Wuchak 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

skoorbl Why was this movie made? Surely it was sold as a tax write-off to some sap investor. It's hard to say that a movie has NO redeeming qualities, but I certainly missed any that were here. The acting is flat. The characters are completely uninteresting. (Will poor Burroughs never get a break in the cinema world?) The story is a recycling of old Johnny Weissmuller material, and the gimmicks are just tired.There must be a venue for Casper Van Dien somewhere, but this ain't it. He looks (all buffed and shiny) and acts like a lifeguard at some Beverly Hills hotel where pretty boys hang around hoping to be discovered and showing his girlfriend the cool place where he works. Jane March is a bore, and the villains are decidedly un-menacing. Even the Cheetah substitute is a bust. Wearing Jane's clothes, come on! How old is that? And the camera-work can't even make an interesting palette out of the most photogenic continent on the planet.Tarzan gets some primal Vulcan eco-mind-meld from a Witch Doctor to return to Africa, and, alas, we're back into a plot involving the overused 'Atlantis' myth pushed way over the edge. (Try 'She', with the not-so-boring Ursula Andress, if you want a sort-of interesting 'lost city' movie.) The special effects are pathetic, even by 1998 standards. The apes look like refugees from the Crosby/Hope 'Road to Zanzibar.' The forty year-old effect (courtesy of Ray Harryhausen) of making soldiers out of bones suggests that the makers of this film were completely bereft of original ideas of what to do next. When Harryhausen used this device in his pioneering efforts back in the sixties, he had the stunning scores of Bernard Herrmann to back up the effect-sticks, percussion and muted brass clicking a menacing little jig as the skeletal soldiers fought Jason or Sinbad. This movie tries this trick with nothing visually or musically to underpin it. It is just sad padding.Supposedly some of the 'violence' was removed so that younger kids could see the movie. Unless they had been raised in a cave, even they would know what would happen when the bad guy tried to sit in the throne-it happens every time the villains get their comeuppance in an Indiana Jones movie. I regret to say I paid money to see this movie in its theatrical release. When I saw it again on cable, it was every bit as bad as I remembered, if not worse. If this is 'a new Tarzan for a new generation', then it is a generation missing a chromosome.'Danger, Will Robinson! Avoid, Avoid!.'

Dr. Gore *SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT*I saw this one in the movie theater. Yeah, it was me, dad and about two other people. For some reason the filmmakers thought the world was ready for a new PG rated Tarzan flick. I am not a big Tarzan fan and the PG rating didn't thrill me but I thought I'd give Casper Van Dien the benefit of the doubt. Surely he could make a decent jungle action movie.I was wrong. So terribly wrong. This sucker is one goofy Tarzan movie. The Lost City needs to stay lost. The PG rating turns this flick into a lame kiddie adventure movie. Even B-movie king Van Dien couldn't save this one from the elephant compost heap. 2/10.

proffate 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?