The king of the jungle, indeed!

Rating: 8/10 (8 May 2009)

Edgar Rice Burroughs would have once suggested that his Tarzan character would fit perfectly with animation. If that anecdote is true, then we could say that Burroughs was a visionary man. But I don't know at which point his vision would have met the one that Disney Studios used to realize their own version of the man raised by the gorillas.
"Tarzan" is among the most spectacular adventures ever made by Disney. Not only the animation is astonishingly innovative and breathtaking, but the story, the characters and the wonderful songs from pop superstar Phil Collins will undoubtedly satisfy the youngsters and the grown-ups.
Tarzan's story has been adapted to screen a rather incalculable amount of times in the history of cinema, most notably in the middle of the 20th century with Olympic athlete Johnny Weissmuller in the title role, but this "Tarzan" is the very first feature-length animated movie about the man-ape, and it takes advantage from every benefit that animation could bring in its presentation, but especially into the characters' development.
The relationship which Tarzan keeps up with the gorillas, which he considers his family, are never really convincing in live action. And the attempts made to give some personality to the jungle creatures had never really allowed the viewers to express any sympathy towards them. We just have to look at the movie adaptation of "George of the Jungle" to be convinced.
But here, the jungle animals are really likable and their depth allows to give to the story a much stronger foundation than everything that was done before. The relationship between Tarzan and his gorilla "mother" Kala (voiced by Glenn Close) is incredibly touching. Tarzan is also surrounded by funny and entertaining sidekicks, such as tomboyish gorilla Terk (voiced by Rosie O'Donnell) and coward elephant Tantor (voiced by Wayne Knight). Even Kong-like Kerchak (voiced by Lance Henriksen) is rather well developed beyond his monstrous stature, and his attitude towards "strangers" kinda recalls Shere Khan in "The Jungle Book".
And talking about "The Jungle Book", "Tarzan" inevitably sparks comparisons with the 1967 Disney classic, since both movies own many resemblances. Both of them talk about a human kid whose parents have died and who is raised by the jungle beasts. And when comes the moment of choosing their true place, between the animals and the humans, both Mowgli and Tarzan are confronted with heartbreaking dilemmas. So which one of the two movies is the best? Well, there again, it depends of your preferences. "The Jungle Book" benefits from a gallery of characters that is larger, more diversified and more elaborate than in "Tarzan". And that's probably on the weaknesses of the latter movie. Besides the gorillas, the elephants, a few baboons and one leopard, Tarzan's jungle seems to be rather huge, but also rather empty. And the musical numbers are way livelier in "The Jungle Book", and they are incorporated better into the story. The Phil Collins songs in "Tarzan", as good as they might be, sometimes give the impression that the images we see are merely a pretext for music videos which we could find on the MTV channel.
The greatest advantage of "Tarzan" on "The Jungle Book" is the quality of its animation. Beside Tarzan's jungle, Mowgli's habitat looks like a botanical garden. In order to give more dimension to the African wild environment in which the characters live, the animators at Disney have created a new animation process called "deep canvas". This process gives more dimension to the jungle, giving the realist impression that the characters are moving themselves into a three-dimensional universe. The results are astounding. The illusion is pitch perfect. Thus we could bill "Tarzan" as a 2.5D animated movie.
This process allows animators to conceive astonishing sequences where Tarzan moves from one vine to the other with the movements and the style of a skateboarder and also to create action and chase scenes which turn a trek among the branches and the vines into an authentic roller coaster ride. The images are often dizzying. Some of them might even be too much dizzying to my taste and I would have had no objection to slowing some scenes so I could appreciate them better.
That kind of new technological development clearly shows that Disney is still the number 1 animated house in the world. It also demonstrates that, in spite of the constant rise of computer-animated features, movies made in traditional animation still own their place inside our film universe. I don't want to take off anything from computer-animated movies, but I have always preferred movies made in traditional animation. I have always felt that emotions and feelings were stronger and more authentic in that format instead of in 3D animation. There are some truly touching moments in "Tarzan" and I don't have the impression that those scenes would have had the same impact had this movie been realized in 3D animation.
With the exception of Tarzan himself, there are only a few human characters in the movie and they are not among the most memorable ones. Jane maintains an interesting, but rather ambiguous relationship with Tarzan. Her father is your typical British scientist, while Clayton the hunter is not one of the most threatening nor interesting villains we have in the Disney filmography.
Beside a few glitches, "Tarzan" still is an exceptional animated movie and a must-see for Disney fans. There is no better introduction to the world of Tarzan than this movie. Of course, beyond it, there are the Weissmuller movies, but if you consider their relative absence in today's shop shelves, Disney's movies is a more-than-perfect alternative. There is no doubt that it belongs among Disney classics, along with "Aladdin" and "The Lion King".