During my search for my “so bad, it’s good” movie, I’ve learned to find two things: a film that is built on a gimmick and a film that is unintentionally funny. Though these things have helped me get one step closer to finding my “so bad, it’s good” movie, a film has yet to earn that coveted title. For the annual So Bad It’s Good Blogathon, I had several selected movies to choose from. But, in the end, I picked the 1989 film, Tarzan in Manhattan! That title alone gives away the project’s gimmick; an iconic character existing in a more contemporary setting. Based on the movie’s synopsis, there seems to be elements that could be unintentionally funny, such as Jane becoming more street-smart when she’s usually known for being book-smart. But what made me ultimately select Tarzan in Manhattan for the So Bad It’s Good Blogathon were the reviews on IMDB. According to what I read, it seemed like the movie’s creative team didn’t take their project seriously because they acknowledged the film’s gimmick. With all of that said, let’s see if this movie could become my “so bad, it’s good” film!

Things I liked about the film:

The acting: When I reviewed The Chalk Garden earlier this month, I said I was invested in the story because of the acting performances’ quality. I also said each acting performance was good for different reasons. In Tarzan in Manhattan, the cast made a strong effort to make their performances as entertaining as possible. In my opinion, these efforts worked, as their performances kept me invested in the story! Joe Lara used emotion well while portraying the titular character. A great example comes from the first ten minutes of the movie. Tarzan experiences a tragedy, as he discovers someone close to him passed away. Upon making this discovery, Tarzan is understandably upset. His eyes are brimming with tears and his mouth presents a frown. Quickly realizing what possibly happened, Tarzan’s sadness turns into anger within seconds. He then grits his teeth and the rest of his facial features become tense.

Kim Crosby portrays Jane in Tarzan in Manhattan. In my review’s introduction, I pointed out how Jane became more street-smart. Because of this creative decision, Kim adopts a down-to-earth, laid-back personality she consistently carried throughout the movie. When Jane meets Tarzan, she’s unfazed by the situation. Her whole persona presented the idea she, as a cab driver, has seen it all. Portraying Jane’s father, Archimedes, is Tony Curtis. Similar to Kim’s performance, Tony’s on-screen no-nonsense attitude was consistent. What also worked in Tony’s favor was how believable his on-screen interactions were. Anytime Archimedes and Jane shared a conversation, it felt like a realistic discussion between father and daughter. The strength of Kim’s and Tony’s acting talents helped make that possible!

Respect toward the source material: While I haven’t read the book Tarzan in Manhattan is based on, I have seen another adaptation of the Tarzan story. Based on that experience, it appears the creative team of the 1989 film made efforts to respect the source material their project is based on. Remember when I said in this review’s introduction how Jane became more street-smart when she’s usually known for being book-smart? It is true she is street-smart in Tarzan in Manhattan. However, the book-smart aspect of her character actually worked in harmony with the street-smarts. Around the time she and Tarzan first meet, Jane shares how she has a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science from NYU. Her book-smarts, along with problem-solving skills, help Tarzan find an important clue in figuring out Cheetah’s whereabouts. Throughout his New York City trip, Tarzan carries a bag of expensive jewelry as a form of currency. It is revealed the collection of jewelry belonged to Tarzan’s parents, the Lord and Lady of Greystone, before they passed away.

How humor was incorporated: I mentioned in my review’s introduction how Tarzan in Manhattan’s IMDB reviews were the reason I chose the film for the So Bad It’s Good Blogathon. Based on those reviews, it seemed the movie’s creative team didn’t take their project seriously because they acknowledged the film’s gimmick. As I watched the 1989 picture, I could detect a sense of self-awareness. From the dialogue to the “Easter Eggs”, it felt like the movie’s creative team recognized how much of a gimmick their project was built on. During the plane ride to New York City, Tarzan is reading a book about surviving in New York on five dollars a day. This “Easter Egg” calls out how expensive the Big Apple can be. After somersaulting his way into a locked room, Tarzan leaves that same room by escaping through an open window. This situation causes Archimedes to ask Jane why Tarzan can’t leave through the door like other people. The aforementioned self-awareness in Tarzan in Manhattan made comedic moments genuinely hilarious!

What I didn’t like about the film:

Things that don’t make sense: There were some parts of Tarzan in Manhattan that didn’t make sense. One example takes place toward the beginning of the film. Within the first five minutes of the story, Tarzan is shown living a secluded life from civilization, how Tarzan is usually portrayed in other adaptations. Then, all of a sudden, a man named Joseph shows up to give Tarzan and Cheetah a pair of books. Based on their interaction, it seems like Joseph and Tarzan’s friendship has lasted even before the events of the movie. If Tarzan lives close enough to civilization where walking to Joseph’s store is possible, why does he still live isolated in the jungle?

Inconsistent sense of urgency: A reason why Tarzan travels to New York City is to rescue Cheetah. This part of the film’s synopsis would warrant a sense of urgency throughout the story. But Tarzan, along with Jane and Archimedes, don’t figure out what likely happened to Cheetah until more than twenty minutes into an hour and thirty-four-minute film. While there is a sense of urgency in Tarzan in Manhattan, it appears at certain moments in the movie. These creative choices made the story’s sense of urgency inconsistent.

Part of the story that doesn’t lead anywhere: On more than one occasion, the audience is reminded how Tarzan is the son of the Lord and Lady of Greystone. Jane even purchases a book featuring his family’s portrait. I appreciate the creative team’s efforts to respect the source material their project is based on. However, the part of the film about Tarzan’s family history didn’t lead anywhere. The story’s main conflict had nothing to do with the Greystone estate. Tarzan’s family weren’t even featured in a subplot. I wish that part of Tarzan in Manhattan had a stronger connection to the overall story.

My overall impression:

When I started this review, I said I learned to find two things when looking for my “so bad, it’s good” movie; a film that is built on a gimmick and a film that is unintentionally funny. Tarzan in Manhattan is definitely built a gimmick, with enough self-awareness in the movie to acknowledge this. But what the film isn’t is unintentionally funny. The way the story’s humor was written and delivered gave the audience a reason to laugh with the creative team, not at them. Humorous moments felt like they were intended to be comedic. This is one of the reasons why Tarzan in Manhattan was as entertaining as it was! Though there were flaws in the 1989 picture, there were aspects of the project I liked. A few examples are the acting performances and the on-screen chemistry between Joe Lara and Kim Crosby. Even though moments with high-stakes and a sense of urgency are sprinkled throughout the story, Tarzan in Manhattan is, for the most part, silly and goofy fun. Out of all the movies I reviewed for the So Bad It’s Good Blogathon, I’d say Tarzan in Manhattan is the best one. So, when it comes to finding my “so bad, it’s good” movie, I ended up taking a detour this time.

Overall score: 7 out of 10

Have you seen Tarzan in Manhattan? Which adaptation of the Tarzan story is your favorite? Please tell me in the comment section!

Have fun at the movies!

Sally Silverscreen