Tarzan and the Lost City (1998) User Reviews

Not so bad.

[jetan · 5/10 · 20 November 2008]

Jeez, this is a hard bunch to satisfy. As my screen name indicates I am a stone cold Edgar Rice Burroughs freak and, for ERB fans, Tarzan flicks are less to be enjoyed than to be endured. Our suffering has been great and it has been long. When you have paid hard wampum to sit through "At The Earth's Core"....when you have an actual opinion as to whether Buster Crabbe was a better actor than Johnny Weissmuller....when you can explain the difference between Nyoka, Sheena and Rulah....then you can tell us what a lousy Tarzan movie this is.

For those Happy Few who fit the description above, you are going to like this film just fine and, in fact, you have probably already seen it. It's not the real McCoy, but you've doubtless given up on that by now.

Not bad, but too routine

[Wuchakk · 5/10 · 23 September 2013]

Tarzan is my favorite fictional hero, so I was sure to see "Tarzan and the Lost City" after it was released to video in 1998. I was underwhelmed by the experience but, at the same time, it was okay and had some good points. Seeing it again, 15 years later, I feel the same way.

Believe it or not, this is actually a sequel to 1984's competent and near-epic "Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes" (surely one of the longest titles in the history of cinema), but it doesn't measure up, not even close.

For one, Casper Van Dien (Tarzan) and Jane March (Jane) can't hold a candle to Christopher Lambert and Andie MacDowell. Although Casper has the necessary noble look, buff-ness and ape-like agility for the role he has too much of a "pretty boy" thing going on, not to mention he's a little too short at 5'9", which may be average height for a man, but too short for Tarzan, especially when you consider that Tarzan spends a lot of time in his bare feet, which makes him look even shorter. At the end of the day, Van Dien isn't bad, but he doesn't measure up to the best Tarzan actors, like Lambert, Weissmuller and Ron Ely. Jane March is decent and spunky as Jane, but she doesn't do much for me. Still, while unexceptional, these two are acceptable in the roles as semi-interesting alternatives.

My main beef is the mediocrity of it all. Unlike "Greystoke", this is clearly a small film -- nothing more than a quickly thrown-together "sequel" (I put that in quotes because it came out 14 years after the other film and features a totally different cast, and understandably so). Maybe the studio gave it the go-ahead because they caught word that Disney was going to release the animated "Tarzan" the next year and wanted to steal some of its thunder, I don't know.

At only 84 minutes, the film lacks the nigh epic nature of "Greystoke" and the depth thereof. Scenes briskly jump from one sequence to another without allowing the viewer to catch his or her breath. It's like they were saying, "Hurry up, we gotta get to the next scene!" The sequences needed more breathing-room; the dramatics needed to settle in with the viewer; the dialogs needed to be deeper. This is unfortunate because the film delivers with exceptional locations (beautiful South Africa) and a great assortment of animals (lions, elephants, etc.), including the ape-tribe that Tarzan grew up with (played by humans, of course). Plus, the lost city of Opar does appear in the final act, which mostly consists of a huge -- and I mean huge -- pyramid. This was evidently created via special effects, but looks convincing. Unfortunately, the lack of depth makes the story un-compelling. It's okay, but never captivating.

All this points to the probability that the film was aimed at kids (ya think?), but this is contrasted by the film's ultra-serious vibe and lack of "cute kid" characters. But, don't get me wrong, I'm definitely not complaining as both of these factors are huge pluses in my book (for a Tarzan film, at least).

Another problem is the addition of magic via the black tribe's shaman. I can take or leave this element, but the shaman's powers seem so great (by the end) that one wonders why he desperately sent for Tarzan in the first place -- a definite plot hole.

FINAL WORD: "Tarzan and the Lost City" could've been a strong Tarzan movie but it needed more time in the creation process. It has great locations and other pluses but it was thrown together too quickly, and it shows. It's mediocre, but worth a look if you're a Tarzan fan and appreciate similar films, like "Congo" and "Sheena".

GRADE: C

This isn't any Disney film.

