You mean there are people stil alive who were middle-aged in the early 80s? That's truly amazing.
Herbert Asquith, the poet, said, “Youth would be an ideal state if it came a little later in life.”
In case you are interested (and I suspect you ain't), the oldest surviving American Hollywood personality is Frederica Sagor Maas, who was born in 1900, making her 110. As a beautiful young woman she began as a story editor and went on to become a screenwriter.
@pwgr2000 OMG you really really misunderstood what I meant. I was simply pointing out that movie voice. It has sounded exactly the same since then. As we all know, our voices change the older we get. Pitch, strengt in voice etc etc. I wonder if it is the same guy or someone that can sound like him today.
I guess you have to decide where you are going to throw your hat. Did you enjoy it because it was so damn dreadful you kept busting a gut at the campy ineptitude of the whole damn thing or "it wasn't nearly as bad as everyone made it out"?
I'm afraid your wrong. It's a film with the same name, characters with the same names and even some similar story elements. But that's where the similarity ends. The 1932 film set out to make an exciting jungle adventure and succeeded by using talented writers, actors and film-makers. The wankers who made this film decided not to bother with any of those things and instead managed to make a tedious overlong turkey devoid of excitement and punctuated with frequent naked breasts. Fools love it!
Bo Derk is a brilliant actress in every movie I have see her in. Her method acting and screen roll performances are the stuff of legend. It's a shame more actresses don't follow her lead. And go into porn.
OK. We're all confused. Either the subtlety of your irony escapes me or you seriously think that (a) she's a briliant actress (which she ain't) and (b) she went into porn (which she didn't).
Miles O'Keefe truly is the Great Wooden Ape. Maybe it's just my dirty mind, but when Bo tells him she's still a virgin and says 'What are you... you'd have to be, wouldn't you?' and looks at that chimpanzee, its expression seems to say....You no Tell, Me no Tell, eh?
It's a frequently asked question and is covered in "Greystoke" where Captain D'Arnot teaches Tarzan to shave with a cut-throat razor. I can't remember if Burroughs ever addressed the question in the books but I don't think so. It's just one of those things that's never addressed coz Tarzan is more handsome shaven than with a beard. Period. We are dealing with the fantasy genre here and there are wackier things in Burroughs books than explaining why and when Tarzan shaves. Being raised by apes???
Maybe he didn't need to shave. I had a friend who lived in Texas (hot place) who had barely any body hair and then moved to a cooler climate and became a Sasquatch!
@pwgr2000 actually it is in the books how and why Tarzan learns to shave........read the original novel...its truly awesome and nothing like any TV or movie adaptation of Tarzan done so far......
I bought this video just for the bo native bath scene!!!!!!! Because of that scene I swear I thought I was going to have to get windshieldwiper blades on my television. Now I'm
Miles O'Keeffe went from playing a dancing bartender (as an extra) in "Can't Stop The Music" with Bruce Jenner and The Village People to Tarzan in this movie and now has disappeared. Where's a good manager when you need them?
Forget about Bo Derek! Miles O'Keeffe is the sexiest Tarzan there ever was. Too bad his acting career started and ended with this movie. A gorgeous muscular hunk wearing nothing but a skimpy loin cloth. HOT!
This was campy and funny, but not quite as campy and funny as Bolero! What's especially funny about Bolero is Bo's dialogue at the end of the extended sex scene..........almost started crying from laughing so hard!
mmm,that beautiful tarzan appears in the movie in just a couple of shots, the rest of this terrible excuse of a movie is all about bo derek's beauty and boobs(despite her lack of lips or hips)yes, it's a sexist (excuse of a)movie
Most say Bo can't act in this movie, but that scene of her with the native tribe was intense. Those natives looked so scary and creepy acting to me like perverted sex clowns with all that paint, clowns are scary to me. You add to it that the native women of the tribe ganged up on Bo and washed her body and then painted her to look creepy like them, intense. Bo played this part very well, she made one feel scared for her. Bo cried and the natives laughed at her while washing on her.
What can I say. Some people on the planet obviously agree with you. The majority of us do not. Bo has never played anything well, simply because she can't act. That's the reason she won the Razzie Award for worst actress for this film in 1982. She also won two other Razzie awards for worst actress - "Bolero" in 1985 and "Ghosts Can't Do It" in 1991.
It has a bit of nudity in it, which in 1981 was considered capable of corrupting impressionable youth. If you are young I would suggest you watch "Scooby Doo" isntead.
Bo Derek,Miles O´Keefe:Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign : Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Im-man´u-el, God with us (Isaiah 7:14 Your Bible) And she shall bring forth a son, and you shalt call his name JESUS (Saviour): for he shall save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21) For to you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord (Luke 2:10,11) Believe in Jesus Christ and be saved you (Acts 16:31)
Wow! This is fantastic! Not only do people post comments on my videos to promote porn sites but deluded believers who think Jesus died for the sins of the world do too.
Here's one of my favourite quotes (from the film "Religulous") - Faith tries to make a virtue out of not thinking.
Preach on brother! Tell us all that we have no right to do what we do with our sexual organs. Tell us the world is only five thousand years old and all of the world's geology was laid down by The Great Flood.
Jesus says in 1 Cor 6:12; 10:23(Your Bible) that we are free to do all in this world and life with our mind, body, soul, money, family, friends, city, country and generation but someday we have to defy the consecquences (good or bad) of that (Ecclesiastes 11:9) 5000 years old???? Be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day (2 Pe 3:8) Great Flood is confirm by all serious sciences and ancient cultures.
Whew, you really bought the whole thing didn't you. I'm not sure which "serious sciences" you are talking about - the science of Ken Ham and the Creation Museum in Petersburg Kentucky, or the "silly" ones like geology, hydrology and physics who actually carry out tests on the real world. Those guys have drawn a very different conclusion about how the earth's rocks got there.
Joseph Campbell says the many Great Flood myths in ancient cultures symbolises the descent into the unconsious.
Faith in JESUS CHRIST give you the virtue of thinking the correct concept over all things in this life and over the next LIFE. (Ephesians 4:23; Phillipians 4:8; Romas 12:3 Your Bible) Believe in Jesus christ and be saved you and your house (Acts 16:31)
No, faith is believing in fairy stories (virgin birth, walking on water, raised from the dead) for the HOPE of something better in the next life, which may or may not exist. It's a gamble taken by the easily deluded.
And all of this is based on a 2000 yo mythology that doesn't really speak to the independent mind of modern man. Waving a book around as the "proof" of faith is further delusion. Whose book is correct - Koran, Upanishads, Talmud, Tripitaka?
My faith no is put in one book, miy faith is put in one Saviour, Jesus Christ. I am chistian for 25 years, and in that time, God himself had demonstrate to me that is real, and He exist, and He loves me, and He put in my heart the secquirity of eternal life, that when I die to this mortal body, I will access to the Heaven through Jesus Christ. I believe in a alive God, and all the proofs in this world confirm to me that my hope is real. I am walking sure to Heaven with my Lord.
Wow, you really have learned to spout all of that dogma with gusto. I think what you are saying is that your faith and strong belief have caused you to interpret many events in your life as the works of Jesus, when in fact that were really just events in your life. Like the rest of us.
In other words you are deluding yourself. The Bible says that God spoke to humans frequently two or three thousand years ago. He sure appears to have gone silent since then. Except to people like you that is.
