Tarzan and the Lost City (1998)

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 completists only. --Steve Wiecking Amazon.com

Good movie, Great actor

I will admit that I saw this movie because I wanted to see the marvelous Casper Van Dien in a film partially clothed. Part of the beautiful scenery was the african locations and the other part of the beautiful scenery was the partially clothed Casper Van Dien. He is a man that has a beautiful body and is a celebration of the male body. Yes, this movie for me was a guilty pleasure. The movie travels a little too fast and it doesn't expalin too much about what is going on. In my opinion, it could have lasted longer with a little bit more suspense built in to the movie, but it is still a good movie. I do recommend this movie to anyone that likes Tarzan movies and especially to anyone that really likes seeing Casper Van Dien on film. January 3, 2007

Tarzan Worth Watching

I love Casper Van Dien, I liked him in the original Starship Troopers and if your interested in a Tarzan film that is entertaining and light, this is the film for you, your children will love it and Casper Van Dien is definetly easy on the eyes, I thoroughly enjoyed this film even though I am not a Tarzan fan. November 4, 2006

Family Entertainment - Finally!

I went to see this film in the theater when it was released and I have to say, that despite my own personal penchant for wanting darker, more edgy themes, I was thrilled to see a good, old-fashioned, wholesome, straightforward adventure tale suitable for the whole family - just like I enjoyed when I was a kid. Think about it: when was the last time that a film like this was made? I can tell you. It was the 1970s. Nothing since then has been free from vulgarity, excessive violence, sexuality and "complexity" of character that taints the hero - in short, things that are not aimed at nor appropriate for children. The only films for children anymore are animated. The message is that adults don't have time for telling tales of adventure and fantasy to kids and I promise you that the message has been received loud and clear. This film is the one standout I can think of in the last 30-odd years against that trend and I applaud it. In that context it was uncommonly good and by any measure, particularly among fans of ERB, it was among the most faithful to the books of any Tarzan film. May 7, 2006

Marginally Entertaining, But Nothing Special

So many Tarzan films have been released since the days of black-and-white serials in the 1930s, and we have seen an animation version (from Disney), re-told version (`Greystoke') starring Christopher Lambert and Andie McDowell with dunned voice, and just awful versions (`Tarzan the Ape Man' featuring Bo Derek). This Hollywood version with Casper Van Dien/Jane March is not so awful as is sometimes regarded, but still a below average.

There are a couple of bad things about `Tarzan and the Lost City': its scanty and poorly-directed actions and very dull characters. You can hear Tarzan's yelling and see vine-swinging, but as the action sequences (constructed in banal ways) are made with really choppy and hasty editing, there is nothing exciting about the end results which betray the lack of budget and zeal of the filmmakers. Though the film is distributed from Warner Brothers, and some scenes showing the nature of Africa are beautiful to see, the production designs and the props are at best those of the films made for TV. Cheesy effects at the climax scene only made me sad, and this was made only one year prior to the release of much more enjoyable `The Mummy.'

Speaking of which, `Tarzan and the Lost City's resembles at some points this blockbuster hit from Universal Pictures. Both are set in Africa, both about the hidden treasures, both striving to be an Indiana-Jones-like romp. The difference is Casper Van Dien is no Brendan Fraser. Casper Van Dien (and his muscles) is certainly convincing as Tarzan as long as he doesn't talk. It may be his strange British accent or bland acting (or careless direction) that disappoints us most, but whatever it is, this Tarzan could have been better with someone else as star or director. And his fiancé Jane by stilted Jane March doesn't help, nor the dancing chimp in white dress.

This film does one good thing at the beginning, and that is that it reminds us that actually Tarzan is not his real name. He is born John Clayton, now Lord Greystoke, so he has an aristocratic origin. But soon the film forgets that fact, and continues to show the uninspired and unexciting action scenes.

Perhaps Peter Jackson is the only candidate for the right director who can pull off the difficult job of making this legacy of Tarzan a truly thrilling and exciting film. He knows the right cast, the right use of CGI, and would undoubtedly spend enough time and money to realize the world of Edgar Rice Burroughs. Let's wait until then. April 4, 2006

Tarzan for the Fun of It

Let me say first off that this is afterall fantasy and not reality.
If you want reality perhaps one of the many so called reality shows so popular today is your forte. Otherwise take this film as it was intended a family adventure fantasy, which it accomplishes quite sufficiently and deserves a good mark. If you watch some of the older films in this genre there is no comparison. I for one own it and enjoy it. November 26, 2005

More reviews at Amazon.com ...