[Susie-7 · 3/10 · 2 August 1999]

This film was quite mediocre, which is okay, because I didn't expect much from it and so could not be disappointed. I have certainly seen worse movies, but I've certainly seen movies a lot better too.

Problems with this film include: 1) Incredibly fake-looking gorillas. They looked about as real as the gorilla in Murders in the Rue Morgue, and in that film, the gorilla was supposed to be a guy in a suit. 2) Lame acting. I've seen worse, but I've seen a lot better too. 3) Jane March. Please go put on some weight, and make sure some of it goes into your head. You have the dreaded face pull. Women of the early 20th century may have worn corsets, but they were not that thin. 4) Too much magic. As another reviewer pointed out, if the witch doctor guy can make soldiers and turn himself into a giant snake that's immune to bullets, why on earth does he need Tarzan's help? 5) Fake gorillas. 6) Lame computerized special effects. Come on, I know people who can make graphics that good, and they could never get hired at a place like ILM. 7) Fake gorillas. 8) Tarzan making that stupid yell all the time. We know you're Tarzan; please just run around in your loin cloth and shut up. 9) Fake gorillas. 10) Tarzan's changing accent. Is he British? Is he American? It reminded me of Kevin Costner in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. 11) Fake gorillas.

I don't know how the book goes, so I won't complain about the storyline or characters too much, though I have to say those bad guys were incredibly lame and paperthin.

In relation to the ads for the film, you can tell how big a star is when they have to refer to him as "Casper Van Dien from Starship Troopers". I can say I actually knew who he was anyway, because he was on One Life to Live and Beverly Hills 90210, although perhaps I should not admit that I ever watched those shows.

Good things about this movie? Well, the credits are really easy to read, and are clear even on a 14 inch television screen. They scroll nice and slow too. The scenery was also nice, and the single real chimp they used in the film was a better actor than many of the humans were. Casper Van Dien also had a nice body, which is always a bonus; it unfortunately does not make a movie good.

In short, this was a predictably bad movie, okay to watch if you're having problems sleeping like I was, but don't waste your money.

One of the best Tarzan movies to date.

[marion_abbott · 1 July 2002]

I liked this version of Tarzan and I think that it is closer to the book than any other movie that I have seen. This Tarzan is quick on his feet and very quick witted. He is smart,just like the one in the books. Jane is supposed to be an American, why everyone puts her in England is beyond me. I liked this Jane very much and felt that her portrayal was right on the money. I even liked the bad guys and the natives, especially the singing and dancing. Overall it was a plus except that the scenes with Tarzan and Jane were too short and seemed to be cut too soon.

A good try that didn't quite make it

[granl · 3/10 · 19 May 1999]

Anyone who voted 1 for this must have missed the Bo Derek strip-a-thon "Tarzan the Ape Man". In Tarzan and the Lost City the producers made an attempt to give their story a sense of innocence - which is the very thing that made the Weismuller, Barker, Scott, etc. films work. The action scenes are decent but too often the makers fall back on special effects and magic to solve the hero's latest problem. I kept asking myself, with all the magic that the Medicine Man can do, why does he need Tarzan to take out these inept bozos? This film is a good alternative to the nightly dose of sit-coms and an OK selection if you went to the video store only to find that all the copies of Bug's Life are out.

Tarzan and the Lost Scenes....

[FlashCallahan · 2/10 · 9 March 2017]

On the night before his wedding, Tarzan receives a message from witch doctor Mugambe that his homeland is in danger.

A treasure hunter named Ravens is searching for the lost city of Opar, and is destroying the jungle and desecrating the villagers' burial grounds in the process.

Only Tarzan can stop Ravens and make things right in the African jungle, but will Jane stand for her fiancé being away for so long.....

This film had almost all of it's violence edited out so it would be more accessible to a younger audience, but they left in all the bad acting, people in Gorilla suits, and some very bad special effects.

It's just another knock off Indiana Jones film disguised as Tarzan. So we spend the film watching Casper Van Dien running around with his shirt off, talking to animals by going 'ooh ooh' to them, and opening his mouth so post production can put in the famous cry in after.