Just events in my life, like the rest of you? No, my friend. When I have 17 years old, I consulted the ouija, practiced yoga, studied astrology, and practiced esoteric disciplines. I began to see demons, and feel that my soul was losed in a eternal hell. I liked to put end to my life. But one valiant man told me that there is one person in the world capable to help me: Jesus Christ, when he said that Name I perceived God like powerful giant full of eternal love and I decided to follow Him
Jesus Christ, a crutch? No, my friend. Today, the percentage of the death in a human race is 100%. I prefer one person that give a secqurity of what happend with me after I died to this mortal body, and demonstrate today in many manners details of eternal life, that all people to say only their opiniones about that. The Kingdom of Heaven no is words, but power. I know in Who I believe. My faith no is blind. I prefer those who face the eternal life head on.
Faith, be definition, is blind. Faith is accepting something because you feel or desire it to be true, without any real evidence. If there was evidence, you wouldn't need faith, because you would KNOW it was true.
This means you have just wasted 30 years of your life following a belief that you have convinced yourself is true, without any evidence at all. Very sad. Life is too precious to waste.
@pwgr2000 If following a religion makes one happy, why should it matter? If we die, and it turns out there is no afterlife, what have we lost? Nothing, we gained happiness in our life and when we die we are gone. But if there is something, and we die and suffer an eternity of pain for always needing proof, we have lost much, including the utter happiness that belief in God can bring to one.
That's a cop out. You aren't gambling. You have already decided that (a) God exists; and (b) Jesus is his son who came to die on the cross for the sins of mankind. I don't believe either of those fairy tales because there is absolutely no evidence for either one. Therefore, I am content with the possibility that when I die I will cease to exist. However, Christian believers are uncomfortable with this and feel compelled to convert us non-believers. Our message to you - Please go away.
@pwgr2000 Do you see me attempting to convert you? I refuse to believe in a tyrant god who will cast people into Hell simply for using their minds and finding a way of life that makes them happy. So if you're a good person, I believe I'll see you in Heaven. If there is no afterlife, I won't be around to care, and God gives me happiness in my life, so I have lost nothing. You're intelligent, you can make your own decisions, and all ask is that you allow me to make mine.
Then you better enlighten us which scripture you're reading, coz it sure as hell ain't the Good Book. I'm afraid your terminology is confused. You talk about "using your mind" but that avenue doesn't lead to faith. One definition of faith goes:
A scripture studies teacher asked his class whether anybody in the class could give him a definition of faith. One kid put up has hand and said. "That's easy. Faith is believing in stuff that you know just ain't true."
@pwgr2000 Scripture? Did I mention scripture? I'm sorry, I think you've mistaken me for an organized religion. I follow the Christian notions, not the faith. The Bible contradicts itself too many times to be completely true. I'm not attempting to convert you, so why are you attemtping to convert me? I am happy with my life, as I'm sure you're happy with yours. Forgive me for implying you had a brain, did you wish me not to? Your definition is gramatically incorrect, not a very good argument.
@pwgr2000 Then don't waste another day without trusting in the Truth -- Jesus Christ. Those without him are blind until God opens their eyes to the evidence of God all around them. If you don't see the physical evidence of God all around you, you are blind to what is in plain sight.
Here is "the truth". The earth was created 4.5 billion years ago and if you compare that period of time to a 12 month calendar then humans appeared at 11:30 pm on 31 December. When then would God have twiddled his or her thumbs for so damn long just to create dumb arses like us who were going to trash the place in only a few hundred years? That's "intelligent design"?
Here's another "truth". I have read The Bible and I can confidently say that God approves of slavery, rape, and murder.
In a Judeo Christian culture it's hard to avoid those lil suckers and some of them are good practical moral advice. But you have struck on a key point here. God, the morally perfect, strikes down 100,000 people without a moments hesitation. God is supposed to be superior to us but behaves like a petulant teenager, throwing a tantrum at the slightest provocation.
@pwgr2000 Thank you! I have been hoping to meet someone who'd actually say that on this site! It's about time someone other than myself thinks that here in Moab Utah!
I remember going to see this with all of the women in my family when it came and because I was a kid at the time, I didn't have a choice but I remember the audience never making a sound during the entire film unless Miles O' Keefe was doing his ultra sexy Tarzan strut and whenever this happened, every single woman in the audience screamed at the top of their lungs. My main question is, why did John Derek see fit to make his wife play the role of a sexy hungry whore in all of his terrible movies?
Did he "make her" appear that way or was that the kind of role she felt most comfortable playing? I think they collaborated to produce exploitive films that took advantage of Bo's good looks. Why? To mine the gold in them thar hills, of course.
I guess they collaborated as well on doing not soft porn but 'semi soft porn.' During an interview, John Derek said that after Bo has finished a sex scene, it got him roused and made him want her more because he could see from a distance how beautiful she looked having sex with another man. Did you see the movie they did called, "Bolero?" It was awful and a little sexually harder than their other films.
No one watches this movie to see the definitive Tarzan movie, they see it to watch a Bo Derek film and people watch Bo Derek films to see her naked. The animals, guns, jungle drums and people swinging on vines is great filler. For naked adventure with Bo Derek see also BOLERO.
Your channel shows that you are a devout fan of female beauty. So am I. But, like everything else in life, I can't turn off my discerning faculties when it comes to this pleasant activity.
As I've said below, this film runs for one hour and 52 minutes and I'm guessing there are about ten minutes of Bo's nudity in it. One must endure (1) Bo's painfully inept acting; (2) a very slowly-paced script; and (3) action sequences with absolutely no excitement for those morsels. It's just not worth it.
Fans of the genre disagree this is the worst Tarzan movie - there were so many good AND bad Tarzan movies. Worse are Tarzan, the Ape Man starring Denny Miller, Tarzan in Manhattan and Tarzan's Three Challenges with a very ill Jock Mahoney. Foreign Tarzan films are the worst: Tarzan in the Golden Grotto, Tarzan and Cobra, and Jungle Master (starring Johnny Kissmuller, Jr.) are but three of many. Unlike these films, Derek's Tarzan (indeed not good) is nicely photographed and watchable.
You have some good points, but I disagree strongly with you about "Tarzan's Three Challenges". It has great action sequences, competent acting, a believable script, and lush settings. Bo's film has none of the first three, and the temples, limestone caves, rope bridges over gorges, and thorn forests of Thailand easily beat the Sri Lankan locations in Bo's film. It sounds a little like you are basing this opinion on Mahoney's physical condition alone, which is a very narrow assessment.
"Tarzan in Manhattan" and the 1959 remake of "Tarzan, the Ape Man" are definitely amongst the worse films in the Tarzan cannon. However, there is one characteristic about Bo's film that these other two do not have, and that is that I feel manipulated and exploited watching it. It exists purely as a vehicle for Bo, and no other reason. At 112 minutes, that's quite a big ask.
Those other two films are just dull and boring but the Bo film is genuinely annoying.
I would much rather watch any of the foreign Tarzan film's you have listed than endure Bo's film again. And the simple reason is their sheer entertainment value. Bo's film has none of that "so bad it's good" charm because it's singular focus is on showing off Bo's physical assets. It's like watching a 112-minute Playboy spread with the payoffs scattered too thinly.
Those other films are gut-busting riots from beginning to end, as per Ed Woods best efforts.
"Bo's film is genuinely annoying". I am getting the impression you actually watched the entire film as opposed to fast forwarding to the parts where Bo frolics around in all her Boliciousness, hmmm. By the way, I rate Tanya Roberts' Sheena high on my list purely because she's the best looking jungle girl ever and it was entertaining.
In the More Info section at top right there is a hotlink to my web page about this film. I suggest you follow it to find out why I might be interested in watching this film all the way through.
