ScoobyWell Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

utgard14 Ivory hunters James Parker (C. Aubrey Smith) and Harry Holt (Neil Hamilton) are in Africa searching for a mythical elephant burial ground when Parker's daughter Jane (Maureen O'Sullivan) arrives unexpectedly. Despite her father's objections, Jane insists on accompanying them on their expedition. During their journey they are shocked when they see a half-naked white man (Johnny Weissmuller) living among the apes. The ape man kidnaps Jane and takes her to his home in the treetops, where she learns that his name is Tarzan.Edgar Rice Burrough's Tarzan is one of the most-filmed characters in movie history. Live action or animation, there have been tons of adaptations and they continue to this day. Well, for my money, none beats the Johnny Weissmuller series at MGM (and later RKO). They were exceptional adventure stories, sheer fun for young and old alike. Like most film series, the earlier movies in the Tarzan series are the better ones, starting with this first film. Olympic swimmer Johnny Weissmuller does a fantastic job as Tarzan. He was obviously cast for his looks and athleticism but he brings a sensitivity to the part that's unexpected. He plays him as a laconic man-child, innocent and peaceful until the things he cares about are threatened. That famous yell of Tarzan's is unforgettable. Maureen O'Sullivan is charming and easy to fall in love with. Her performance is so effortless and real for this period in film. She elevates every scene and makes whoever's acting opposite her give more relaxed performances, as well. She has playful and at times sizzling sexual chemistry with Weissmuller. She also has a nice familial chemistry with C. Aubrey Smith. Their scenes have an authenticity about them that is rare to see but is appreciated. The success of the early Tarzan series owes as much to Maureen's Jane as it does to Johnny's Tarzan. Neil Hamilton, an actor most will remember as Commissioner Gordon from the '60s Batman TV show, does fine playing the part of the guy in love with Jane but can't compete with the rugged but kind Tarzan.Let's not forget this is a Pre-Code movie. Maureen appears scantily clad and even wearing a soaking wet thin dress in one scene. And, of course, Weissmuller wears nothing but a loincloth throughout. Being that it was filmed in 1932, there is some inevitable creakiness, an overuse of stock footage, and some spotty rear projection effects. But these things are minor negatives. The action scenes are great. Tarzan wrestling with an obviously stuffed leopard may seem hokey to many modern viewers, but it holds a certain quaint appeal for me. The animals are fun. Who doesn't love Cheeta? The matte painting backdrops are also nice. It's exciting romantic escapism with a good cast and solid direction from Woody 'One Take' Van Dyke. Followed by many sequels, the first of which is even better than this classic.

sddavis63 So why is Tarzan named "Tarzan" anyway? I found myself wondering about this from the moment that Jane discovered it. First, Jane was "Me" and Tarzan was "You" because Jane couldn't get him to understand anything she was saying, since he didn't speak English. That made sense. Except that when Jane finally convinces Tarzan that her name is Jane, she manages to get him to identify himself as "Tarzan." Well, who named him? He lives with apes! What need does he even have for a name? It's not like the apes, elephants, hippos, et. al. were greeting him every day with "how's it shaking, Tarzan?" Mystery, indeed. And how did Tarzan get that big, snazzy knife he uses to kill and skin animals? And why is the chimpanzee named "Cheetah"? And how can Tarzan do the Tarzan yell, while he's swimming through the water? Mysteries galore!Now, do I want to be really hard on this movie? No. I really don't. It is a classic, and it gave birth to a classic character. Well, that was really done by Edgar Rice Burroughs, but neither the books nor the 1918 silent version would have had the iconic Tarzan yell, so this did give birth to something. And it obviously struck a nerve, because there was a whole series of these movies dating into the 40's, a TV series, animated shows, later movies. So this worked. And this one is pre-code, and so shockingly "immoral" by the standards of the day. Johnny Weissmuller as Tarzan is almost naked, and Maureen O'Sullivan as Jane is at the very least suggestive, and we know darn well that "something" went on between these two. And there are lots of wildlife shots (albeit using stock footage) and quite hilarious (and at the same time disturbingly racist by 2013 standards) portrayals of African (and especially pygmy) natives.Technically, this also feels very old and dated. To mention just one thing - the actors interacting with fake natives on rear backgrounds. To mention another, many of the ape scenes obviously used people dressed in horribly unconvincing ape costumes. The story was also weak, and - as I understand it - takes huge liberties with Burroughs story. I think I read Burroughs story many, many years ago, but don't remember much of it. I accept the testimony of others in this regard. In the movie, the basic plot marching this forward is the search for an elephant graveyard, but that just really serves as a chance to introduce Tarzan. And Tarzan himself is a mystery. Burroughs, as I understand, explores Tarzan's history and background. In this movie, Tarzan is just there. In Africa, swinging through the trees! And, as Jane points out, he has human feelings - because "HE'S WHITE!" Yeah, there's that nasty racial overtone again.I won't be too hard on it. It was made in 1932, and it did spawn a whole series, and it is considered a classic. But it really didn't do a lot for me in all honesty. (4/10)