It's not exciting in the slightest, us Brits are outed as the dastardly scoundrels we are, and it's no wonder that Jane March never made it to the big time.

A really poor effort that makes no sense, and is poorly edited so your children can be as bored as you.

Strictly family fare

[MBunge · 4/10 · 1 March 2012]

Well, there've been worse versions of Edgar Rice Burroughs classic hero but Tarzan and the Lost City is certainly far from the best, whether you think that's Johnny Weissmuller or Ron Ely. This is a thoroughly wholesome and family-friendly version of the Lord of the Jungle, except for a disintegration at the end, and there's a decent amount of mostly G-rated action. There frankly haven't been a lot of great live-action versions of Tarzan since the TV show of the late 1960s, so this isn't a bad choice if you're looking to introduce your kids to the Ape Man and his lady love. Even if your children love it though, this is one of those movies they'll look back on as adults and say "Boy, that really wasn't that good, was it?"

Picking things up after the character's origins, Tarzan (Casper Van Dien) has been restored to his hereditary roots in the landed gentry of England and is about to marry Jane (Jane March) when a magical vision summons him back to Africa. A ruthless explorer, or at least as ruthless as you get in something suitable for the littlest viewers, is rampaging through the jungle in search of the lost city of Opar. Ravens (Steve Waddington) and his abnormally large band of mercenaries are plundering villages and poaching animals to make enough money for their expedition. Tarzan starts mucking up their plans and Jane quickly arrives to join him. But he also has to try and protect a friendly tribe led by a mysterious shaman (Winston Ntshona) and a headstrong warrior (Rapulana Seiphemo) from being mowed down by Ravens' 20th century firepower. They all wind up in Opar, which turns out to be a giant pyramid instead of a city, some magic stuff happens and everybody gets what they deserve in the end.

A Tarzan movie or TV show pretty much begins and ends with the quality of your Tarzan. On that score, I'm really not sure how to judge Casper Van Dien. That's mostly because his Tarzan spends most of this film running around Central Africa is what appears to be a fat guy's dress shirt and a pair of Capri pants. By the time Van Dien loincloths up, the story is essentially over except for a very, very extended chase scene. He has a noble countenance, is surely buff enough and seems comfortable with the more outlandish aspects of the character. But Van Dien is also a little young for Tarzan in this context and doesn't quite have the physical stature the role requires. A short Tarzan is a bit like a fat Sherlock Holmes. It just doesn't feel right. Van Dien is also trying to pull off an English accent here and it's one of those accents that is so bad, you wonder why they even bothered. I guess I'd call this a competent and relatively appealing Tarzan but not an exceptional one. Even if this is the first rendition of the Ape Man you encounter, you'll probably wind up preferring one of the others.

The star of the cast is probably Steve Waddington. He plays the bad guy as someone whose motives aren't necessarily evil but who is totally indifferent to the damage he does to the world and others in the pursuit of his goals. Jane March is a very English-looking beauty and plays her part with all the resolve and composure a proper gentlewoman of the early 1900s would possess. Rapulana Seiphemo as the intractable tribal warrior and Ian Roberts as a riverboat captain and friend of Tarzan also manage to inject a little flavor into their small roles.

The plot of this thing is okay and stuff mostly makes sense, except for the whole thing about why Ravens and his men getting to Opar would be such a bad thing. There's a line that references the discovery of the lost city bringing more rapacious whites to the Dark Continent to ravage its countryside, but when we get to Opar there's nothing there to justify that. And considering how much magic is used to zap the bad guys away at the end, it's also not clear why Tarzan and company ever needed to get involved.

As an inoffensive adventure tale for the whole family, Tarzan and the Lost City mostly works. However, that's the only level it succeeds on and with a Lord of the Jungle who's only average, I'd hate for this to be the only exposure someone has to Tarzan and his world. Given the paucity of great or even good live-action Tarzans in the last 40 years, this isn't terrible. It does really make me wish that late 60s TV series was out on DVD.

Hanging with the apes.