If you read my comment I state Fans of the genre make those comments not necessarily me. TarzanMovieGuide gives Challenges 3 stars and in my opinion it was average (not best or worst), I only remember the Woody Strode fight and the action around that set which was fine. Worse were Weissmullers last 2 Tarzan films where he was fat and the natives looked like Brooklyn gangsters or Mexican Mafia. The Bo film is a Bo film and personally I like any film with naked jungle girls.
Let me get this clear, you are posting comments that contain value judgements you don't agree with that your fell should be shared with others. I happen to feel that any opinion can be analysed and it's merits discussed. I've done that regarding your comment about whether Bo's film is, or isn't, the worst Tarzan film.
Weissmuller's last two films - Huntress and Mermaids - are good campy fun. They are both light years ahead of Bo's tedious film in terms of sheer entertainment value.
But what you are not taking into consideration is that my opinions are always the correct ones. It doesn't matter if everyone else is wrong, all that means is that everyone else is wrong. It might feel less lonely to connect with them, but you have to make the sacrifice of being wrong to do that. Your choice.
"Don't you want to join us?" I was recently asked by an acquaintance when he ran across me alone after midnight in a coffeehouse that was already almost deserted. "No, I don't," I said. Franz Kafka
O'Keefe has a reasonable amount of screen time, but it is a low percentage in a long 115 min movie. He has no speaking lines and merely wanders around posing a lot, looking muscular and handsome, and making females and gay men go weak in the knees. He does get to wrestle a big snake, but the scene is badly constructed, using clumsily-edited slow motion and has almost no excitement. He also fights a native chief who looks like a rock-and-roll wrestler, with slighlty more cinematic success.
Seriously? I like Tarzan, and I read many of E R Boroughs books, including "TARZAN OF THE APES", and I rented this movie maybe 15 years or more ago, and it was very, very disappointing. Greystoke was good, it could be better with somebody stronger than Chris Lambert though!
But Bo Derek naked is the only thing interesting in this movie!
Yeah I can tell by the trailer that the only thing worth seeing is Bo Derek. I dont even believe they enable Tarzan to even have the knowledge to know how to speak, like hes some kind of stupid animal. How degrading! Had I been around during this time and went to the movis to see this, I would have asked for the my refund back after seeing this.
I don't think the film was that bad. It simply took the eroticism inherent in the original story and developed it in a way that earlier Tarzan movies could not do owing to strict censorship. And I don't think that it's porn, the sex scenes are done tastefully, not in an exploitative way.
Miles O'Keefe had a very limited career in film, which wasn't helped when he starred in this clunker. Interesting guy, though. He once worked as a prison psychologist for the Tennessee State Prison System.
Bo Derek is a decent enough actress and a beautiful woman. Miles O'Keefe is excellent as Tarzan. Since Neil Diamond "earned" a Golden Globe nomination for the Jazz Singer movie then Miles O'Keefe deserves to win a Golden Globe for Derek's Tarzan movie!
This movie was a live action trashy novel. Not really Tarzan, just an extremely erotic version of the old story. Hot chick finds hot white male model in the jungle wearing a loincloth who rescues him from the negroes wearing loincloths. The end.
Do not lesbians have the same feelings as normal people? Do lesbians not care for kittens and gnaw on soup bones? Are lesbians so different from sane people? Lesbians have jobs. They wear socks. They know their motor oil and about viscosity breakdown.
i remember this film and i also remember back in the days where there were rumors about Bo derek being jealous of tarzan's body. cause there was never ever man that came along in television that looked sexier then a woman! and that's what every woman and men thought about miles O'Keefe
bo derek is definitely full of herself and acts as if her virginity that she finally gives to tarzan is the most perfect thing in the world but I DO love the wrestling scene between tarzan and the ivory king where they fight for the primitive privilege of having jane as their mate
johny weismulers version of this movie was a 100 times better.i ot sick of bo dereks and richard harris ramblings.harris was a lot better actor.why he did this.derek was bad in everything she did
Spoken like a true jock. The only thing that matters in a movie is that it have some tits in it. If you are happy to sit through two excrutiating hours of this drivel for the pleasure of seeing Bo's breasts then you are definitely the target audience Bo and her husband had in mind when they conceived this no brainer exploitation crap.
Again, a dead heat for being high-maintenance glamour-pusses. Which of these two is the least competent as an actress? That's easy. Bo Derek has won Worst Actress THREE times - firstly for this atrocious film in 1981, secondly for "Bolero" (1984), and thirdly for "Ghosts Can't Do It" (1990). Heather Locklear has only won Worst Actress once - for "Return of Swamp Thing" in 1989.
Bo is definitely the champion at being a vacuous bimbo who can't act for beans. No one can touch her.
Better at what? Better at being high-maintenance glamour-pusses or better at being competent actresses? If you mean the former I can only say that both are highly skilled at being high maintenence glamour-pusses and I would have to call it a dead heat. If you mean their thespian skills, I can only point out that at this level of competetion - no brainer soaps and B-grade melodramas - then Ms Fairchild may outshine. I don't think she has been nominated for any Razzie awards to date.
I guess Bo Derek does okay when she has somebody to share the dialogue with. The scenes she has with her father are okay, but her monologuing with Tarzan? Dear frigging gods. How did the man keep a straight face?
As for the would-be sexy banana eating... any young woman who has to resort to something trite as that when standing around wet in front of a mostly-naked man is a lost cause.
Yes, I should not spend so much thought on what's really a nudity movie. I'll take some deep breaths now.
I've mentioned this stuff on other comments on this page. As for Bo "doing OK" in some of her scenes, here's a quote from the Wikipedia article about her:
"She has the dubious honor of winning three Golden Raspberry Worst Actress Awards for 'Tarzan, the Ape Man' (1981), 'Bolero' (1984) and 'Ghosts Can't Do It' (1990), and was nominated in 2000 as the 'Worst Actress of the Century'."
My reposted comment: I'm one of what must be TENS of people who saw this movie at the theater, going solely to get a gander at Miles O'Keefe; I knew by instinct the film itself would stink. And stink it does; it totally reeks. And yet it's sort of fun because it's SO stupid. Derek's acting is deplorable; O'Keefe out-acts her easily simply by remaining silent. I love your how your intro BOASTS it's "generally considered the worst of all of the Tarzan films."
Word, very much. Both on the quality of acting and on pwgr's comments. I think I fist saw this movie when I was around 13 and very grateful for all the nudity (O'Keefe's, _not_ Bo's!), and even then I could recognize it as a pretty shoddy movie.
Miles O'Keefe has a resonable amount of screen time in this film, despite the fact that it is principally a vehicle for Bo. Tarzan is a secondary consideration and O'Keefe has no speaking lines at all, although he grunts a couple of times. He parades around a bit looking and behaving like a mute male model. I'm told women get off on his presence a bit as hunky eye candy.
That assessment is correct; we do:) Although this film is widely panned I actually enjoyed it--Miles looked incredible and performed well in action scenes, and Bo made a plucky, spunky heroine.
Sorry, I don't get it. The film I saw definitely didn't have Bo Derek as a "plucky, spunky heroine", but as a vacant-faced lamebrain failing dismally at evoking any emotion at all.
The film was widely panned because (a) it was badly directed; (b) the script was weak; (c) the person playing the central character (Bo) gave a lousy performance; and (d) it was very long and tediously lacking in excitement.
I want to buy a few Tarzan movies and wanted to know what you think are the top five?
I do own and love GREYSTOKE:The legend of Tarzan(great film) But really know nothing of SCOTT-BARKER-HENRY-MILLER(eeeesh!)and of course Weissmuller(who seems to be most people's fav.) Thanks and as always LONG LIVE THY LORD JOHN
It's a commonly-raised criticism by non-afficionados who seem to think they have "caught out" those dumb-arse fans who surely should have spotted this glaring oversight.
