|
Post by zarono on Aug 27, 2023 10:22:37 GMT -5
Just skimming this thread and thought of Casper Van Dien's Tarzan and the Lost City. I remembered going to the movies to see this one weekend in 1998 and being very disappointed, haven't watched it since and curious if anyone else has. I have almost no memory of it but those 90's cgi skeletons warriors intrigue me It was on HBO a few years after it came out but I could never work up the energy to watch it. Do want to take a look at it now as a curiosity but it’s not streaming anywhere at the moment without paying for it. I can't seem to bring myself to pay $2.99 rental for it either! I may have to go for it though just to see if it was as bad as I recall.
|
|
|
Post by almuric on Aug 27, 2023 10:46:02 GMT -5
Wow, yeah, the Casper Van Dien Tarzan movie. I think I saw an ad or two at the time and then it dropped off the face of the earth. I don't even recall it airing on TV a few years later. Just gone. Now, that might be for the best, but I am curious if it's merely bad or so-bad-its-good.
|
|
|
Post by johnnypt on Aug 27, 2023 13:00:16 GMT -5
Wow, yeah, the Casper Van Dien Tarzan movie. I think I saw an ad or two at the time and then it dropped off the face of the earth. I don't even recall it airing on TV a few years later. Just gone. Now, that might be for the best, but I am curious if it's merely bad or so-bad-its-good. Oddly enough since it’s a Warners picture it was on Max when it started but dropped off at some point. Thought it’d be a good thing for Tubi or something like that but it’s not there at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Aiken on Aug 27, 2023 15:52:18 GMT -5
The Van Dien movie is anything but "so bad it's good."
But who knows, different strokes for different folks.
|
|
|
Post by almuric on Aug 27, 2023 16:35:07 GMT -5
Found a review online by someone who actually read the original novels (though he gets the source of Tarzan's immortality pills wrong) and . . . well . . . manapop.com/film/tarzan-and-the-lost-city-1998-review/They get Tarzan's origin wrong, Jane is brunette, Tarzan is blond and gets a psychic message about trouble back in Africa. Oh, and the idea behind this version of Opar is pretty ironic considering the original novels . . .
|
|
|
Post by johnnypt on Aug 27, 2023 18:43:38 GMT -5
Found a review online by someone who actually read the original novels (though he gets the source of Tarzan's immortality pills wrong) and . . . well . . . manapop.com/film/tarzan-and-the-lost-city-1998-review/They get Tarzan's origin wrong, Jane is brunette, Tarzan is blond and gets a psychic message about trouble back in Africa. Oh, and the idea behind this version of Opar is pretty ironic considering the original novels . . . It’s fine if you want to streamline things or change them around a bit. You just have to do it well. This apparently did not.
|
|
|
Post by almuric on Aug 28, 2023 19:36:17 GMT -5
And that's not even getting into the man who transforms into a swarm of CGI bees.
|
|
|
Post by Lonewolf on Aug 29, 2023 8:42:27 GMT -5
"Tarzan And The Lost City" is actually not bad in a 90's, "B" movie, direct to DVD kind of way, "better" is subjective, but IMO it's more entertaining than The Legend of Tarzan (2016).
|
|
|
Post by johnnypt on Aug 29, 2023 10:01:05 GMT -5
"Tarzan And The Lost City" is actually not bad in a 90's, "B" movie, direct to DVD kind of way, "better" is subjective, but IMO it's more entertaining than The Legend of Tarzan (2016). Oh boy we’re 180 degrees out of phase on that one! That’s the one I think basically got it right when jumbling around the pieces of the story.
|
|
|
Post by Lonewolf on Aug 29, 2023 11:41:08 GMT -5
"Tarzan And The Lost City" is actually not bad in a 90's, "B" movie, direct to DVD kind of way, "better" is subjective, but IMO it's more entertaining than The Legend of Tarzan (2016). Oh boy we’re 180 degrees out of phase on that one! That’s the one I think basically got it right when jumbling around the pieces of the story. My main complaints with Legend of Tarzan 2016 are: The unnecessary/shoehorned inclusion of Samuel L. Jackson playing the role of...... "Samuel L. Jackson"........ completely takes me out of the "world" of the movie. I thought Djimon Hounsou had so much "presence" as Chief Mbonga, and should have been the main antagonist. Main antagonist Christopher Waltz/Rom wasn't intimidating on any level, and the climax of the movie completely underwhelming.