[Logan_5 · 3/10 · 14 December 1998]

This movie tries to be too many things at once. It tries to be a romance and really fails. It tries to be mystical, but manages cheesy. Some of the animal scenes are okay, but most appear too contrived.

I have to say,this was the first BAD movie, I've ever seen in the theatres...

[DS-7 · 2/10 · 17 January 1999]

THANK YOU,Tarzan for ruining my 13 year streak of never seeing a bad movie in the theatre. Wow..this one just SUCKED. With the exception of a few well done action sequences this one had no hope of being good at all. Awful acting and just a generally dumb plot really ruined the name of Tarzan for me..

I enjoyed it.

[clh-1 · 7/10 · 18 June 2005]

Being something of a Tarzan fan, it really isn't that hard to entertain me with the man in the loin cloth (except for the awful, near pornographic, movie with Bo Darek). And in todays world of cgi crapfests, this was a welcome return to real world adventures. It takes place in a real place the jungles of Africa. Has a real cast, no JarJar Binks to be found. And most importantly has a plot that goes somewhere. I think Casper Van Dien did a great job as Tarzan, and Jane March was excellent as Jane. The only drawback at all was the use of magic at the climax, it sort of negated any need for Tarzan to even show up (except to give us a few pics of eye candy). This film's drawbacks are minor when compared to those of other adventure films. It's got a lot of beautiful, and genuine scenery, which only helps to inspire the imagination. It is extremely family friendly, you can watch this with little kids and not worry about giving them nightmares or rotting their brains. Well worth getting on DVD and having an exciting Thursday evening with your kids, or parents as your own age my determine.

Disappointed

[levin_chris · 1/10 · 19 June 2005]

At least someone, somewhere, involved in this disposable Ape Man entry bothered to read the famous Edgar Rice Burroughs books on which the character is based. What was done with that information, unfortunately, amounts to nothing. Tarzan (vacantly handsome Casper Van Dien) and Jane (nondescript Jane March) head back to the jungle homeland and encounter pillaging baddies led by Steven Waddington (used better as a more complex nasty in The Last of the Mohicans). Director Carl Schenkel's film gives Tarzan back his long-absent status as an articulate gentleman, and it contains elements of Burroughs's feverish imagination, but it dully ticks off the "adventures" without any thrilling sense of fun. Schenkel is so inattentive to detail that he would have us believe no one raises an eyebrow at the sight of a man morphing into a humongous cobra (not that the Xena-level effects help). It's blandly amusing watching Van Dien plug away ineptly at both his heroics and English accent, though this is ultimately an empty diversion for completest only.

I love this cheesy fun popcorn movie !

[solar12 · 10/10 · 8 September 2005]

I can't complain at all about this movie. It gave me everything I was hoping for. It's cheesy and fun! I grew up on classic Tarzan flicks and jungle movies. I watched various classic Tarzans including Ron Ely and Johnny Weissmuller. I never missed a chance to catch a Tarzan movie on TV as a kid. Tarzan and the Lost City recaptures that type of childhood magic. It entertained me from start to finish. Its flaws are part of its charm and only add to the fun. All classic Tarzan movies have flaws. So what!? That's part of what makes 'em GREAT FUN! Tarzan and the Lost City is no exception. It provides this classic jungle movie fan with plenty of entertainment value. It's great fun with a big bowl of popcorn and a cold beverage!

The Fake Gorillas ...

[wvmcl · 7/10 · 4 May 2009]

Since there was so much comment on the "fake gorillas," I think it is worth pointing out that these were not in fact intended to be gorillas but rather the fictional race of "great apes" that raised Tarzan in the Burroughs novels. They were supposed to be something closer to humans, with a language developed enough that it could be translated into English - in fact Tarzan was a word in the great ape language meaning "white skin." You can quibble about how successful the movie portrayal of these creatures was, but any Burroughs fan will recognize what they were trying to do. In any case, it was a brief sequence.

I thought this movie was surprisingly good and came closer to capturing the flavor of Burroughs' later Tarzan novels than anything else I have seen. Burroughs, after all, was primarily a fantasy writer and there is no point in holding his fiction to any "realistic" standard. The production standards were quite good and I liked the principal actors. In fact, Van Dien may be my second favorite Tarzan, after Gordon Scott.