Firstly, it's one of those suspension of disbelief things. Tarzan is a handsome, sexy savage hero whose appeal would be seriously diminished if he wore a beard.
Secondly, this is the glamourised world of the cinema Tarzan. In the books he learns civilised ways from Captain Paul D'Arnot. A scene in "Greystoke" depicts this.
Well, the books were written almost 100 years ago and are, by today standards, so racist it makes you jaw drop straight to the floor. I very much doubt it's possible to find non-african local humans to be beaten up by Tarzan unless you manage to construct a good explanation for a indigenous tribe made up of caucasians.
It's like the fact that Tarzan mysteriously doesn't have to shave, or comes up on his own accord with the idea of a loin cloth.
Just to clarify a technical point, in the first Tarzan novel he acquires his first loin cloth from the body of Kulonga, the African native he kills to avenge the murder of his ape-mother, Kala.
I'm still impressed by your level of knowledge on this subject, considering your Youtube channel says you are a 23 year old female. Didn't your parents warn you to stay away from that racist crap at an impressionable age?
OMG i was like 4 when i first saw this... yet at that age this was my fav movie Thanxs DAD i see the titties now that I'm older :)
gusto1978 4 months ago
Surely the low point of Richard's career. Also, am I the only one who was creeped out when the natives painted Bo's body?
lurch321 5 months ago
Isn't she a little naive to assume he must be a virgin because there no human females around? Just sayin'.
Tonyvoyager 10 months ago 6
ill never forget when i saw this at abt 7 or 8 yrs old. i thought bo derek was so sexy. the scene where she was touching him made me go crazy.
vidaa82 10 months ago 9
You mean you had a well-developed appreciation of erotic sensuality at the age of 7 or 8?
pwgr2000 10 months ago 33
This movie was AWFUL!!!
rosario508 11 months ago
Malko of the jungle
lightnessss 11 months ago
Bo Derek must be the most beautiful woman to ever walk the planet. Imagine what her kids would have looked like, if she'd had any.
jolpenrose 11 months ago 2
How much Keefe is in this movie anyway?
Miles O' Keefe.
practicalwhacktical 11 months ago 6
Was that a porno? Like the kind they work really hard on to make it seem like a movie, just with real sex in it??? I was getting that drift....
snakedemon11 1 year ago
the cartoon version sounds better
cutie235100 1 year ago
MPPPHHH....GOD if the girls back home could see me now! HYSTERICAL :-O
mybluebelly 1 year ago
Seriously! How old must that movievoice guy be today if he started back then!
fuelfeeder 1 year ago 3
You mean there are people stil alive who were middle-aged in the early 80s? That's truly amazing.
Herbert Asquith, the poet, said, “Youth would be an ideal state if it came a little later in life.”
In case you are interested (and I suspect you ain't), the oldest surviving American Hollywood personality is Frederica Sagor Maas, who was born in 1900, making her 110. As a beautiful young woman she began as a story editor and went on to become a screenwriter.
Dude, youth ain''t everything.
pwgr2000 1 year ago 2
@pwgr2000 OMG you really really misunderstood what I meant. I was simply pointing out that movie voice. It has sounded exactly the same since then. As we all know, our voices change the older we get. Pitch, strengt in voice etc etc. I wonder if it is the same guy or someone that can sound like him today.
fuelfeeder 1 year ago
I guess you have to decide where you are going to throw your hat. Did you enjoy it because it was so damn dreadful you kept busting a gut at the campy ineptitude of the whole damn thing or "it wasn't nearly as bad as everyone made it out"?
pwgr2000 1 year ago
I wonder what ERB would think of this? He would probably just luagh and be amused at how silly this is.
BandakaKush 1 year ago
Wrong! He would have sued them for everything they had.
pwgr2000 1 year ago
dis is a remake of the 1932 classic TARZAN the ape man
dcspartan117 1 year ago
I'm afraid your wrong. It's a film with the same name, characters with the same names and even some similar story elements. But that's where the similarity ends. The 1932 film set out to make an exciting jungle adventure and succeeded by using talented writers, actors and film-makers. The wankers who made this film decided not to bother with any of those things and instead managed to make a tedious overlong turkey devoid of excitement and punctuated with frequent naked breasts. Fools love it!
pwgr2000 1 year ago
OMG Miles O'Keeffe was the HOTTEST creature on Planet Earth!!!!!
dwood37 1 year ago
Bo Derk is a brilliant actress in every movie I have see her in. Her method acting and screen roll performances are the stuff of legend. It's a shame more actresses don't follow her lead. And go into porn.
Bristow42 1 year ago
OK. We're all confused. Either the subtlety of your irony escapes me or you seriously think that (a) she's a briliant actress (which she ain't) and (b) she went into porn (which she didn't).
pwgr2000 1 year ago
That was as lame as that little bitty banana she was nibbling on during her flirt scene!
GREYSTOKE RULED!
MarcusDarling4026 1 year ago
Evidently, sometimes a banana is not just a banana.
JGC1010 1 year ago
Of all things I have just inherited a VHS copy of this film and decided to watch it this afternoon...
ABSOLUTE FILTH! NOTHING BUT SMUT AND PORN!
...I'd best keep it safe! ^_^
SamusDrake 1 year ago
I think you better get out more. According to Wikipedia:
"Pornography or porn is the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction."
The film (and I do hesitate to call it that) in question merely has some mild nudity.
pwgr2000 1 year ago
@pwgr2000
No, really? You don't say! I'm glad you're here to tell us these things!
CHEWIE, TAKE THE PROFESSOR AND PLUG HIM INTO THE HYPERDRIVE!!!
SamusDrake 1 year ago
"Really out of context, but in what part of a conversation is she in 1:41?"
Why is she saying "I'm still a virgin"? LOL
*insert saxophone solo*
JIHOJIJO 1 year ago
Miles O'Keefe truly is the Great Wooden Ape. Maybe it's just my dirty mind, but when Bo tells him she's still a virgin and says 'What are you... you'd have to be, wouldn't you?' and looks at that chimpanzee, its expression seems to say....You no Tell, Me no Tell, eh?
TomthatiscalledTom 1 year ago
Why, Richard Harris, Why?!
matt484991 1 year ago
JIM MORRISON LIVES!!
Kelly14UK 1 year ago
*water washes the loincloth away* tee hee ^^
kosmonaut5 1 year ago
Some of the worst acting ever.
Orion6699 1 year ago
ever wondered how tarzan shaved? just thinking.....
nomadnametab 1 year ago
It's a frequently asked question and is covered in "Greystoke" where Captain D'Arnot teaches Tarzan to shave with a cut-throat razor. I can't remember if Burroughs ever addressed the question in the books but I don't think so. It's just one of those things that's never addressed coz Tarzan is more handsome shaven than with a beard. Period. We are dealing with the fantasy genre here and there are wackier things in Burroughs books than explaining why and when Tarzan shaves. Being raised by apes???
pwgr2000 1 year ago
Maybe he didn't need to shave. I had a friend who lived in Texas (hot place) who had barely any body hair and then moved to a cooler climate and became a Sasquatch!
wallaceminda 1 year ago
@pwgr2000 actually it is in the books how and why Tarzan learns to shave........read the original novel...its truly awesome and nothing like any TV or movie adaptation of Tarzan done so far......
DEMARTINI2 1 year ago
Super BOMB!!!
THX1205 1 year ago
Tarzan The Apeman TONIGHT ON SKINNEMAX !!!!!!!
