ThiefHott Too much of everything

GazerRise Fantastic!

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Forumrxes Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

SnoopyStyle It's 1910. Jane Parker (Bo Derek) travels to Africa to join his estranged father James Parker (Richard Harris) and his expedition. He had left her mother when she was young. Harry Holt is his assistant and 'Africa' is his native girlfriend. Jane encounters Tarzan and the Lion on the beach. Later, she is taken by him from the caravan. Eventually, everybody is captured by native savages and Tazan comes to the rescue.This is bad. The writing is clunky and slow as heck. There is limited action in most of the movie and it is almost always done poorly. It is so bad that there is no tension anywhere. Bo Derek is a voluptuous sex statue but she's a bad actress. The problem is that this depends on her to do some actual dramatic acting. She is a great prop, but she can't shoulder a whole movie herself. Richard Harris has his presence but he can't save this. There are some select animals from the local zoo. The lion actually made a charge at the lead actors which is probably the movie's biggest shocking moment. This is a very thin boring weakly-written soft-core porn version of Tarzan.

Wuchak I appreciate John Derek's "Tarzan the Ape Man" (1981) because it's so unique and it does inspire the awe of nature, whether scenic, animal, human or romantic. The plot of the film focuses on Jane Parker (Bo Derek), who goes to remotest Africa in search of her explorer father, James Parker (Richard Harris). She joins his party (which includes John Phillip Law) and they climb to the top of a mysterious escarpment whereupon they discover a wild white man, Tarzan (Miles O'Keeffe). Meanwhile the aborigines don't take too kindly to their encroachment.The opening MGM emblem tips off that the film shouldn't be taken too seriously: instead of the lion's roar we get Tarzan's famous jungle yell. The movie is generally serious, but in a comic-book sort of way. There's a nice sense of awe as the party traverses through the wilderness (it was shot in Sri Lanka and the island of Seychelles, 1500 miles SW of Sri Lanka), particularly when they discover the great escarpment and, then, the fictitious inland sea.The animals are great as well, particularly the magnificent lion, the friendly elephant who scoops up Tarzan's body and the playful chimps & orangutan. By the way, the Asian elephant and orangutan present an obvious plot hole since they're not native to Africa. Not to mention James' native babe, Africa (Akushula Selayah), since she's clearly of East Indian stock (although he might've picked her up on a different expedition). Also, the muscular dude who plays the "Ivory King" (Steve Strong) is obviously a white dude painted black. Speaking of the Ivory King, Steve Strong really hams it up with bad acting befitting of a gym rat and why does it take so long to simply wake him up? The second act is kind of boring. It consists mostly of Jane and Tarzan getting to know each other in the jungle. There's a beauty and innocence to the scenes, even a sense of awe, but they're probably too long for the average viewer. Still, the film celebrates this aspect of the human experience much as the Song of Songs in the Bible celebrates the consummation of a man & woman with overtly erotic language (read it and see for yourself)."Tarzan the Ape Man" is reminiscent of 1976's "King Kong" in tone. Remember the sense of awe of that film coupled with the comic booky material? Remember when Kong bathed Dwan via the waterfall and gazes on in wonder? Remember the stretched-out dramatics? This is what you get with "Tarzan the Ape Man". It's an adventure film with a lot of drama and little conventional action. When the action comes -- Tarzan vs. a huge snake and Tarzan vs. the Ivory King -- it's presented in slow-motion, which is strange and hardly thrilling. And, yet, it sets the film apart. "Tarzan the Ape Man" takes its time in telling its story; by contrast, 1998's "Tarzan and the Lost City" hurriedly jumps from one sequence to the next with hardly any room to breath. They're both Tarzan films but from two completely different approaches. I just viewed them both back-to-back and it's an interesting comparison.Of course, "Tarzan the Ape Man" is a showcase for Bo Derek. She's a beautiful woman both inside and out, but she's not a perfect "10" in my opinion. Her physicality is indeed statuesque, but her butt is too flat and her thighs too skinny (sorry if that sounds crude; I'm just being honest).Miles O'Keeffe LOOKS great as Tarzan, but that's it. He has zero dialog beyond Tarzan's patented yell and, worse, zero depth as a character, except that he's benign and heroic. This is disappointing because Burroughs' books presented him as highly intelligent and even a type of Yahweh (the LORD), as in "the Lord of the jungle". But the film focuses on Tarzan when he is first discovered by Europeans (when he knew how to read via kid's books, but not yet how to speak English), so this can be forgiven.One aspect of the film is outstanding and that's Tarzan's kinship with the various animals. An excellent example is the innocent playfulness of Tarzan, Jane and the orangutan in the closing scene.Also, Richard Harris is worthy of note because he gives the role all his heart and is convincing. Despite his constant (and loud) blathering he does have some interesting insights -- like the importance of living life to its fullest and the humility to turn to God when he's totally spent (and it works!). In other words, the film isn't just mindless adventure; it features some gems to chew on."Tarzan the Ape Man" was a modest hit in 1981 but, surprisingly, there was no sequel. It would've been interesting to see O'Keeffe's Tarzan develop as a character and his relationship with Jane. But maybe John and Bo accomplished everything they intended to with this film and found the idea of a sequel superfluous.BOTTOM LINE: "Tarzan the Ape Man" is a unique Tarzan film and worth it for the sense of awe -- the marvels of nature, the amazement of animals, the beauty of the (fit) human form and the wonder of (true) sexuality.The film runs 107 minutes.GRADE: B-