Not Very Good

[LT-10 · 4/10 · 22 May 1999]

This wasn't a very good movie. The special effects were really bad. Pay me twenty bucks and i'll watch it again.

Wow! Was this ever terrible!

[proffate · 29 October 2002]

Okay, I'll admit to being an old fart who grew up with Tarzan as a grunting Johnny Weisemuller. But I also read all the books some 40 years ago and should have a fair grasp of the character.

It started okay, with Tarzan being called back to Africa and doing a few cool things to harass the bad guys. Then the downhill slide began and ended in a bottomless pit.

Let's see... Tarzan was needed because a medicine man who can turn himself into a swarm of bees and create warriors out of thin air needed help. Uh, ever consider stinging the bad guys to death? It was nice to hear the old yell again, but not worth sitting through this.

Has anyone mentioned that the gorilla costumes were on a par with the one the Three Stooges used?

Average and Mediocre film!!

[sauravjoshi85 · 4/10 · 8 November 2022]

Tarzan and the Lost City is an action adventure film directed by Late Carl Schenkel. The film stars Casper Van Dien, Jane March and Steven Waddington.

Tarzan returns to his homeland of Africa to save his home from destruction.

The film can be classified into a good try but overall a bad product. The film which has a very exciting Tarzan portrayed by Casper Van Dien fails to capitalize primarily due to some poor execution and bad supporting characters majorly the character of Jane which ruins the film and makes the film a predictably mediocre mess.

The film which was being made in late 90s should've invested a little more on the making of the film and the fake gorillas could've been avoided, the unnecessary yell of Tarzan also irritates most of the times. The graphics of the film also doesn't looks good and the film ends being ordinary film.

Watch only if you wanted to.

Good opportunity wasted

[matthew44 · 4/10 · 7 August 2010]

It's a sad opportunity missed that this movie is not a lot better than it is. Some of the production values are high - the costumes and locations all look great, but there are failures. This could have been not just a good movie, but a great movie if it had been given more space, some long lingering panoramas, time to fill out the characters. Instead it is edited so everything is too quick paced like a Disney movie that allows no depth at all.

Van Dien makes a fair effort, though comes across more as a boy in a man's role. Jane March looks pretty, but adds nothing extra to the part. Overall, a watchable effort, but still a good way down the long list of apeman movies.

Not the worst Tarzan flick, but it's close

[MrPaull324 · 4/10 · 24 April 2024]

As a lifelong Tarzan fan, of both the books and the movies, I gotta say watching this as a kid on VHS was disappointing. I only watched it again many years later because I just happened to stumble onto it while curiously skimming over Casper Van Dien's filmography and decided to make this review.

In 1913, John Clayton aka Tarzan (Casper Van Dien) is preparing to marry Jane Porter (Jane March) in England. But suddenly, he receives a vision sent by a shaman named Mugambe (Winston Ntshona), informing him that explorer and treasure hunter Nigel Ravens (Stephen Waddington) is plundering African villages in search of the lost city of Opar. Now, Tarzan must return to Africa to stop Ravens while Jane follows him to assist on his adventure.

The plot is pretty straightforward and is mostly faithful to the source literary material, but it does little to improve the film. Plus, with the uncharacteristic supernatural elements it felt like it was trying to emulate an Indiana Jones type atmosphere, but it falls completely short.

First of all, the cast don't fit their roles. With his build, Casper Van Dien made an acceptable Tarzan, but he lacked the height and the rugged face of Johnny Weissmuller and Christopher Lambert from past incarnations, and his awful fake British accent didn't help. Jane March is a run-of-the-mill damsel in distress who mostly just complicates things for Tarzan. Steven Waddington is basically a Rene Belloq wannabe who isn't tough or intimidating enough to impress the audience, let alone challenge the King of the Apes.

The special effects were poor for the most part. Tarzan's ape friends were men wearing ridiculously fake looking suits and Mugumbe's CGI Cobra form is very cheesy, even by 90s standards. Speaking of which, what did Mugumbe even need Tarzan to fight the bad guys for if he could turn into a snake? And even bees?! It doesn't make any sense.