123456cephiro 1 year ago
Professor Dumbledore: Of The Jungle! *Laughs*
Featster74 1 year ago
Is anyone gonna upload this one!?? :)
Joselitorv79 1 year ago
I bought this video just for the bo native bath scene!!!!!!! Because of that scene I swear I thought I was going to have to get windshieldwiper blades on my television. Now I'm
going to have to get them on my computer!!!!!
Ubine70 1 year ago 2
a cara do tarzan vendo a jane comendo uma banana!!!!!!!!!!kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
zerlinda0 1 year ago
Bo Derek was crap. Her movies were all turds. The only reason she didn't taint '10", is, she wasn't in it long enough to hurt it.
castletriglav 1 year ago
Miles Okeefe has a great genetics for lean muscle,like Frank Zane.
resnoex1 1 year ago 2
awesome but wasn't this in 1982?
doesn't matter as long as you can pirate it
OrigamiNintendo 1 year ago
When the natives were bathing her I thought I was going to have to get windshield
wiper blades on my television screen !!!!!!!!!!!! That was erotic
Ubine70 1 year ago
Miles O'Keeffe went from playing a dancing bartender (as an extra) in "Can't Stop The Music" with Bruce Jenner and The Village People to Tarzan in this movie and now has disappeared. Where's a good manager when you need them?
spectrumifs 1 year ago
Forget about Bo Derek! Miles O'Keeffe is the sexiest Tarzan there ever was. Too bad his acting career started and ended with this movie. A gorgeous muscular hunk wearing nothing but a skimpy loin cloth. HOT!
hardthrob 1 year ago 3
This was campy and funny, but not quite as campy and funny as Bolero! What's especially funny about Bolero is Bo's dialogue at the end of the extended sex scene..........almost started crying from laughing so hard!
lurch321 1 year ago
more high quality hollywood material.
roaringwaterbay 1 year ago
any sex scenes?
xanafanadu 1 year ago
Not really. It is all just low-key nudity.
pwgr2000 1 year ago
worst movie ever.
KiCreativeStudios 1 year ago
@KiCreativeStudios I remember the movie being terrrible, but Bo Derek caught my attention each second...
KronprinzAdam 1 year ago
Why is everyone talking about religion? On a TARZAN section.
Can't I watch a movie in peace without Bible kissers everywhere? :P
SodapopXxGirl 1 year ago 2
Believers are always looking for a forum they can highjack to spread the "good news". I'm also happy to give them hell wherever I can.
pwgr2000 1 year ago
@pwgr2000 amen lol!
LVSWTZ 1 year ago
crap
08noiram08 1 year ago
Bo Derek is a virgin in this movie
wwfgold8 1 year ago
well on an off topic, this movie is good, made better by bo dereks ability to play a girl in a 115 minute wet t-shirt contest lol
warwookie 1 year ago 3
Hallelujah brother!
pwgr2000 1 year ago
Love your responses to osotoron the moron.
Peace.
WDNNR
WeDontNeedNoReligion 1 year ago
Bo was smokin. Wish she could act. Or do I?
willprich 2 years ago
Did she actually get boned in this or what?...
FMAStudent 2 years ago
By "boned" I assume you mean penetrated by Tarzan's penis. No, this doesn't happen in this film, but they do kiss a bit - lips only, no tongue.
If this is your bag, then I suggest that you run to the nearest video store without delay. The mysteries of life await you.
pwgr2000 2 years ago
mmm,that beautiful tarzan appears in the movie in just a couple of shots, the rest of this terrible excuse of a movie is all about bo derek's beauty and boobs(despite her lack of lips or hips)yes, it's a sexist (excuse of a)movie
calinfus80s 2 years ago
Most say Bo can't act in this movie, but that scene of her with the native tribe was intense. Those natives looked so scary and creepy acting to me like perverted sex clowns with all that paint, clowns are scary to me. You add to it that the native women of the tribe ganged up on Bo and washed her body and then painted her to look creepy like them, intense. Bo played this part very well, she made one feel scared for her. Bo cried and the natives laughed at her while washing on her.
astronnight 2 years ago 7
What can I say. Some people on the planet obviously agree with you. The majority of us do not. Bo has never played anything well, simply because she can't act. That's the reason she won the Razzie Award for worst actress for this film in 1982. She also won two other Razzie awards for worst actress - "Bolero" in 1985 and "Ghosts Can't Do It" in 1991.
That's a pretty bad track record.
pwgr2000 2 years ago
could you tell me why this is rated R becaue most trzan movies are for kids
heros9200 2 years ago
It has a bit of nudity in it, which in 1981 was considered capable of corrupting impressionable youth. If you are young I would suggest you watch "Scooby Doo" isntead.
pwgr2000 2 years ago
woooo i am not that young scooby doo is for kids i am 15 years old i would never make it threw scooby doo i would shit my pants
heros9200 2 years ago 2
Bo Derek,Miles O´Keefe:Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign : Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Im-man´u-el, God with us (Isaiah 7:14 Your Bible) And she shall bring forth a son, and you shalt call his name JESUS (Saviour): for he shall save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21) For to you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord (Luke 2:10,11) Believe in Jesus Christ and be saved you (Acts 16:31)
osotoron 2 years ago
Wow! This is fantastic! Not only do people post comments on my videos to promote porn sites but deluded believers who think Jesus died for the sins of the world do too.
Here's one of my favourite quotes (from the film "Religulous") - Faith tries to make a virtue out of not thinking.
Preach on brother! Tell us all that we have no right to do what we do with our sexual organs. Tell us the world is only five thousand years old and all of the world's geology was laid down by The Great Flood.
pwgr2000 2 years ago
Jesus says in 1 Cor 6:12; 10:23(Your Bible) that we are free to do all in this world and life with our mind, body, soul, money, family, friends, city, country and generation but someday we have to defy the consecquences (good or bad) of that (Ecclesiastes 11:9) 5000 years old???? Be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day (2 Pe 3:8) Great Flood is confirm by all serious sciences and ancient cultures.
osotoron 2 years ago
Whew, you really bought the whole thing didn't you. I'm not sure which "serious sciences" you are talking about - the science of Ken Ham and the Creation Museum in Petersburg Kentucky, or the "silly" ones like geology, hydrology and physics who actually carry out tests on the real world. Those guys have drawn a very different conclusion about how the earth's rocks got there.
Joseph Campbell says the many Great Flood myths in ancient cultures symbolises the descent into the unconsious.
pwgr2000 2 years ago
Faith in JESUS CHRIST give you the virtue of thinking the correct concept over all things in this life and over the next LIFE. (Ephesians 4:23; Phillipians 4:8; Romas 12:3 Your Bible) Believe in Jesus christ and be saved you and your house (Acts 16:31)
osotoron 2 years ago
No, faith is believing in fairy stories (virgin birth, walking on water, raised from the dead) for the HOPE of something better in the next life, which may or may not exist. It's a gamble taken by the easily deluded.
And all of this is based on a 2000 yo mythology that doesn't really speak to the independent mind of modern man. Waving a book around as the "proof" of faith is further delusion. Whose book is correct - Koran, Upanishads, Talmud, Tripitaka?
Only yours is - of course!
pwgr2000 2 years ago
My faith no is put in one book, miy faith is put in one Saviour, Jesus Christ. I am chistian for 25 years, and in that time, God himself had demonstrate to me that is real, and He exist, and He loves me, and He put in my heart the secquirity of eternal life, that when I die to this mortal body, I will access to the Heaven through Jesus Christ. I believe in a alive God, and all the proofs in this world confirm to me that my hope is real. I am walking sure to Heaven with my Lord.
osotoron 2 years ago
Wow, you really have learned to spout all of that dogma with gusto. I think what you are saying is that your faith and strong belief have caused you to interpret many events in your life as the works of Jesus, when in fact that were really just events in your life. Like the rest of us.
