Why so much hype?

Good movie but grossly overrated

Admirable film.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

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

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.

I loved this Tarzan movie, as it goes right away from the normal Tarzan movie. I liked that it has the same type of features that Tarzan of the past has had, but with a new look to head into the next generation. Casper Van Dien really shines in this movie, he has an amazing amount of energy, which this film needed. This Tarzan movie has a new twist, with old ways of life meeting the new way of life. I think it is a great movie.

Yes!! In the age of so many films that slap you in the face with so many f/x, it was refreshing to watch a movie with real people and real actors. The new TARZAN and the LOST CITY brought the character to a new level for a whole new generation.Casper Van Dien was an excellent Tarzan and most important, Mr. Van Dien's performance was on target. I enjoyed the film and I am sure that you will too!