The action scenes are sloppy and muddled up by excessive slow motion, choppy editing, and close ups that make them hard to enjoy.

There were some redeeming qualities though. I did appreciate the beautiful landscape of South Africa where filming took place, from the lush jungles to the savannah fields. And Opar itself, which was made with practical effects, is impressive, although it's more of a massive pyramid than an actual city. There was also some pretty nice footage of real animals to counter the fake gorillas, including a Chimp named Jebba.

In the end, this was just an ambitious but failed attempt to create a modern Tarzan in the 90's that damaged Casper Van Dien's reputation in Hollywood. Don't watch this unless you're a massive Tarzan fan.

One of the worst Tarzan movies

[ericstevenson · 4/10 · 18 January 2018]

This movie features Tarzan going back to the jungle, but it's apparently not a sequel to anything. The special effects in this movie are just plain awful. The gorillas are so fake looking there's even a question asked here under the FAQ on why they're so bad looking. It gets really terrible near the end where you see this one guy turn into a giant CGI snake. Whether it's practical or CGI, the effects look awful either way. There's a lot going on in this movie, but it's so boring.

There's just one random action sequence after another. The story is one of the most clichéd I've seen in a Tarzan movie. The slow motion gets annoying and it looks silly. I wanted to see how Tarzan got into suburbia in the first place. We get all this lame stuff about hidden gold and a hidden place with natives. This has been done so many times before in stuff like "Indiana Jones" and much better. *1/2

Plain and boring

[Enchorde · 3/10 · 28 May 2005]

** HERE BE SPOILERS **

Recap: So called explorers threaten to plunder and pillage the land were John Clayton, aka Tarxan, once was raised. He is summoned by a vision, leaves his fiancé and returns to save his "home". The prize that everyone searches for are the lost legendary city of Opra. Now the explorer Nigel Ravens believe he has found the way. But Tarzan is determined to stop him. Matters become more complicated as Ravens has the technological edge and Jane Porter, Clayton's girlfriend, suddenly turns up.

Comment: Boring and uneventful story. For the most part the most exciting event is Tarzan's trademark and ridiculous shout. At the end however the movie goes from dull and boring to pathetic, turning the story in another silly way using really bad computer graphics. Evidently some violence has been cut, the movie appears like a family movie, but there still are some violent moments, were people are killed (mostly off-screen though). Hmm... anything else? Nope, don't think so. You could probably find something better to watch or do...

3/10

The Eternal Jungle Man

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 11 August 2008]

Casper Van Dien joins a long list of actors/athletes to essay the part of Edgar Rice Burroughs famous man of the jungle. As far as looks go he certainly fits the role, loincloth and all.

Tarzan is as eternal on the screen in his history as Sherlock Holmes. Both of them if you remember were brought up to date during World War II to aid the Allied effort. And Tarzan had several modern adventures through his many films and television roles right up through the nineties.

But on the cusp of a new millennium the Ape Man is returned to the period in time where Edgar Rice Burroughs set him in, clearly in British colonial Africa. Tarzan in fact has returned home to claim the title of the Earl of Greystoke and he's going to marry Jane March as Jane Porter.

But Van Dien gets one of those instinctive feelings, the kind that Chuck Norris gets when his Cherokee people are in trouble on Walker, Texas Ranger. He postpones the wedding to an exasperated Jane and heads to Africa.

Some of his native friends are indeed in trouble. A scientist who's hired a bunch of what would be called trailer park trash now is on the verge of discovering a lost city with untold wealth. It will make things worse than ever for the natives under colonialism if this archaeological Holy Grail is discovered.

Casper tries to reason with the scientist and then takes the more Tarzan like approach to the problem. But things do get real complicated when Jane follows him to Africa.

Tarzan and the Lost City is an old style adventure story with the benefit of 90s computer graphics. It's also politically sensitive, not portraying the natives as they were in those old Tarzan films from the studio days. And of course it's filmed entirely in Africa, certainly not done by MGM or RKO back in the day.