In other words you are deluding yourself. The Bible says that God spoke to humans frequently two or three thousand years ago. He sure appears to have gone silent since then. Except to people like you that is.
pwgr2000 2 years ago
Just events in my life, like the rest of you? No, my friend. When I have 17 years old, I consulted the ouija, practiced yoga, studied astrology, and practiced esoteric disciplines. I began to see demons, and feel that my soul was losed in a eternal hell. I liked to put end to my life. But one valiant man told me that there is one person in the world capable to help me: Jesus Christ, when he said that Name I perceived God like powerful giant full of eternal love and I decided to follow Him
osotoron 2 years ago
A common story the world over - gullible person clutches at superstition during time of crisis. Most people call it "looking for a crutch".
Sorry, I prefer those who face life head on.
pwgr2000 2 years ago 2
Jesus Christ, a crutch? No, my friend. Today, the percentage of the death in a human race is 100%. I prefer one person that give a secqurity of what happend with me after I died to this mortal body, and demonstrate today in many manners details of eternal life, that all people to say only their opiniones about that. The Kingdom of Heaven no is words, but power. I know in Who I believe. My faith no is blind. I prefer those who face the eternal life head on.
osotoron 2 years ago
Faith, be definition, is blind. Faith is accepting something because you feel or desire it to be true, without any real evidence. If there was evidence, you wouldn't need faith, because you would KNOW it was true.
This means you have just wasted 30 years of your life following a belief that you have convinced yourself is true, without any evidence at all. Very sad. Life is too precious to waste.
pwgr2000 1 year ago 2
@pwgr2000 If following a religion makes one happy, why should it matter? If we die, and it turns out there is no afterlife, what have we lost? Nothing, we gained happiness in our life and when we die we are gone. But if there is something, and we die and suffer an eternity of pain for always needing proof, we have lost much, including the utter happiness that belief in God can bring to one.
dustygirl122 1 year ago
That's a cop out. You aren't gambling. You have already decided that (a) God exists; and (b) Jesus is his son who came to die on the cross for the sins of mankind. I don't believe either of those fairy tales because there is absolutely no evidence for either one. Therefore, I am content with the possibility that when I die I will cease to exist. However, Christian believers are uncomfortable with this and feel compelled to convert us non-believers. Our message to you - Please go away.
pwgr2000 1 year ago
@pwgr2000 Do you see me attempting to convert you? I refuse to believe in a tyrant god who will cast people into Hell simply for using their minds and finding a way of life that makes them happy. So if you're a good person, I believe I'll see you in Heaven. If there is no afterlife, I won't be around to care, and God gives me happiness in my life, so I have lost nothing. You're intelligent, you can make your own decisions, and all ask is that you allow me to make mine.
dustygirl122 1 year ago
Then you better enlighten us which scripture you're reading, coz it sure as hell ain't the Good Book. I'm afraid your terminology is confused. You talk about "using your mind" but that avenue doesn't lead to faith. One definition of faith goes:
A scripture studies teacher asked his class whether anybody in the class could give him a definition of faith. One kid put up has hand and said. "That's easy. Faith is believing in stuff that you know just ain't true."
Self delusion won't cut it.
pwgr2000 1 year ago
@pwgr2000 Scripture? Did I mention scripture? I'm sorry, I think you've mistaken me for an organized religion. I follow the Christian notions, not the faith. The Bible contradicts itself too many times to be completely true. I'm not attempting to convert you, so why are you attemtping to convert me? I am happy with my life, as I'm sure you're happy with yours. Forgive me for implying you had a brain, did you wish me not to? Your definition is gramatically incorrect, not a very good argument.
dustygirl122 1 year ago
@pwgr2000 That was brilliant. You may like the book HOW TO BELIEVE IN NOTHING AND SET YOURSELF FREE.
breezeman199 1 year ago
@pwgr2000 Then don't waste another day without trusting in the Truth -- Jesus Christ. Those without him are blind until God opens their eyes to the evidence of God all around them. If you don't see the physical evidence of God all around you, you are blind to what is in plain sight.
STRUTTER777U 1 year ago
Here is "the truth". The earth was created 4.5 billion years ago and if you compare that period of time to a 12 month calendar then humans appeared at 11:30 pm on 31 December. When then would God have twiddled his or her thumbs for so damn long just to create dumb arses like us who were going to trash the place in only a few hundred years? That's "intelligent design"?
Here's another "truth". I have read The Bible and I can confidently say that God approves of slavery, rape, and murder.
pwgr2000 1 year ago
@pwgr2000 Obviously you never read the Ten Commandments.
STRUTTER777U 1 year ago
In a Judeo Christian culture it's hard to avoid those lil suckers and some of them are good practical moral advice. But you have struck on a key point here. God, the morally perfect, strikes down 100,000 people without a moments hesitation. God is supposed to be superior to us but behaves like a petulant teenager, throwing a tantrum at the slightest provocation.
pwgr2000 11 months ago
@pwgr2000 Thank you! I have been hoping to meet someone who'd actually say that on this site! It's about time someone other than myself thinks that here in Moab Utah!
Chris80619 1 year ago
OMG dude... this is about tarzan, take ur jesus bullshit somewhere else. seriously?
KakashiHatake212 1 year ago 3
@osotoron
I say amen to that
ewffaces7 1 year ago
@osotoron jezus christ wad does god have ta do wit anything!its tarzan for pets sake
shanegx2009 1 year ago
I remember going to see this with all of the women in my family when it came and because I was a kid at the time, I didn't have a choice but I remember the audience never making a sound during the entire film unless Miles O' Keefe was doing his ultra sexy Tarzan strut and whenever this happened, every single woman in the audience screamed at the top of their lungs. My main question is, why did John Derek see fit to make his wife play the role of a sexy hungry whore in all of his terrible movies?
in2theabyss17 2 years ago 4
Did he "make her" appear that way or was that the kind of role she felt most comfortable playing? I think they collaborated to produce exploitive films that took advantage of Bo's good looks. Why? To mine the gold in them thar hills, of course.
pwgr2000 2 years ago
I guess they collaborated as well on doing not soft porn but 'semi soft porn.' During an interview, John Derek said that after Bo has finished a sex scene, it got him roused and made him want her more because he could see from a distance how beautiful she looked having sex with another man. Did you see the movie they did called, "Bolero?" It was awful and a little sexually harder than their other films.
in2theabyss17 2 years ago 3
No. This is the only Bo film I've ever seen, and that was one too many.
pwgr2000 2 years ago
No one watches this movie to see the definitive Tarzan movie, they see it to watch a Bo Derek film and people watch Bo Derek films to see her naked. The animals, guns, jungle drums and people swinging on vines is great filler. For naked adventure with Bo Derek see also BOLERO.
Ramubay 2 years ago 2
Your channel shows that you are a devout fan of female beauty. So am I. But, like everything else in life, I can't turn off my discerning faculties when it comes to this pleasant activity.
As I've said below, this film runs for one hour and 52 minutes and I'm guessing there are about ten minutes of Bo's nudity in it. One must endure (1) Bo's painfully inept acting; (2) a very slowly-paced script; and (3) action sequences with absolutely no excitement for those morsels. It's just not worth it.
pwgr2000 2 years ago
Fans of the genre disagree this is the worst Tarzan movie - there were so many good AND bad Tarzan movies. Worse are Tarzan, the Ape Man starring Denny Miller, Tarzan in Manhattan and Tarzan's Three Challenges with a very ill Jock Mahoney. Foreign Tarzan films are the worst: Tarzan in the Golden Grotto, Tarzan and Cobra, and Jungle Master (starring Johnny Kissmuller, Jr.) are but three of many. Unlike these films, Derek's Tarzan (indeed not good) is nicely photographed and watchable.
