Why do they keep remaking this story? It's really, really not that interesting (just like Peter Pan for that matter). Okay so maybe it's not 'exactly' the same coz here Tarzan is an English Lord in the beginning of the flick and he gets convinced to go back coz evil old Belgian Leopold II might be enslaving the pour Congolese in secret. Christopher Waltz plays the same old cliché bad guy he seems to play in every other film he's done (except Inglorious Bastards - there he was REALLY good). He's the one who leading evil old Belgian Leopold II's mission in case you were wondering. So what else...oh, the CGI monkeys, well I thought Kong in King Kong of 2005 looked better. The other CGI animals (I guess VFX companies must be sick of having to produce digital zoo's) look decent enough but like I said, I've seen better (e.g. Jungle Book). The shots were Tarzan swings of the vines look rather fake and unrealistic. Same goes for other action scenes which seem cartoony and highly unlikely. As for the actors: Skarsgard was cast for his enormous ehm...closet which they pumped up some more so he looks like a 2,5 meter high stack of six packs. Sam Jakson is also present but he just chews up the scenery though I must say that it can't be easy with such lame dialogue and poor scriptwriting. So overall a rather poor rendition of an already sucked dry story. Just watch the Disney animated version from 1999 again, that one was pretty good and had a soundtrack by Phil Collins.
Review of The Legend of Tarzan
