Reviews & Ratings for
Tarzan of the Apes More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Index

9 reviews in total

---

8 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Elmo tickles, but it's worth a look for fans of Tarzan, 1 June 2005
Author: Poseidon-3 from Cincinnati, OH

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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.

---

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Elmo, How You've Let Yourself Go!, 29 August 2001
Author: Hitchcoc from United States

Whenever I watch a silent film, I try to view it in the proper context (time it was made, technology, etc.). I got a kick out of this film. I imagined what wonder there was in viewing giraffes, rhinos, elephants, pythons, and a host of jungle life. I particularly enjoyed the young man who played Tarzan as a child. His face was continually full of wonder and life. For me, the movie took a downturn when Elmo Lincoln showed up. For a guy who obviously spent his time running through the jungle, climbing trees, wrestling critters ten times his size, he looked like one of the guys that used to sit next to my father at his favorite watering hole. He has that huge paunch and those fleshy white legs. I was very aware that this Tarzan was in continual danger of falling off a branch (possibly breaking it) and doing himself harm. Let's face it: he also wasn't exactly going to win any beauty contests. If Jane hadn't had a bad experience with he fiance, would she have given him a second look. Jane, no great prize herself, gets together with him, but I couldn't help but wonder what they would be doing, other than the obvious. All that aside, it was fun seeing this. I had heard about the film for years and decided to purchase a copy for myself. It was worth it for the novelty.

---

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Elmo had to be the guy..., 13 September 2002
Author: jokk2155 from Kampala, Uganda

...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.

---

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Crude but faithful to the story, 9 January 1999

Author: Dik Meyer (doc_muzik@geocities.com) from St. Clair, Pennsylvania

This original silent version of the Lord of the Apes is perhaps the truest screen representation of the way Tarzan is envisioned in the books by Edgar Rice Burroughs. It is seems very crude but really isn't. It follows the first story (in as much as it can in the limited time of the feature) very closely. Elmo Lincoln, while no Adonis, is very adequate in the role. He's not Johnny Weissmuller...but then Johnny didn't really look all too much like Tarzan should have either.

---

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
For 1918, this is cool stuff...., 20 August 2009

Author: planktonrules from Bradenton, Florida

If someone watches this film and starts looking for shortcomings, they'll probably find a reasonable amount. However, considering the film was made in 1918, it's an amazingly good film--even with its few mistakes and cheesy touches--which, relative to other films of the day, were few.

This original Tarzan film was made in Louisiana. I live in Florida and I could tell by looking at the plants that it was filmed in this part of the USA, but considering that many later Tarzan films were filmed with houseplants all over the set, the backwoods of Louisiana (with all its Spanish moss) was a good choice for a domestic production. As far as the wild animals go, it was a mixed bag. Unfortunately, the elephant was an Asian elephant but I can't blame the film makers too much--the African variety are a lot nastier and dangerous. What I can blame them for, a bit, are the apes that adopt Tarzan. They are clearly people in cheap ape costumes--that look neither like gorillas or chimps--just people in ape costumes! But once again, given the technology of the era, it isn't that bad--plus, Stanley Kubrick did the same thing in "2001" and it's considered a masterpiece!! As for the plot, aside from the addition of a character and a few other small changes, it is essentially Edgar Rice Burroughs' book come to life. It's actually much more accurate than many of the later versions and because it stays closer to the book, it is more interesting and watchable...and less silly. In fact, as far as the writing, direction and acting go, it was all very, very good for such an early full-length film--and a lot better than the gobs of Tarzan films from the 1950s and 60s.

Overall, very good and very interesting.

---

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Not quite Tarzan, the scholar, found in the novels., 3 May 2000

Author: Miller Movies (miller-movies@prodigy.net) from Jacksonville, Florida

At this early point in American film history, Tarzan of the Apes was an instant success. Elmo Lincoln was perhaps the best actor at the time for the role. It's a fairly straight forward telling of the novel, tho Edgar Rice Burroughs was frequently on the set in an advisory role and his input was seldom utilized. In the books, Tarzan was quite the self-made scholar and this was barely touched upon in the film. For 1918, this turned out to be an excellent film, parts of which still hold up today. It's a solid 7 out of 10, and well worth seeing.

---

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Very Interesting *maybe a spoiler or two*, 31 July 2004

Author: clh-1 from Seattle, Wa

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I love Tarzan movies and this one did not disappoint. It was a very good film, Elmo Lincoln turned in a fair performance as Tarzan, sure he's no Johnny Weissmuller, but he gets the job done better than some of the others. I find the film to be pretty good, and the way it follows Tarzan's life is excellent, from childhood to his romance with Jane. I like how they would introduce the different stages in Tarzan's life like they are chapters in a book. However I assume there were different rules about children in films because there are several scenes where the young Tarzan is clearly nude. And one of the supporting characters is definitely a white woman in blackface. Although I find the film to be highly enjoyable, a person of a sensitive nature may not.

I rate it a seven out of ten. God Bless!

---

1 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Maybe silent movies aren't my thing..., 2 August 2004
Author: henry_ferrill from United States

Ever since I started reading Edgar Rice Burroughs' original Tarzan novels, I've been anxious to get my hands on the different interpretations of Jane's "forest god." Well, maybe silent movies aren't my thing, however, like the guy who said he likes to watch silent movies and imagine what it would have taken to create such a picture with the technology they had at the time, I suppose it was interesting. You think they would have had better cutting of the shot with the lion, seeing as it was touted as an actual lion kill. (Hell, just let the camera roll!) But I guess the stuff of legend is mysterious, cryptic, and inspired by what may have been.

I cram to understand how somebody can call this "very interesting," but let it be said that I agree wholly with John G. Olson.

---

1 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Pretty good for an early version., 25 October 2000
Author: lartronic from Akron, Ohio.

While Elmo Lincoln is hardly ones choice for the role, this is still a pretty good adaption, and much closer to the original story. It was probably really thrilling when it was originally released in 1918, but today we've seen it all before. Of course, the 30's version is the best, but this still isn't bad.

---

---

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
External reviews	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user reviews	Your vote history