Tarzan (1999)

Having never read any of Edgar Rice Burroughs’s Tarzan books doesn’t really matter, because most people have a general understanding about what the Ape Man is about. Often times people compare books and movies (I myself am guilty of this from time to time), which defeats the purpose of both mediums. Books and movies exist to tell stories through their own unique elements. We can try to infer what a book might be like based on a movie and we can imagine what we think a movie should be like while we read the book. You can only objectively compare books with other books and movies with other movies. With that in mind, Disney’s Tarzan calls to my mind Lady and the Tramp with sex appeal.

In the 1800s, a British couple and their baby son crash on the shores of the African jungle. After building a shelter, the parents are killed by a leopard but the boy is saved and adopted by a family of gorillas. As a young man, Tarzan saves the life of Jane, the daughter of a British explorer who has anchored offshore. With them is an aggressive game hunter named Clayton, who sets his sights on adding members of Tarzan’s gorilla family to his collection.

How do you make a pacifistic, anti-hunting story cool to your target demographic of rowdy young boys? By having Tarzan glide and slide through the jungle branches like he’s on rollerblades or a skateboard. Maybe I shouldn’t find fault with this but I can’t help myself. I don’t care how callused his feet are or how much moss covers the jungle bark; there’s no way this is remotely possible. Maybe it looks cool at first, but by the end of the movie, Tarzan does it more than enough times for the trick to get old. That’s quite an accomplishment for a movie clocking in at just under 90 minutes!

Tarzan himself is a pretty thin character, so the film really leans on its supporting cast to make the film something special. Jane looks like your typical damsel-in-distress (skinny waist accentuating her developed upper half) but she has brains, wit, and some toughness to help satisfy feminists and cynics alike. The other human characters are generic. Jane’s father feels like a retread of the scatter-brained Maurice and Clayton an oversimplified version of Gaston (both from Beauty and the Beast). Tarzan’s animal friends, for all their modern wit and dialogue, feel like a weak attempt to recreate the magic of The Jungle Book.

As for the usual Disney elements, Tarzan comes up about even. The animation shows signs of progress in blending CGI and traditional animation, but some shots are overdone. Without a big musical hit in a couple of years, Disney pulled out all the stops and signed Phil Collins to write the music. Some of the songs are used as background tracks, rather than being sung by the characters. It sets a mood but the music never really grips you. I hope that is an objective observation and not my indifference for Phil Collins surfacing. The music may have won awards, but I don’t view any of the tunes as among Disney’s best.

As you may suspect, I am wholly indifferent to this film. There is nothing wrong with it per se; it just doesn’t do it for me. It’s loud, colorful, and perfectly fine for entertaining the kids but Disney magic seems to be in short supply in Tarzan. It’s hard to say who is at fault for this. It could be the source material or it could be the Disney treatment of said source material. In the end, it is a tolerable, largely well-made animated film that I will probably watch with my daughter only if she suggests it.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Ghost* (1990)

Anytime I watch a popular romance film I approach it with trepidation. Films under the label of ‘romance’ are usually chick flicks in disguise anymore. If you’ve looked through the films I’ve rated in the past, you know that chick flicks and I do not get along. So when a film is listed interchangeably as a romance and a chick flick, I get really worried that I’m about to waste my time. Thank goodness that Ghost does not live up (or should I say down?) to its chick flick label.

Sam Wheat (Patrick Swayze) is a banker for a large company in New York. His artist girlfriend, Molly Jensen (Demi Moore), lives with him in a posh apartment. Life is beautiful and perfect until Sam spots some troubling discrepancies on a few accounts. A few days later Sam and Molly get mugged and Sam is killed. Only, Sam’s spirit sticks around.

Helping him work through his unfinished business are a creepy subway ghost, who shows Sam how to interact with objects, and a scam artist posing as a medium named Oda Mae Brown (Whoopi Goldberg), who is surprised to discover that she really does have the gift. While working through his anger and emotions, Sam learns that his death was not a random crime. With the help of Oda Mae, Sam must work to thwart a greedy, former co-worker at embezzling money and hurting Molly.

Interestingly enough, there is more drama, comedy and suspense in Ghost than romance. You could probably argue that this film’s primary labeling as a romance is a misnomer but I don’t see any need to do so. If nothing else, Ghost is the kind of romance film that elevates the bar for the genre. More romantic comedies should strive for the kind of genre blending on display here rather than taking the easy way out with ticket-selling clichés and second-rate actors.

Of the main characters, Demi Moore is the weakest link but it’s not entirely her fault. Molly is written as a pretty face and a victim. While Demi Moore’s acting chops are debatable, she does what is needed of her character. Patrick Swayze, however, is fantastic as Sam. When he’s not wide-eyed with wonder, panic or impatience, he is vengefully or ponderingly scowling. His transition from newbie ghost to fully-functioning poltergeist is believable and the rules and abilities laid out for Sam and his deceased brethren are easy to digest.

The undeniable scene-stealer of this film is Whoopi Goldberg. She hits every mark, every punch line and every facial expression perfectly. When she’s interacting with nothing or interacting with Patrick Swayze while pretending to be unable to see him, her performance is immaculate. No wonder they gave her an Oscar for this role! She is funny without forcing it and gaudy without going over the top. Whoopi alone makes this film worth seeing.

The story itself is quite interesting. There have been ghost tales before involving unfinished business but Ghost’s suspense and drama help it stand out. Some ghost flick fans may not like the kinder, gentler approach that Swayze takes but these people need to realize that not all disembodied spirits are out for revenge alone. In many ways, this is a story about a man overcoming a handicap in order to do something important. Maybe classifying death as a handicap is a stretch but without Sam having to learn the ropes of being a ghost, the plot and resolution would be too easy and far too convenient to be enjoyed.

The underlying moral of ‘corporate greed is bad’ is a little cheesy by today’s standards and some may complain that this motive comes right out of left field but let’s keep in mind when this movie was made. The late 80s and early 90s saw a wave of films containing a harsh reaction to the Reagan era of big business and corporate success. Ghost wisely avoids being too preachy on this matter but the subtext is there.

Other than a few dated-looking special effects, Ghost is still able to resonate and move today’s moviegoers. Passion, suspense and intrigue never go out of style. Hopefully this film’s popularity won’t either.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5