm) and returned to his ancestral home in Scotland, when he's immediately recognized by his grandfather (Ralph Richardson) . When he was returned to civilization, he would remain uncertain as to which laws he should obey . . . Those of man . . . Or those of the jungle. A legendary hero - and the tale that's never been told!

In 'Greystoke' the director of 'Chariots of Fire', captures this epic adventure of a man caught between two different worlds. Based on the story 'Tarzan of the Apes' by Edgar Rice Burroughs about the seventh Earl of Greystoke, an orphan raised by apes. The contrast between the behavior of man and ape is interesting, and Tarzan's introduction to society is enjoyable, but there's no melodrama or cliff-hanging action, as we've come to expect of the Tarzan genre. The first half works best with the boy Tarzan being raised by a family of cute simians and is on less sure ground when adult Tarzan is brought back to Edwardian England. Casting fashion model Andie McDowell as Jane, but due to her heavy southern accent, had her voice dubbed by Glenn Close. To her undying credit, MacDowell bounced back a couple years later to become one of Hollywood's brightest young stars. Along with the two main stars : Christopher Lambert and Andie MacDowell in ¨Greystoke¨stands out a great plethora of prestigious Brit actors, such as : the Oscar nominated Ralph Richardson, Ian Holm and James Fox, Cheryl Campbell, Ian Charleson, Nigel Davenport, Nicholas Farrell, Paul Geoffrey, Richard Griffiths, David Suchet, among others.

It displays a colorful and evocative ciinematography by John Alcott. As well a thrilling and emotive musical score by composer John Scott. The motion picture was professionaly directed by Hugh Hudson, but it resulted to be a dramatically uneven flick . Hudson met his second wife actress Maryam d'Abo (who was Bond girl in The Living Daylights, 1987) when she came to see him about wanting to play the leading role of Jane in this film 'Greystoke' (1984), she felt that he already had someone else in mind for the role, since Andie MacDowell played Jane in the finished film, Maryam didn't connect with him until 15 years later, they became involved and married four years later in 2003. Hudson was a notorious producer and director, specially known for Chariots of Fire (1981) and Greystoke (1984). Other films Hudson directed with uneven success is as follows: The Tortoise and the Hare (1966), Revolution, Lost Angels , Altamira, Lumière et compagnie, I dreamed of Africa , My Life So Far. Rating: 6.5/10. Well worth watching. The movie will appeal to Christopher Lambert and Andie MacDowell fans.

Probably the most serious and realistic adaptation of Tarzan I've seen. The first act is great. The harshness and grittiness in the tone was a great way to set the mood. The second half is good and has some better moments, but it doesn't hold up as well as the first half and leaves the film a little anticlimactic.

The development and exploration of John/Tarzan's character is well thought out and the performance was really believable. Ian Holm is fantastic in the film as his friend and the journey they make together should have been explored more. Going into the film i expected to see a film where Tarzan defends his animal friends from evil humans in the jungle, but I got a very grounded and simple film about a man trying to adapt into a life he naturally wasn't raised for. The duality and having to choose between the two lives is an interesting concept, but it leaves it unresolved in my opinion.

There are some very dramatic and sad moments here too. The bond between the apes and the man is felt more than the bond between humans sometimes. The apes have their cheesy moments, but there's also really strong and emotional moments too. The detail in the costumes switches around a bit. The best compliment to the ape costumes I can give is that the eyes where done so well that I actually thought those were real ape ayes.

There are even some scenes that deal with the human beings desire to kill and rip apart other animals, like dissecting, hunting and chaining them up. Seeing those things from Tarzan's perspective was a bit haunting and heartbreaking and you feel the conflict.

Some great performances, great first half, gritty & grounded moments are all strong points, but it loses steam in the second half and drags on a bit for too long and leaves you feeling unresolved. The film also lacked more tension and intensity towards the end which would have picked the whole thing up and made up for the calmer moments. I like calmer films, but it really builds up to something exciting to happen, and it never does.

Still, it's probably the best adaptation of Tarzan I've seen and the one who truly makes you feel the tragedy of this truly sad and haunting tale. It ain't as light as you might expect.

As a kid, this film hit me like a ton of bricks. With all it's powerful emotions and tense moments, it was a bit much for an 11yr- old. Still, it seems to hold that power for older audiences.

"Greystoke:The Legend of Tarzan" stays pretty true to Burroughs work. The film is really divided into two segments. The first takes place in the jungle, and the second takes place in a more civilized(or so it seems) world of Victorian Mansions.

The first half is unbelievably gripping. Emotional, Scary, and Adventurous. The second half is more a powerful drama, but for me the second-half is not only a bit under-rated, but quite deep and disturbing.

Christopher Lambert of "Highlander" fame is excellent throughout - easily his best work.

This is a tough watch for any animal lover. A tough watch in general. I think THAt is actually skewing the score here a bit. It's a good movie, not great, good, but I think it's considerably better than the score here. One of those films that you enjoy, but don't want to turn around and watch it again.

It could be even better. There's a few moments in the second half that were a bit redundant, and that could've perhaps shaved about 10 minutes off of this and helped overall. BUT, I left this review simply because it's a bit better than 6.3 might lead you to believe. If you haven't seen it - do.

69/100 A good forgotten adventure/drama from the 80's. The best Tarzan film - though that ain't sayin' much.

You might like this if you liked: PLatoon(better), Rise of the Planet of the Apes(slightly better or even), or Project X(slightly below this).

It's hard to believe that the director of this film, Hugh Hudson, was also responsible for the classic "Chariots of Fire." He also made Al Pacino's dreadful "Revolution" in 1985, at which point his credibility as a director took a not-too-surprising nosedive.

"Greystoke" is every bit as dreadful as "Revolution." Christopher Lambert and Andie MacDowell give utterly bland performances; MacDowell's was so bad (she couldn't shake her Southern accent, for one thing), that all her dialogue had to be dubbed by Glenn Close.

The "finest" scene in all the film, however, the one that truly embodies how dreadful it is, is the so-called love scene between Lambert and MacDowell. Overcome by passion, he goes to her room...where he actually hops around on her bed hooting like a monkey! Perhaps they were trying for biological accuracy, but the ultimate result was merely to send me to the floor, shaking with hysterical laughter. I'm sorry, Mr. Hudson and Mr. Lambert, but hooting and hopping has never turned a woman on. If it turned MacDowell's character on, then she *should* have gone back to the jungle with him at the end.