Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

LeonLouisRicci The One that Started the Long Running Series that Became Favorites of Fans of All Ages. It was a Sweet and Adventurous Formula that Started Out in Quite an Adult Fashion with the First Two Films. Edgar Rice Burrough's Literary Character was Literally Dumbed Down, but Audiences Didn't Seem to Mind.The Sound Debut for Tarzan, Featuring Olympic Swimming Star Johnny Weissmuller and Maureen O' Sullivan as Jane, was Filled with Fantastic Footage of Jungle Wild Life Interacting with Humans, Diabolical Dwarf Natives, and a Pre-Code Romance Consummating in a Tree-House.There is a bit of a Clunk in the Opening with Stock Footage from Trader Horn (1931) Backscreened, but the Shots Still are Impressive as Such Things were Not All That Common in 1932 and Audiences were in Awe. But Once the Safari gets Under Way on a Search for the Elephant Burial Ground, the Ivory Hunters Encounter Life Threatening Situations and Tarzan, the Fun Never Stops.The Climax is a Brutal and Violent War Among Giant Killer Apes, Dangerous Dwarfs, and Stampeding Elephants that is Still Exciting and Impressive Today. Ultra-Violent and Visceral it is a Scary and Nightmarish Highlight. Despite a Few Time-Stamped Flaws, and a Lack of Musical Score, there is So Much Here to Enjoy that the Shortcomings can be Ignored. Eclipsed by Tarzan and His Mate (1934), the Sequel is Considered the Best of All Tarzan Movies to This Day.

MartinHafer From the 1930s-1950s, there were a long succession of jungle pictures in theaters. And, for the most part, they sucked. These films featured grade-z actors and directors, significant use of bad stock footage (often of Asian or South American locations even though the films were supposedly set in Africa) and dumb writing. Because of this, after a while I stopped watching them--they are very dull indeed. However, MGM's "Tarzan the Ape Man" is an exception I am going to make--after all, instead of the usual poverty row studio, this one was made by the most prestigious studio on the planet. Instead of lousy actors, MGM pulled out their A-game with Maureen O'Sullivan, Neil Hamilton (at the time a big star--though mostly forgotten today except for his role as 'Commissioner Gordon' on TVs "Batman") and C. Aubrey Smith. And, not surprisingly, they cast a new actor as Tarzan--as it would be hard to accept an actor with an established reputation as a jungle savage! So, they obtained the services of Olypmic champion swimmer Johnny Weismuller to play the lead. I couldn't wait to see a good jungle film! Would this fit the bill? The film skips the story of the Greystokes being lost in Africa with their young baby who would grow up to be Tarzan. Instead, it begins many years later when an African expedition happens to find the young man---quite by accident. But before Tarzan meets the entire expedition, he meets Jane and they hit it off in some cute scenes.On the negative side for this film, there is STILL the significant use of stock footage--some of which clearly doesn't fit the film (such as the scenes where they show various tribesmen who are filmed in very different locations than where the action is set). And, unfortunately, there are some guys dressed up as chimps--something that just looked cheap (though these were a bit better than the usual chimp suits). There also is a fake crocodile that looked pretty silly (conversely, the fake hippos in this same scene were pretty good). And, because of all this, I just can't understand reviews that gave the film 10s. On the positive, despite the cheesy stock footage, the acting was lovely and the script very good. These were able to make up for a lot of the film's deficiencies. The mountain hiking scene is very impressive for 1932--and a very nice use of trick photography and matte paintings. Also, a few real animals were used on the sets--such as a hippo and baby chimps and fights with real live lions--not dead stuffed ones (which I HAVE seen in other Tarzan films). It clearly skimped a bit here and there, but also did have impressive touches a better budget would allow. As a result, the film is significantly more watchable than the usual jungle film--including many of the later non-Johnny Weismuller films. It's worth seeing, as it's among the very best of the Tarzan films--if not the best.By the way, the follow-up film, "Tarzan and His Mate", is a notorious movie. That's because it features a very, very risqué nude swimming sequence--one that ran afoul of the new toughened Production Code (in an effort to make movies more family-friendly. This very nude scene was anything but family-friendly)! And, by the time it was ready for release, the code was being strengthened--and these changes forced the scene to be severely edited. Recently, the edited footage has been restored--and it is rather hot--even by today's standards--and certainly not what you'd expect in what is seen as a kids' film. Both this risqué and the previous film excel, however, as they are quite romantic--something that CAN'T be said of other jungle epics!Also, in "Tarzan the Ape Man", they use Asian elephants. While I am usually a stickler for realism (especially since the animals often shown in jungle films are just the wrong species for Africa), I don't object to this in this particular case, as African elephants are a lot more dangerous and I wouldn't want the studio to use these beasts (though some circuses have--at much greater risk).

