Tarzan, the Ape Man

I remember seeing this in the theater when it was first released and being appalled at its lousiness. So strong was that impression that I remembered now, 45 years later, that I could find it by searching IMDb for "Denny Miller". I talked for days, weeks, months and now years afterward about the miserable "borrowing" of scenes from the original Weissmuller films and color-tinting them in a vain attempt to blend in with the new footage. One example: a burning pygmy village features brown tinted film with flames overprinted. The pygmies calmly go about their quiet life while their huts supposedly burn around them. This is undoubtedly the WORST Tarzan movie ever made. Even Elmo Lincoln is better.

WE'VE NOTICED FOR some time how the Hollywood crowd loves revisionism. Take for example: in FRANKENSTEIN (1818), author Mary Wollstonecroft Shelley named the main character Victor Frankenstein; yet for some unknown reason, UNIVERSAL PICTURES made his given name "Henry". To further complicate matters, they gave him a friend named "Victor !" In the 1942 Serial SPY SMASHER, Republic Studios gave the alter ego Alan Armstrong a twin brother "Jack" , that he never had in the Fawcett publication's WHIZ COMICS. In 1937, the same studio did a real number of revision in the DICK TRACY Serial by making him a G Man, making a "Gwen" his girlfriend and disposing of Tracy's comic page partner, Pat Patton for a "Mike Mc Gurk comic relief.

AS FOR OUR indictment of Metro Goldwyn Mayer, we call your attention to Tarzan's mate, Jane. In the original stories, author Edgar Rice Burroughs gave us Jane Porter, an American from Baltimore. The MGM version made her "Jane Parker", an English woman of Noble blood. Co figure. (and thanks for letting me get this gripe off my chest!)

AS FOR THIS 1959 remake of the 1932 Johnny Weissmuller/Maureen O'Sullivan original, all we can say is thumbs down. The limited budget shows, regardless of Techincolor; which no Johnny Weissmuller vehicle had. In a way it may have been an indicator of how the mighty Metro Goldwyn Mayer had fallen from its high perch in tinsel town.

TO ITS CREDIT, this film stuck very close to the original story, albeit in a somewhat updated version. The characterization of African Natives was somewhat upgraded, giving so many much more personality than the thin, shallow portrayals in the past. The movie starred newcomer Denny Miller and Joanna Barnes; who had enough talent for the roles. But we needn't remind you that they were no Weissmuller/O'Sullivan combo.

ANY POSITIVES THAT one may find are all too quickly undermined by the extensive use of now tinted, old footage from thr '32 original. In some scenes (particularly when Tarzan fights and kills the giant Crocodile, it is obvious that it's really Weissmuller or a very close double.

Jane Parker travels to Africa to reunite with her father Col. James Parker. Business has been going badly due to tribal conflicts and he has not been sending money to his daughter. Without money, she got dumped and has no place in society. She helps a local which only exacerbates the tribal conflict. Father and daughter escape. Along the way, they are attacked by rampaging elephants and Tarzan rescues Jane.

Apparently, this was cobbled together from old footage and filming on the backlot. I like a lot of the animal footage which are most likely previously filmed. The footage with the actors is less compelling. The movie deteriorates after the rescue. Holt and her father turn into douches. After getting shot at, Tarzan is incredibly understanding. He should think that Jane had been kidnapped and they're trying to kill him. It becomes a knot of conflicting interest and no happy flow. Characters would fight one minute and work together the next. The writing is messy. Also, the ending has a distasteful aspect. It's downhill slide to the finish.

This particular Tarzan movie (made by the Metro Goldwyn Mayer studio) has long had a very bad reputation, which may explain why Turner Classic Movies (which has free access to all the older MGM movies) seldom shows it. Is the movie really deserving of its bad reputation? Pretty much so, in my opinion. Made during the start of the long decline of the studio, it's really obvious that the top brass did not give the filmmakers adequate funds or resources. For example, the movie is jam-packed with stock footage, even having the gall to showcase some stock footage that was originally filmed in black and white while the newly shot footage was shot in color. Things aren't much better when it comes to the newly shot footage. The newly shot footage often looks cheap, with (among other things) tacky set dressing and poor special effects. There's also no feeling of great adventure, or even awe and wonder. Instead, scene after scene seems to have been shot with great haste without considering if the scenes would grab an audience. This may explain why the actors seem to be going through the motions. This includes the title character, who comes more like a lucky doofus instead of someone who has skill and knowledge about how to conquer every challenge and danger in the jungle. And believe it or not, Tarzan pretty much comes across as a secondary character instead of being up front and center! It's then a real surprise that Tarzan in this movie doesn't keep letting out a loud shout of pain instead of his familiar yell.

This 1959 Tarzan film is a real curio on several levels. For one thing, it is far and away the lowest-budget Tarzan film ever made, and therefore contains some irresistibly silly footage and special effects. Secondly, it marks the one and only occasion that the ape man was played by ex-basketballer Denny Miller. In spite of the massive critical mauling the film received, Miller is not really as awful in the role as people have always maintained. Given a better film in which to appear, it's conceivable that he may have made more appearances as Tarzan and enjoyed a measure of success in the part. Thirdly, the film has one of the most bizarrely ill-fitting scores ever... provided by jazz supremo Shorty Rogers. These mismatched ingredients actually lend the film a sort of innocent charm. It's definitely bad cinema, but there have been much worse films over the years (heck, there have been worse Tarzan films – anyone seen the 1981 Bo Derek debacle?)

English explorer James Parker (James Parker) heads into the heart of Africa in search of a legendary elephant's graveyard. Among his travelling companions are his daughter Jane (Joanna Barnes) and her fiancée Harry Holt (Cesare Danova). Their journey is fraught with danger, what with hostile landscapes, jungle tribes and savage animal attacks. Eventually, however, the party successfully negotiate their way deeper into uncharted territory. Jane is separated from her friends and winds up in the company of a primitive man-of-the-jungle, the ape man of the title, Tarzan (Denny Miller). Her father is determined to find his daughter and save her from this half-animal jungle man, but it is not long before Jane has begun to fall in love with her captor….

There are some pretty embarrassing moments during the course of this movie, of that there can be no argument. The fire sequence in the pygmy village is so fake and cheap that it is nothing short of terrible. The scene in which Tarzan fights against a leopard contains some absolutely hilarious close-ups of Miller tussling with what appears to be a stuffed toy. And worst of all is the frequent tinted footage stolen from the 1932 Johnny Weismuller film of the same title – even the smallest of children will be able to tell that these scenes are not shot in Technicolor like the rest of the film (hell, occasionally Weismuller's face can be seen as plain as day!) Having said all that, I can't bring myself to be as derogatory about this film as some of the previous reviewers have been. For me, Barnes, Douglas and Danova do a passable enough job with their roles, and the film's brief 82 minute duration is crammed with incident. One needs to remember that when director Joseph M. Newman and producer Al Zimbalist actually set out to make this film, they weren't trying to re-do Shakespeare. A simple jungle adventure is what they had in mind, and to some extent a simple jungle adventure is precisely what they've given us. Tarzan The Ape Man (1959) is an enjoyably bad time filler – if nothing else, it has enough innocent charm and unintentional laughs to bring a smile to our faces in these weary and cynical times.