On the night before his wedding, Tarzan receives a message from witch doctor Mugambe that his homeland is in danger. A treasure hunter named Ravens is searching for the lost city of Opar, and is destroying the jungle and desecrating the villagers' burial grounds in the process. Only Tarzan can stop Ravens and make things right in the African jungle, but will Jane stand for her fiancé being away for so long.....This film had almost all of it's violence edited out so it would be more accessible to a younger audience, but they left in all the bad acting, people in Gorilla suits, and some very bad special effects.It's just another knock off Indiana Jones film disguised as Tarzan. So we spend the film watching Casper Van Dien running around with his shirt off, talking to animals by going 'ooh ooh' to them, and opening his mouth so post production can put in the famous cry in after.It's not exciting in the slightest, us Brits are outed as the dastardly scoundrels we are, and it's no wonder that Jane March never made it to the big time.A really poor effort that makes no sense, and is poorly edited so your children can be as bored as you.

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

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!

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.