ChristineNguyenZone 2 years ago
You have some good points, but I disagree strongly with you about "Tarzan's Three Challenges". It has great action sequences, competent acting, a believable script, and lush settings. Bo's film has none of the first three, and the temples, limestone caves, rope bridges over gorges, and thorn forests of Thailand easily beat the Sri Lankan locations in Bo's film. It sounds a little like you are basing this opinion on Mahoney's physical condition alone, which is a very narrow assessment.
pwgr2000 2 years ago
"Tarzan in Manhattan" and the 1959 remake of "Tarzan, the Ape Man" are definitely amongst the worse films in the Tarzan cannon. However, there is one characteristic about Bo's film that these other two do not have, and that is that I feel manipulated and exploited watching it. It exists purely as a vehicle for Bo, and no other reason. At 112 minutes, that's quite a big ask.
Those other two films are just dull and boring but the Bo film is genuinely annoying.
pwgr2000 2 years ago
I would much rather watch any of the foreign Tarzan film's you have listed than endure Bo's film again. And the simple reason is their sheer entertainment value. Bo's film has none of that "so bad it's good" charm because it's singular focus is on showing off Bo's physical assets. It's like watching a 112-minute Playboy spread with the payoffs scattered too thinly.
Those other films are gut-busting riots from beginning to end, as per Ed Woods best efforts.
pwgr2000 2 years ago
"Bo's film is genuinely annoying". I am getting the impression you actually watched the entire film as opposed to fast forwarding to the parts where Bo frolics around in all her Boliciousness, hmmm. By the way, I rate Tanya Roberts' Sheena high on my list purely because she's the best looking jungle girl ever and it was entertaining.
ChristineNguyenZone 2 years ago 2
In the More Info section at top right there is a hotlink to my web page about this film. I suggest you follow it to find out why I might be interested in watching this film all the way through.
pwgr2000 2 years ago
If you read my comment I state Fans of the genre make those comments not necessarily me. TarzanMovieGuide gives Challenges 3 stars and in my opinion it was average (not best or worst), I only remember the Woody Strode fight and the action around that set which was fine. Worse were Weissmullers last 2 Tarzan films where he was fat and the natives looked like Brooklyn gangsters or Mexican Mafia. The Bo film is a Bo film and personally I like any film with naked jungle girls.
ChristineNguyenZone 2 years ago 2
Let me get this clear, you are posting comments that contain value judgements you don't agree with that your fell should be shared with others. I happen to feel that any opinion can be analysed and it's merits discussed. I've done that regarding your comment about whether Bo's film is, or isn't, the worst Tarzan film.
Weissmuller's last two films - Huntress and Mermaids - are good campy fun. They are both light years ahead of Bo's tedious film in terms of sheer entertainment value.
pwgr2000 2 years ago
But what you are not taking into consideration is that my opinions are always the correct ones. It doesn't matter if everyone else is wrong, all that means is that everyone else is wrong. It might feel less lonely to connect with them, but you have to make the sacrifice of being wrong to do that. Your choice.
ChristineNguyenZone 2 years ago 4
"Don't you want to join us?" I was recently asked by an acquaintance when he ran across me alone after midnight in a coffeehouse that was already almost deserted. "No, I don't," I said. Franz Kafka
pwgr2000 2 years ago
An absolutely gorgeous wet woman. Beautiful wet long hair.
mfdprd 2 years ago
O'Keefe has a reasonable amount of screen time, but it is a low percentage in a long 115 min movie. He has no speaking lines and merely wanders around posing a lot, looking muscular and handsome, and making females and gay men go weak in the knees. He does get to wrestle a big snake, but the scene is badly constructed, using clumsily-edited slow motion and has almost no excitement. He also fights a native chief who looks like a rock-and-roll wrestler, with slighlty more cinematic success.
pwgr2000 2 years ago
i just love this movie wish someone would upload it and miles o' keefe is a very sexy man
katlynn7845 2 years ago 2
Seriously? I like Tarzan, and I read many of E R Boroughs books, including "TARZAN OF THE APES", and I rented this movie maybe 15 years or more ago, and it was very, very disappointing. Greystoke was good, it could be better with somebody stronger than Chris Lambert though!
But Bo Derek naked is the only thing interesting in this movie!
rubroxato88 2 years ago 2
Yeah I can tell by the trailer that the only thing worth seeing is Bo Derek. I dont even believe they enable Tarzan to even have the knowledge to know how to speak, like hes some kind of stupid animal. How degrading! Had I been around during this time and went to the movis to see this, I would have asked for the my refund back after seeing this.
Tampabruh 2 years ago
I don't think the film was that bad. It simply took the eroticism inherent in the original story and developed it in a way that earlier Tarzan movies could not do owing to strict censorship. And I don't think that it's porn, the sex scenes are done tastefully, not in an exploitative way.
atticana 2 years ago 2
Bo was practically begging him to do her. ;D
Uouttooo 2 years ago 2
SOFT PORN!!
sign84 2 years ago
could u please put the part where tarzan fights the snake and has sex with jane
robertjgreco 2 years ago
Miles O'Keefe had a very limited career in film, which wasn't helped when he starred in this clunker. Interesting guy, though. He once worked as a prison psychologist for the Tennessee State Prison System.
GDR352 2 years ago
Bo Derek is a decent enough actress and a beautiful woman. Miles O'Keefe is excellent as Tarzan. Since Neil Diamond "earned" a Golden Globe nomination for the Jazz Singer movie then Miles O'Keefe deserves to win a Golden Globe for Derek's Tarzan movie!
Minotaurus2 2 years ago
A great white man suposedly over 9000' tall
BurnRoddy 2 years ago
At least Miles O´Keefe looked the part.
No other actor has ever looked so much like Tarzan as O´Keefe!
At least if you judge by the comic-drawings of Bourne Hogarth!
ShakinJonny 2 years ago
nice move! where can i get this one? can you watch it on the internet or rent it at blockbuster?
TheiFrancesshow 2 years ago
did this tarzan speak english? i mean in the disney version jane teaches tarzan how to talk i thought.
TheiFrancesshow 2 years ago
nice movie.
javoman13 2 years ago 3
miles o keefe made my jaw drop O.o
taekwondogrl006 2 years ago 10
soo hot oh my god
longhrons1 2 years ago
I remember this movie. It was just a soft core porn movie or a bad trashy novel. First time I ever saw a naked woman being painted!
holeymoley24 2 years ago
The term "soft core porn" is frequently used for this film by people who are actually talking about "nudity".
Is that what you mean?
pwgr2000 2 years ago
This movie was a live action trashy novel. Not really Tarzan, just an extremely erotic version of the old story. Hot chick finds hot white male model in the jungle wearing a loincloth who rescues him from the negroes wearing loincloths. The end.
holeymoley24 2 years ago
tarzan la bestia! el follador!
SEGUIMOSVIVOS 2 years ago
Lol was it a prono? HAhHA
"I'm still a virgin"
Tarzan: O_o
"THis is interesting"
Tarzan: o_O
HAhaHAHAH
dewinmoonl 2 years ago 5
Do not lesbians have the same feelings as normal people? Do lesbians not care for kittens and gnaw on soup bones? Are lesbians so different from sane people? Lesbians have jobs. They wear socks. They know their motor oil and about viscosity breakdown.