Neil Welch If you are married to a beautiful woman and you have Hollywood connections (if, for instance, you once used to be a second division matinée idol) then, I guess, it is not out of the question for you to give some thought to assembling some sort of vanity project movie to showcase her looks. There is a precedent for this (Pia Zadora leaps to mind, which is probably some sort of commentary on the idea in and of itself).But, you see, the problem is that Bo Derek had already been showcased in Blake Edwards' "10", which did the job perfectly - it required her to be gorgeous, scantily (or less) dressed, and vacuous, all three of which she managed perfectly.Then husband John Derek picked up that particular ball and ran with it, and the first place he ran to (others followed) was Tarzan, The Ape Man.Miles O'Keefe is a perfectly serviceable Tarzan in this, his only Tarzan film. He certainly looks the part, and he runs, swings, swims, and looks mystified in all the places where he is required to do so.The problem is that this isn't actually a Tarzan film. It isn't even a Jane film. It's a Bo Derek film.There is some beautiful scenery and a rather perfunctory performance by Richard Harris in a slow and boring 30 to 40 minutes. And then Bo starts to get naked, a state in which she spends most of the remainder of the film both before and after Tarzan arrives on the scene.Now I have no great objection to Bo Derek naked. Bo Derek naked is, in my shallow and superficial view, a Good Thing. The problem, though, is twofold. One, the poor girl is woefully exposed as having no acting ability whatsoever, apparently being under the impression that gently nibbling an immaculately manicured fingernail amounts to emoting (to her credit, she has made films later in her acting career in which she shows that she has worked and made progress in this area). And, two, someone forgot that a movie like this actually needs a story. There is some tosh about natives painting her white, but this is hardly a story.So you might get some mileage out of scenery, and boobage, and poor old Miles O'Keefe's big break being a bit of a non-starter, but you can forget anything else.

Vivekmaru45 First of all, for those of you that keep posting negative reviews for an excellent film - I don't sincerely think that you have seen the film or know what you are reviewing.This film is the second-best color Tarzan film I have seen, the first being Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes (1984), which shows the origins of Tarzan. This film shows the encounter and resultant relationship between Jane Parker (Bo Derek) and Tarzan (Miles O' Keefe).The setting and scenic beauty of the locations the film is wonderfully captured by the camera. Added to this is the wonderful real animal footage showing an abundance of wildlife in the jungle. All the tribes-people are wonderfully portrayed.The veteran actor in the film is Richard Harris (Orca, The Wild Geese, Juggernaut) plays a hunter in Africa, searching for a mythical "white ape." He is joined by his estranged daughter, Jane, after her mother's death. They discover the "white ape" is actually Tarzan, an uncivilized white man raised by apes living in the jungle. James continues to pursue Tarzan with the purpose of capturing him, dead or alive, and bringing him back to England.Realizing that James is on his trail, Tarzan kidnaps Jane. Jane and Tarzan become fascinated by each other. Jane is then kidnapped by natives who intend to make her a wife of the tribe leader, forcing Tarzan into action.Miles O' Keefe has an excellent physique and is rightfully chosen for the role. The only other actor that could have fitted the bill could have been Sylvester Stallone. The only complaint is that of actress Bo Derek who doesn't seem to fit in. Sharon Stone would have been a better option or even Brooke Shields. Bo Derek apparently hogs the whole film, after all she produced it didn't she?I wonder how a combination of Brooke Shields as Jane and Sylvester Stallone as Tarzan would have turned out....Overall 8/10 a good buy any day of the week on DVD and to be enjoyed on your home theater.Email me Vivekmaru45@yahoo.com for more movies.Thanks for reading.