Since there's nowhere else to lodge this complaint, I just wanted to say I was annoyed years ago by this part of his Tarzan (2013) review
He claims this movie plagiarized an element specific to the Disney version by naming their villain Clayton when John Clayton is Tarzan's birth name in the books. He calls it an "Easter Egg" that Disney used the name Clayton for their version's villain, and even calls the writers of this movie "completely ignorant of the source material".
But in the books, THERE IS an antagonist named
William Clayton, who is a cousin of Tarzan, the tension being that if Tarzan ever revealed himself to be alive and claimed his birthright, he would be the Lord Greystoke, not his cousin Clayton, as well as their competition for Jane. You might argue that Clayton in the books is more of a rival than an outright villain, and the books do in fact have a redemption arc for him, so you could call this portrayal of Clayton influenced by the Disney version, but there was in fact in the books a different Clayton who was an antagonist to Tarzan. Ironic for Erod to call this film "completely ignorant of the source material" right after displaying that he didn't even read the wikipedia page of the first book.
And Erod usually talks from a position of authority as a true fan who knows the lore