OneDollarBook 2 years ago
Lesbians are vampires
adamfaramir 2 years ago
i remember this film and i also remember back in the days where there were rumors about Bo derek being jealous of tarzan's body. cause there was never ever man that came along in television that looked sexier then a woman! and that's what every woman and men thought about miles O'Keefe
CE818 2 years ago 2
bo derek is definitely full of herself and acts as if her virginity that she finally gives to tarzan is the most perfect thing in the world but I DO love the wrestling scene between tarzan and the ivory king where they fight for the primitive privilege of having jane as their mate
ronwelker8 2 years ago
I remember this one Bo gets screwed by one of the african natives.. does any one remember that part of Bo.
aman4peace 2 years ago
Sorry, that scene isn't in this film.
pwgr2000 2 years ago
When I was a sixth grader, my ideal of a man would be Miles O'Keefe. He was the ideal hunk at the time and I still dream of him from this movie. OMG!
yellowbird39tc 2 years ago 2
THIS MOVIE WAS A BOMB!!!!
brendabaloyan 2 years ago
Bo is hot... and Miles... superhot...
santoperuano 2 years ago 4
johny weismulers version of this movie was a 100 times better.i ot sick of bo dereks and richard harris ramblings.harris was a lot better actor.why he did this.derek was bad in everything she did
savammy 2 years ago
so it's a useless film?? trailor looks quite good
Anabanana399 2 years ago
Can't act but at least she had great tits and didn't mind getting them out!!
Designerboy66 2 years ago
Spoken like a true jock. The only thing that matters in a movie is that it have some tits in it. If you are happy to sit through two excrutiating hours of this drivel for the pleasure of seeing Bo's breasts then you are definitely the target audience Bo and her husband had in mind when they conceived this no brainer exploitation crap.
pwgr2000 2 years ago
I never said I have watched the movie. Just seeing that awful trailer is enough!!
Designerboy66 2 years ago
Heather locklear or Bo Derek?
moviephoneguy 2 years ago
Again, a dead heat for being high-maintenance glamour-pusses. Which of these two is the least competent as an actress? That's easy. Bo Derek has won Worst Actress THREE times - firstly for this atrocious film in 1981, secondly for "Bolero" (1984), and thirdly for "Ghosts Can't Do It" (1990). Heather Locklear has only won Worst Actress once - for "Return of Swamp Thing" in 1989.
Bo is definitely the champion at being a vacuous bimbo who can't act for beans. No one can touch her.
pwgr2000 2 years ago
Ah yes, the cinematic classic in which Bo Derek wins a one-woman Wet T-shirt contest.
Biprov 2 years ago
who do think is better morgan fairchild or bo derek????
nana67676 2 years ago
Better at what? Better at being high-maintenance glamour-pusses or better at being competent actresses? If you mean the former I can only say that both are highly skilled at being high maintenence glamour-pusses and I would have to call it a dead heat. If you mean their thespian skills, I can only point out that at this level of competetion - no brainer soaps and B-grade melodramas - then Ms Fairchild may outshine. I don't think she has been nominated for any Razzie awards to date.
pwgr2000 2 years ago
Bo!
soupful 2 years ago
I guess Bo Derek does okay when she has somebody to share the dialogue with. The scenes she has with her father are okay, but her monologuing with Tarzan? Dear frigging gods. How did the man keep a straight face?
As for the would-be sexy banana eating... any young woman who has to resort to something trite as that when standing around wet in front of a mostly-naked man is a lost cause.
Yes, I should not spend so much thought on what's really a nudity movie. I'll take some deep breaths now.
RabiaB 2 years ago
I've mentioned this stuff on other comments on this page. As for Bo "doing OK" in some of her scenes, here's a quote from the Wikipedia article about her:
"She has the dubious honor of winning three Golden Raspberry Worst Actress Awards for 'Tarzan, the Ape Man' (1981), 'Bolero' (1984) and 'Ghosts Can't Do It' (1990), and was nominated in 2000 as the 'Worst Actress of the Century'."
pwgr2000 2 years ago
Does anybody have the scene where Bo Derek is getting washed like a horse?
lkgrave 3 years ago
My reposted comment: I'm one of what must be TENS of people who saw this movie at the theater, going solely to get a gander at Miles O'Keefe; I knew by instinct the film itself would stink. And stink it does; it totally reeks. And yet it's sort of fun because it's SO stupid. Derek's acting is deplorable; O'Keefe out-acts her easily simply by remaining silent. I love your how your intro BOASTS it's "generally considered the worst of all of the Tarzan films."
Your notes are a hoot.
rayyblon 3 years ago
Word, very much. Both on the quality of acting and on pwgr's comments. I think I fist saw this movie when I was around 13 and very grateful for all the nudity (O'Keefe's, _not_ Bo's!), and even then I could recognize it as a pretty shoddy movie.
RabiaB 2 years ago
Miles O'Keefe has a resonable amount of screen time in this film, despite the fact that it is principally a vehicle for Bo. Tarzan is a secondary consideration and O'Keefe has no speaking lines at all, although he grunts a couple of times. He parades around a bit looking and behaving like a mute male model. I'm told women get off on his presence a bit as hunky eye candy.
pwgr2000 3 years ago
That assessment is correct; we do:) Although this film is widely panned I actually enjoyed it--Miles looked incredible and performed well in action scenes, and Bo made a plucky, spunky heroine.
authoress1 3 years ago 2
Sorry, I don't get it. The film I saw definitely didn't have Bo Derek as a "plucky, spunky heroine", but as a vacant-faced lamebrain failing dismally at evoking any emotion at all.
The film was widely panned because (a) it was badly directed; (b) the script was weak; (c) the person playing the central character (Bo) gave a lousy performance; and (d) it was very long and tediously lacking in excitement.
pwgr2000 3 years ago
Hello pwgr2000
I want to buy a few Tarzan movies and wanted to know what you think are the top five?
I do own and love GREYSTOKE:The legend of Tarzan(great film) But really know nothing of SCOTT-BARKER-HENRY-MILLER(eeeesh!)and of course Weissmuller(who seems to be most people's fav.) Thanks and as always LONG LIVE THY LORD JOHN
clintbronson5 2 years ago
Do you want to tell me why Tarzan doesn't have a beard? I guess razors were a natural part of the jungle?.......Right?
bigboy45454545 3 years ago
It's a commonly-raised criticism by non-afficionados who seem to think they have "caught out" those dumb-arse fans who surely should have spotted this glaring oversight.
Firstly, it's one of those suspension of disbelief things. Tarzan is a handsome, sexy savage hero whose appeal would be seriously diminished if he wore a beard.
Secondly, this is the glamourised world of the cinema Tarzan. In the books he learns civilised ways from Captain Paul D'Arnot. A scene in "Greystoke" depicts this.
pwgr2000 3 years ago
racist ass movie. but funny. i prefer miles o'keefe in "CAVE DWELLERS"
alexeirominov 3 years ago
Well, the books were written almost 100 years ago and are, by today standards, so racist it makes you jaw drop straight to the floor. I very much doubt it's possible to find non-african local humans to be beaten up by Tarzan unless you manage to construct a good explanation for a indigenous tribe made up of caucasians.
It's like the fact that Tarzan mysteriously doesn't have to shave, or comes up on his own accord with the idea of a loin cloth.
RabiaB 2 years ago
Just to clarify a technical point, in the first Tarzan novel he acquires his first loin cloth from the body of Kulonga, the African native he kills to avenge the murder of his ape-mother, Kala.
pwgr2000 2 years ago
You caught me, thanks! Obviously I have to re-read the books one of these days.
RabiaB 2 years ago
I'm still impressed by your level of knowledge on this subject, considering your Youtube channel says you are a 23 year old female. Didn't your parents warn you to stay away from that racist crap at an impressionable age?
pwgr2000 2 years ago