wes-connors English explorer C. Aubrey Smith (as James Parker) leads an expedition into Africa's jungles, to find ivory in a legendary elephant graveyard. Spunky daughter Maureen O'Sullivan (as Jane) insists on going along, despite the danger; she is looking for a more savage lifestyle. Handsome Neil Hamilton (as Harry Holt), Mr. Smith's partner, falls in love with Ms. O'Sullivan, but finds unexpected competition from likewise handsome, but loin-clothed, Johnny Weissmuller (as Tarzan). Raised by monkeys, Mr. Weissmuller gets the urge to mate, when he sees O'Sullivan.This was the first "Tarzan" film starring Weissmuller, O'Sullivan, and "Cheetah" the chimpanzee; and, by the time the movie ends, they are obviously "going places" (in the Tarzan film series). A handsome and muscular swimming star, Weissmuller makes a perfect Tarzan. While showing less skin, O'Sullivan give the film its considerable sex appeal; especially when she tears her dress to mop Weissmuller's brow, goes swimming, and has Tarzan tickle her feet.Edgar Rice Burroughs' story of survival is downplayed in favor of the novel's sexual fantasy. And, it works like a charm. "Tarzan the Ape man" was not only a great Tarzan film, but also an excellent early "talkie". Of course, there is some silliness included (this was 1932). Director W.S. Van Dyke, film editors Ben Lewis and Tom Held, and photographers Harold Rosson and Clyde De Vinna excel. The film is briskly directed, tightly edited, and nicely photographed.******** Tarzan the Ape Man (3/25/32) W.S. Van Dyke ~ Johnny Weissmuller, Maureen O'Sullivan, Neil Hamilton, C. Aubrey Smith

James Christian I'm sure I saw bits and pieces of "Tarzan, the Ape Man" on television when I was a kid, but I never really paid much attention to it. I just recently checked out the DVD from my local library, and I was amazed to discover what I had been missing all these years.This movie made me feel like a young boy, craving excitement and adventure. This first installment in the MGM Tarzan movies delivers big time. Yes, the special effects and interweaving of the stock footage looks a bit dated, but that this film was only made three years after the first "talkie" (i.e. a sound picture, not a silent movie). There are certain techniques that obviously stem from the silent movie days. But to me, this just adds to the charm.The animal footage is excellent. For the first time in a long time, I was actually on the edge of my seat during a movie. The CGI effects today are amazing, but they're so overdone (most of the time). The thrills and suspense in "Tarzan" are heightened, because you know everything you see is physically tangible, not an actor reacting to a green screen.I still don't know how they did some of those scenes without anyone getting hurt. Swinging from the treetops, wrestling with lions, wrestling with leopards, being chased by wild animals--all of these things make for great entertainment and adventure.I should also mention that the relationship between Tarzan and Jane is one of the most captivating I've ever seen in a movie. It's very understated, yet very sexy. Today, they would ruin the story by making the couple have sex after five minutes. But because the sexual chemistry is only hinted at, the entire relationship is one of Jane flirting and Tarzan pursuing. It just builds and builds. This romance actually has excitement to it. Definitely one of the best screen romances of all time.Despite a few minor shortcomings in the special effects of the time, this is a thrilling movie. Great adventure, great excitement, great entertainment. Don't miss it!