In the jungle Casper's great to look at and a wonder to behold. But why did he try to adopt that English accent. He sounded silly when he used it. You notice Johnny Weissmuller never even attempted one. Of course they did keep his dialog to a minimum.

Despite the accent, this latest big screen Tarzan is a good film and Casper Van Dien is a worthy successor to Johnny Weissmuller, Lex Barker, Gordon Scott, etc.

Me Tarzan, Me Suck

[NoDakTatum · 1/10 · 9 October 2023]

Why is it the only successful Tarzan film of the last few decades was Disney's? When you make stuff like this, you've answered the question. John Clayton, aka Tarzan (Casper Van Dien), is in merry olde England circa 1913 and ready to marry his beloved Jane (Jane March). Tarzan has a vision sent by powerful medicine man Mugambe (Winston Ntshona) to return to Africa. Nigel Ravens (Steven Waddington) has been looting and pillaging local tribes. Ravens finds an amulet that is the key to a treasure in the titular lost city. Tarzan returns to Africa, and Jane follows. She stays in a small town where Ravens takes a liking to her as Tarzan goes back to nature in record time, upsetting Ravens' plans for an expedition to get the treasure. Young Kaya (Rapulana Seiphemo) wants to fight the white men, but Mugambe and Tarzan disagree. The rest of the film is a by-the-numbers exercise in screenwriting. There are a lot of chase scenes through the jungle, as Tarzan and Jane shadow Ravens and his henchmen, with a culminating battle at the lost city after Jane is kidnapped by the baddies.

This is painful to watch. Casper Van Dien is all wrong as Tarzan. He is too lean and compact, when Johnny Weissmuller was tall and big. Van Dien also forgets his British accent in every other scene. Waddington tries, but his part is so predictable that he cannot bring anything new to it- no actor could. Jane March is fine as Jane, she starts out tough but becomes another damsel in distress, waiting for her man to come rescue her. You cannot screw up African scenery, but Schenkel's direction is awful. The film is edited down to nothing but action scenes, so any hope for a new twist on the Tarzan legend is dashed. The computer generated special effects are terrible. The special ape makeup is often hard to see, as if the director knew it did not work at all. The film plays like a double episode of a 1990's syndicated action show. "Tarzan and the Lost City" shows that no one can make them like they used to. The old MGM series has nothing to worry about.

Fun action adventure with a dose of magic.

[dahstra · 8/10 · 4 August 2004]

I enjoyed this film. It was nice to jump PAST the point where Tarzan was discovered, to a point where he had left the jungle and returned to England for socialization. Casper is an intelligent, grunt-free version of Tarzan who returns to the jungle after getting a psychic call "home" from his shaman friend. The movie remained focused on the goal set at the beginning, to save the Lost City from a power hungry treasure hunter. I didn't feel lost or that any of the events were fluff. There is a nice display of magic which was presented well by the special effects team. All of the acting was well done and not overdramatized. I would very much like to see the story continued by this team of creators and actors.

1940'S Adventure with 1990's Production Values!

[The-Canadian · 6/10 · 20 August 2007]

I just love it when classic pulp-styled heroes get the big-budget treatment from Hollywood. The Phantom, The Rocketeer, and The Shadow are all personal favourites of mine.

Now we have "Tarzan and The Lost City," and while it is nowhere near the quality of the other films mentioned above, it is a fun little Saturday movie.

The acting is never terrible, but never above acceptable either. Also, a lot of the sets, special effects, and cinematography, while service the film well enough as it is, feel more suited for an above-average TV movie, and not the major blockbuster the filmmakers were hoping for.

Also, a lot of the ending does not make sense: Why does the Snake god need Tarzan, or even helping him out? His warriors were useless! A very simple-minded and fun PG Adventure film for the kids, and those who grew up on Ron Ely, but not much else.

6/10

Don't waste your time

[bartlettdirect · 1/10 · 8 February 2021]

This is by far the absolute worst Tarzan movie I have ever seen and maybe the first time I've given this low a rating for any movie.