Eric Stevenson 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

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

Wizard-8 I don't know how it was released elsewhere in the world, but when Warner Brothers released "Tarzan And The Lost City" in North America, they didn't do it in a very enthusiastic way, with a theater count somewhat less than average and not screening the movie for critics. Seeing the movie for myself, I can understand W.B.'s reluctance. This is a pretty shabby-looking movie. Although I learned at the end credits that this was shot in Africa, the locations looked so unspectacular that I was convinced during the movie that this Australian co-production had been shot in Australia! The CGI is pretty low-tech, even for a movie for this era. The action scenes are incompetently shot, relying on blurry slow motion and extreme close-ups that don't give us a good look as to what's going on. The script is pretty silly, relying on stereotypes instead of characters with real personalities. As for Van Dien, he's not a very convincing Tarzan, not coming across as a big wild force as in other Tarzan movies.

The-Canadian 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