In 'The Legend of Tarzan,' Alexander Skarsgård looks at home in the jungle

( PG-13 ) ( Monitor Movie Guide )

'Tarzan' stars Alexander Skarsgård as the title character and Margot Robbie as his wife, Jane. Samuel L. Jackson and Christoph Waltz co-star.

Jonathan Olley/Warner Bros. Entertainment/AP
'The Legend of Tarzan' stars Alexander Skarsgård (l.) and Samuel L. Jackson (r.).

“The Legend of Tarzan,” directed by David Yates, who is fresh from the “Harry Potter” franchise, doesn’t go in for a lot of “Me Tarzan, you Jane” stuff. No, this is a socially conscious Tarzan movie.

Alexander Skarsgård plays Tarzan – or to be more exact, John Clayton III, fifth Earl of Greystoke and a member of the House of Lords. He is sent as an emissary by Belgium’s King Leopold, the Voldemort of this piece, to the Congo, supposedly to oversee the king’s many charitable works. In actuality, Tarzan is set up to be captured in a scheme that will reap Belgium a fortune in diamonds.

Greystoke/Tarzan reluctantly takes his wife, Jane (Margot Robbie), back to Africa with him. (It's been almost a decade since they both left.) She wants to go; after all, she grew up there, too. Lady-in-peril shenanigans soon ensue, courtesy of the king of Belgium’s envoy Leon, played by Christoph Waltz in that sneer-smirky style he has a patent on.

Skarsgård looks at home in the jungle, communing among the apes, the ostriches, and the crocs; Robbie seems as if she might be more at home on “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.” Samuel L. Jackson plays an American soldier-turned-humanitarian who accompanies Tarzan and Jane to the Congo. He seems to be in the film mostly to provide some well-needed comic relief. Grade: C+ (Rated PG-13 for sequences of action and violence, some sensuality and brief rude dialogue.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.