A missing heir of respected Scottish family, raised in African jungles by animals, finally returns to his estate only to realize that difference between the two worlds is really significant.
A national service non-commissioned officer (David Warner) comes face to face with an embittered Irish Gunner (Nicol Williamson) who is determined to humiliate him.
The mysterious death of an enigmatic young man newly arrived in the suburb of Wetherby releases the long-repressed, dark passions of some of its residents.
Exploring the somewhat darker and more mysterious side of Lewis Carroll's classic book, the movie follows Alice Liddell Hargreaves (Coral Browne) (the book's inspiration) as an old woman ... See full summary »
Kuki, a divorced Italian socialite, changes her life after a serious car crash. She accepts a marriage proposal from Paolo Gallmann, a man she doesn't know well, and she moves to Kenya with... See full summary »
A stormy relationship, complicated by the strictures of 1950s social class and gender roles, ends in death. Based on the life of Ruth Ellis, the last woman hanged in Britain.
Director:
Mike Newell
Stars:
Miranda Richardson,
Rupert Everett,
Ian Holm
A shipping disaster in the nineteenth century has stranded a man and woman in the wilds of Africa. The lady is pregnant, and gives birth to a son in their tree house. The mother dies soon afterwards. An ape enters the house and kills the father, and a female ape takes the tiny boy as a replacement for her own dead infant, and raises him as her son. Twenty years later, Captaine Phillippe D'Arnot discovers the man who thinks he is an ape. Evidence in the tree house leads him to believe that he is the direct descendant of the Earl of Greystoke, and thus takes it upon himself to return the man to civilization.Written by
Murray Chapman <muzzle@cs.uq.oz.au>
When this movie premiered in East Germany, the sentence "The wall comes all around the estate to keep them out, and keep us in" caused a roar in the audience. It was omitted in subsequent screenings. See more »
Capitaine Phillippe D'Arnot:
[Narrating]
I sensed we had a long and difficult journey ahead of us. Perhaps weeks of waiting for a ship that will give us passage to England. I will try to teach John some rudimentary manners and a greater understanding of the language. Like a father, I am resolved to empower to him all that I can. But never, not even for a moment, do I doubt that to take him back, is a perilous undertaking.
[pause]
Capitaine Phillippe D'Arnot:
For John but also for his family.
See more »
Alternate Versions
In a 2016 Hollywood Reporter article that interviewed director Hugh Hudson about his work on "Greystoke" ("The Secrets Behind That Other Tarzan Movie - The One That Earned a Dog a Screenwriting Oscar Nomination," by Stephen Galloway, July 01, 2016), Hudson is quoted saying, "What was complicated was to bring the film down to two hours and 20 minutes. We had an original cut of three hours, and it was at its best at two hours and 40 minutes, where you had a little bit longer [with Tarzan] growing up in the jungle and it was a bit more violent. The world of an ape is a violent world. And the studio was very nervous about that." http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/greystoke-inside-story-1984-tarzan-908081 Unfortunately, there are no known intact copies of the director's favored two hour, 40 minute cut anywhere to be found. See more »
SPOILERS Edgar Rice Burroughs's famous character was adapted thousand of times for the screen til one's thirst is quenched, notably during the thirties and the forties by Hollywood. Its productors made Tarzan one of the most successful cinema characters. Several years later, Hugh Hudson decided to make a more ambitious version of the monkey-man and it's a more natural, more wild and more down-to-earth Tarzan that he gives away here. Hudson skilfully avoids the clichés that you usually grant to Tarzan such as his famous scream or his friendly pet, Cheetah. Not only, are we far from the designed and invented character made by Hollwood but we are also far from the film set used to make his stories. The movie was partly made in Africa (more precisely in Cameroon). The movie introduces two obvious parts: the first one which takes place in the jungle where Tarzan lives among his adoptive friends, the apes and considers himself as their lord. But he ignores his real origins. The second one in England where Tarzan discovers the English society. Ian Holm epitomizes the link between the two parts and Hudson avoids all that could make the movie falls into the ridiculous thanks to a clever screenplay. Indeed, Holm teaches Lambert basic rules of manners so as to behave correctly in the English society and the result works. Moreover, in the second part, no-one ever laughs at Tarzan and he's even really appreciated. As far as the end is concerned well it's a both bitter and happy end. Happy because Tarzan comes back to the jungle and meets again his adoptive close relatives. But bitter too, because this homecoming means that the Greystoke line won't be ensured and is condemned to disappear... Christophe Lambert finds here, his first (and last?) great role. Sadly, he'll never equal the achievement of his performance in this movie and he'll play in poor and insipide action movies. Nevertheless, as I said previously, a clever screenplay, a performance of a rare quality, some impressive natural sceneries (both the jungle and the English country and we get a gorgeous movie. It's also an excellent rereading from a popular novel. So why is it only rated barely (6/10)?
47 of 49 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this
SPOILERS Edgar Rice Burroughs's famous character was adapted thousand of times for the screen til one's thirst is quenched, notably during the thirties and the forties by Hollywood. Its productors made Tarzan one of the most successful cinema characters. Several years later, Hugh Hudson decided to make a more ambitious version of the monkey-man and it's a more natural, more wild and more down-to-earth Tarzan that he gives away here. Hudson skilfully avoids the clichés that you usually grant to Tarzan such as his famous scream or his friendly pet, Cheetah. Not only, are we far from the designed and invented character made by Hollwood but we are also far from the film set used to make his stories. The movie was partly made in Africa (more precisely in Cameroon). The movie introduces two obvious parts: the first one which takes place in the jungle where Tarzan lives among his adoptive friends, the apes and considers himself as their lord. But he ignores his real origins. The second one in England where Tarzan discovers the English society. Ian Holm epitomizes the link between the two parts and Hudson avoids all that could make the movie falls into the ridiculous thanks to a clever screenplay. Indeed, Holm teaches Lambert basic rules of manners so as to behave correctly in the English society and the result works. Moreover, in the second part, no-one ever laughs at Tarzan and he's even really appreciated. As far as the end is concerned well it's a both bitter and happy end. Happy because Tarzan comes back to the jungle and meets again his adoptive close relatives. But bitter too, because this homecoming means that the Greystoke line won't be ensured and is condemned to disappear... Christophe Lambert finds here, his first (and last?) great role. Sadly, he'll never equal the achievement of his performance in this movie and he'll play in poor and insipide action movies. Nevertheless, as I said previously, a clever screenplay, a performance of a rare quality, some impressive natural sceneries (both the jungle and the English country and we get a gorgeous movie. It's also an excellent rereading from a popular novel. So why is it only rated barely (6/10)?