Ben Larson Is this the first case of recycling? MGM spent a fortune making Trader Horn, and was able to reuse some footage for this film. Smart thinking. Of course the footage was not integrated well. It looks as if some of the characters are walking in front of a movie screen.Johnny Weismuller was an Olympic Gold Medalist with no acting experience, and MGM really didn't want him, but they used him for this and four sequels to great effect. Weismuller went on to make more Tarzan films for other producers.It is always a pleasure to watch old films like this and see how far we have come.

classicsoncall When I hearken back to my days as a kid, I can count on three heroes during my personal golden age - Superman, The Lone Ranger, and... Tarzan! I remember seeing this film back in the day, as I recall the business about finding the elephant graveyard. "Tarzan the Ape Man" reinvigorated the franchise for the first time in the talkie era; I was actually surprised to learn that this picture came out in 1932. I mark progress in cinema to a large degree by the stunning achievements of 1933's "King Kong", so in some respect, this was an ambitious film in it's own right.At the time, Johnny Weissmuller held sixty seven world records in swimming, and five Olympic gold medals. For me, he's the definitive movie Tarzan, wisely chosen for his athletic physique contrasted to that of bodybuilder types that would arguably hold sway today. Even if not a great actor, there's a naturalness to his presence in this film one might expect from someone portraying a savage.Then there's Maureen O'Sullivan. That early scene when she first encountered her father (C. Aubrey Smith) was a bit strange, with a crying jag that went a bit over the top. There are more than a few pre-Code moments that command the viewer's attention, the first being that venture into soft porn territory when she removes her dress and washes her face. Her father rather wisely wished to excuse himself; you're just going to have to see it for yourself. By the way, the quote in my summary line was uttered by Jane Parker, but to her father, and not as you would expect, to Tarzan.What got me hooked as a Tarzan fan back in my youth was the presence of all the wild animals, though watching today, I realize that a lot of the apes were actually men in monkey suits. There's also the issue of geographical integrity that Weissmuller's alter ego, Jungle Jim, encountered in every picture I've seen of that franchise. In this picture, Tarzan's first battle with a jungle cat brought him into contact with a jaguar, not a leopard as most viewers would suspect. Jaguars are only found in South America, so thumbs down there for authenticity. Or maybe I'm just being nit-picky.But hey, how about that battle with the pygmy (dwarf?) natives? That was as surreal as it gets when it comes down to your standard jungle lore. That along with the knife in the eye of the gorilla brute made for some heavy action without requiring a vine swing. I'm not sure if younger viewers today can appreciate all the stuff going on here when everything produced today seems to go for all action all the time. With Tarzan, you get back to a primitive minimalism, with life and death at stake in hand to claw combat. I can just hear the gasps of 1930's era movie goers when Tarzan hit the big screen.Finally, I can't finish this review without mention of Cheeta. Can you believe Cheeta is still alive as I write this? Weissmuller and O'Sullivan are long gone, as are all the other principals from the film. I keep checking every so often since I learned of Cheeta's longevity, but as of right now, though retired, he's still in the swing of things.Addendum - NOTE*** Cheeta passed away on December 24th, 2011.