It is interesting however just to take a glimpse of this lady when she was in her 20s. This is a famously bad movie, designed apparently just to showcase Bo Derek's external beauty, because as an actress she offers very, very little.
Yes, Bo Derek was (and probably is still) a beautiful woman to look at, but in this day of beautiful young women to me she comes across as more ordinary in a present day viewing of the movie. This is a very thin boring weakly-written soft-core porn version of Tarzan. The lion actually made a charge at the lead actors which is probably the movie's biggest shocking moment. There are some select animals from the local zoo. Richard Harris has his presence but he can't save this.
She is a great prop, but she can't shoulder a whole movie herself. The problem is that this depends on her to do some actual dramatic acting. Bo Derek is a voluptuous sex statue but she's a bad actress. It is so bad that there is no tension anywhere. There is limited action in most of the movie and it is almost always done poorly. Eventually, everybody is captured by native savages and Tazan comes to the rescue. Later, she is taken by him from the caravan. Jane encounters Tarzan and the Lion on the beach. Harry Holt is his assistant and 'Africa' is his native girlfriend. He had left her mother when she was young. Jane Parker (Bo Derek) travels to Africa to join his estranged father James Parker (Richard Harris) and his expedition.
I mention this because IP edits often get removed without cause, so if the stuff I mention is no longer there, someone else can restore it from the article history. Why bother? This was one of the worst, most mediocre and stupid films ever made! - AVM ( talk) 01:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Film co-writer įor some reason (possibly because he has no Wikipedia article?) the film's co-writer, Gary Goddard, was omitted from the article, even though his name is even on the poster used to illustrate this piece! I have restored his name, and also added a Production section featuring information from an article on Goddard printed in a recent issue of Filmfax, a major film history magazine with international distribution. Thank you.īetacommandBot ( talk) 06:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC) If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. Image:Tarzanyell.jpg is being used on this article.