उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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 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!

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.

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

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?

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.

As a big 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.

First of all, the story is pretty humdrum and shows little faithfulness to the source literary material. For example, the origin of Tarzans name came from his tribe of apes, not the natives. Jane is American, not British. And Opar is portrayed almost completely differently as a gigantic pyramid instead of an actual city. And finally, with the uncharacteristic supernatural elements, it felt like director Carl Schenkel was going for an Indiana Jones styled adventure, but it all went wrong.

Everyone was miscast here. Casper Van Dien proved he was worth his salt in Starship Troopers and might have made an acceptable Tarzan with his build, but he was no Johnny Weissmuller or Christopher Lambert. His awful fake British accent didn't help. Jane March isn't even trying as she apathetically mutters her lines and is a run-of-the-mill damsel in distress who mostly just complicates things for Tarzan. Finally, Steven Waddington just isn't tough or intimidating enough as a villain to impress the intended child audience, let alone challenge the King of the Apes.

The special effects were very poor and spoke volumes of the films modest $20 million budget; its quality looked similar to the more enjoyable TV series "Tarzan: The Epic Adventures" from 1996-1997. We see badly made slow-motion effects and choppy camera work everywhere. Tarzan's ape friends were men wearing ridiculously fake looking suits and Mugumbe's CGI Cobra form is very cheesy, even for 1998. And, finally, due to the PG rating and a desire to make this a kid's film, the action scenes aren't that exciting or impressive. Almost everything in this film felt stale.

There were some redeeming qualities though. I loved the beautiful landscape of South Africa where filming took place, from the lush jungles to the savannah fields. The porters in Ravens expedition sang a pretty catchy song while crossing a field, and the soundtrack composed by Christopher Franke had some decent pieces here and there. The massive pyramid of Opar itself, which was made with practical effects, looked fairly impressive. Finally, there was some pretty nice footage of real animals to counter the fake gorillas, including a Chimp named Jebba.

In the end, this was a bold but failed attempt to create a modern Tarzan in the 90's that didn't do Casper Van Dien's career any favors, and there wouldn't even be another live action Tarzan flick until 2016. So don't watch this unless you're either bored or a massive fan.

Casper in a loin cloth can't save this turkey from its inept

script and terrible acting

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.

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.

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.

Right after I saw this movie, I was thinking "NOW WHAT IN

DARNATION DID THIS HAVE TO DO WITH TARZAN?????" It seemed more

like a very corny Indy rip-off. But apperantly it was made after

an original Tarzan-book.

Anyway, of course this movie is bad. The acting totally sucks,

the special effects are bollocks, Casper van Dien is in it

(which would make any movie drop a few rates), the much pointed

out fake gorilla's, cheap storyline etc etc etc etc. And I

enjoyed it all!!! This movie is so lame it turns fun again. And

the ending is not that bad, the "Dead warriors coming to life"

bit is kinda cool and looks pretty good. And of course we've got

lovely Jane March, a girl you Americans obviously are not very

fond of, but I think looking at her for 1,5 hours isn't a

punishment. Here's my advise: rent this movie for your 11 year old kid

brother. he'll probably like it a lot. Watch it together. In

this way, if you hate it, you can still tell your friends about

it and tell them how much you HATED it, but you do have an

excuse for having ac