Tarzan of the Apes (1918)

Absolutely the worst movie.

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

The 1918 version of TARZAN OF THE APES came out just six years after the Edgar Rice Burroughs novel debuted. Seen today, it stands up pretty well, feeling obviously dated but at the same time sticking close to the plot of the original novel, closer than some adaptations that have come since. All of the correct plot ingredients are present and correct and if it's not as lavishly mounted as later instalments, well that's understandable. The interaction with chimps and the like are handled particularly well, and overall despite the creakiness this has a feeling of authenticity.

Yes, Tarzan of the Apes is pretty faithful adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs' first Tarzan story, but it isn't the best Tarzan movie, or silent adventure movie for that matter. Just compare it to The Mark of Zorro which came out only two years later.Imagine if they got someone like Fairbanks to do the stunts. Elmo Lincoln looks good enough as Tarzan (I don't know what people are talking about), but there are no impressive vine swinging scenes to be found here.The best thing about Tarzan of the Apes is the exciting fight scene at the end, where Tarzan kicks the big tribe member's buttocks. It's fun to see how fight scenes have developed over the years, from realistic punching and wrestling to overly choreographed dancing.The worst thing about Tarzan of the Apes is the part where the lion is killed. It's supposedly real (but looks very fake). If that's the case, shame of the filmmakers. I hate PETA as much as everyone else, but It's just wrong to kill animals for entertainment. One of the few good things about the CGI we have today is that filmmakers can fake a lot of action scenes featuring animals.I can't remember any racist content in the movie. Some people may complain about Esmeralda (white woman in blackface? Not sure), but she's not as bad as in the book. It's nothing compared to the racism in the first Weissmuller movies anyway.There's some mild (and non-sexual) nudity in some parts the movie that should have been left out. It's not offensive, but it doesn't add anything to the story either. All in all, there's nothing truly offensive about this movie except for the killing of the lion...and I'm not even sure if that part is real.While it could have been a much better movie, there's never a boring moment in it. And Tarzan is a character that has been on the big screen for almost a hundred years now, so it's very interesting to see where it all began...

It's actually pretty astonishing, when one thinks about it, how many types of Tarzan have existed and how many versions of the story have been filmed. This first, silent version is a far cry from the more famous ones (most famous being the ones featuring Johnny Weissmuller), but it's still very interesting to watch for fans of the character. More than practically any other adaptation of the tale, this one features his parents and his youth as the Lord and Lady Greystoke come to Africa and are left alone in the jungle to face their fate along with their newborn baby. Though Lincoln is nearly always credited as being the first movie Tarzan, Griffith actually plays the role as a youth for the first half of this relatively brief film. He is shown cavorting in the nude with his ape family and eventually discovering the joy of clothing, the importance of a knife and the act of reading. Later, Lincoln takes over the role just as a safari led by his long lost family is on an expedition to locate his parents. This is where he meets Jane (Markey) and introduces her to the wonders of jungle life. Griffith does a fairly remarkable job as the boy. His facial expressions and enthusiasm help a lot in keeping the film watchable. Lincoln has been heavily criticized by many as the fattest, most out of shape Tarzan ever. However, though he is certainly husky, he isn't really as rotund as his costume helps to suggest. Many times he is shown briefly from an angle that displays a waistline and he is somewhat muscular, not completely flabby. Most folks prefer the lean, lithe Tarzan's, but for a man to wrestle a lion to death, some muscle would likely be in order as well. Gordon Scott, though clearly a more fit and beautiful specimen than Mr. Lincoln, is not too much smaller in size. If Lincoln is not the ideal Tarzan, Markey is even less appealing as Jane with her heavy plaid outfit and her unengrossing demeanor. Still, the two manage to muster up a shred of chemistry. The film was actually revolutionary at the time for it's inclusion of jungle footage and the bodily exposure of its leading man. Lincoln was considered a sensation. The film is archaic, but interesting and, at 60 minutes, doesn't take too long to watch, at any rate.

...because of his already established reputation as a Hollywood strong man (e.g. his role as the Mighty Man of Valor in the 1916 DW Griffith classic "Intolerance").Also, the image of Tarzan in 1918 was not that of a lithe gymnast like Christopher Lambert in "Greystoke", but of a man powerful enough to wrestle lions. Strength equalled bulk.There's an interesting piece of trivia attached to that movie and Uganda (that's in East Africa) where I'm now based. There's a popular myth around here that the 1918 version of "Tarzan of the Apes" was filmed on the northern shores of Lake Victoria. In fact it was shot, I believe, in Louisiana.