Two reasons why I’m not entirely despondent over them doing another Tarzan movie.
First, Samuel L. Jackson is in it. Second: “The film begins years after the man once known as Tarzan (Skarsgård) left the jungles of Africa behind for a gentrified life as John Clayton III, Lord Greystoke, with his beloved wife, Jane (Robbie) at his side. Now, he has been invited back to the Congo to serve as a trade emissary of Parliament, unaware that he is a pawn in a deadly convergence of greed and revenge, masterminded by the Belgian, Captain Leon Rom (Waltz).”
…You cannot be too over-the-top when describing conditions in the Belgian Congo. They could pour blood on the movie screen for two solid hours and it’d still be not as bad as what actually happened in that unhappy land*. It’s actually an excellent choice of location and bad guy for a movie like this, because while modern critiques of European colonialism may sometimes need to be a bit more nuanced than they actually are, there was precisely nothing nuanced about the colonialism inflicted on the Belgian Congo. So, hey, maybe the movie won’t suck.
Moe Lane
*Belgium should be expressly forbidden from ever expressing an opinion on human rights violations, ever again. Or at least until after I’m dead of old age. I’m a reasonable man, after all.
Hey, you know what other movie Samuel L. Jackson is in?
.
Well, yes, The Hateful Eight, but I was actually talking about Chi-Raq. And I may not see any movie he’s in ever again, on account of it.