|
|
|
Post by johnnypt on Aug 29, 2023 14:02:26 GMT -5
Oh boy we’re 180 degrees out of phase on that one! That’s the one I think basically got it right when jumbling around the pieces of the story. My main complaints with Legend of Tarzan 2016 are: The unnecessary/shoehorned inclusion of Samuel L. Jackson playing the role of...... "Samuel L. Jackson"........ completely takes me out of the "world" of the movie. I thought Djimon Hounsou had so much "presence" as Chief Mbonga, and should have been the main antagonist. Main antagonist Christopher Waltz/Rom wasn't intimidating on any level, and the climax of the movie completely underwhelming. Walz would’ve been better as D’Arnot. But they put way more effort into…well everything compared to the 90s film. I would like to take a look at it now. Just checked and it’s not even available to rent! However the whole thing is up on YouTube so it may get a view soon.
|
|
|
Post by almuric on Sept 15, 2023 11:06:57 GMT -5
Tarzan and the Valley of Gold (1966) - The success of that spy movie Connery did changed the playing field of pop culture. Suddenly it was spies, spies, spies everywhere. What's a Jungle Lord to do? The answer is to move with the times and create one of the more distinctive Tarzan movies. As was often the case by this point in the series, the action moved out of Africa, to Mexico, where Tarzan (Mike Henry, in his first of three appearances in the role) is out to save a young boy who knows the location of the lost Valley of Gold. The boy is played by Manuel Padilla Jr., who would play the Boy-substitute Jai on the TV Tarzan, which started that same year. We briefly get a well-dressed Tarzan before he sheds the trappings of civilization. Villain Augustus Vinero, who likes booby-trapped jewelry, is played by David Opatoshu, who you'll remember as a villain on countless '60s TV shows. Also, we have Mesoamerican ruins playing themselves and not pretending to be Africa.
The movie is not bad but also not quite as great as it could have been. But it's definitely worth a look. I haven't read the novelization by Fritz Lieber but I'm told it's good.
Next time: Poverty Row Interlude
|
|
|
Post by johnnypt on Sept 15, 2023 14:33:31 GMT -5
Tarzan and the Valley of Gold (1966) - The success of that spy movie Connery did changed the playing field of pop culture. Suddenly it was spies, spies, spies everywhere. What's a Jungle Lord to do? The answer is to move with the times and create one of the more distinctive Tarzan movies. As was often the case by this point in the series, the action moved out of Africa, to Mexico, where Tarzan (Mike Henry, in his first of three appearances in the role) is out to save a young boy who knows the location of the lost Valley of Gold. The boy is played by Manuel Padilla Jr., who would play the Boy-substitute Jai on the TV Tarzan, which started that same year. We briefly get a well-dressed Tarzan before he sheds the trappings of civilization. Villain Augustus Vinero, who likes booby-trapped jewelry, is played by David Opatoshu, who you'll remember as a villain on countless '60s TV shows. Also, we have Mesoamerican ruins playing themselves and not pretending to be Africa. The movie is not bad but also not quite as great as it could have been. But it's definitely worth a look. I haven't read the novelization by Fritz Lieber but I'm told it's good. Next time: Poverty Row Interlude Only in the 60s could Tarzan bear a villain with a giant Coke bottle! BTW-Foundation S2 finished today so once I get done with that recap I can finish up Tarzan.
|
|
|
Post by almuric on Sept 21, 2023 11:21:19 GMT -5
The Weissmuller Tarzan movies cast a long shadow, especially over the careers of Johnny Sheffield and Weissmuller himself. Both spent the '50s in the backlot and soundstage jungles, reenacting their cinematic glory days for lesser studios and lesser budgets.
Over at Columbia, Weissmuller got Jungle Jim, based very loosely on Alex Raymond's comic strip. Having seen the first Jungle Jim movie, I struggle to recall much about it. There's a potion and a secret temple or something. Weissmuller was probably grateful to wear a shirt because he's really showing his age at this point in his career. Future Superman George Reeves is in it, so you kinda sorta get Tarzan and Superman on screen. If you squint. There's fifteen more of these and I don't know if I really want to sit through anymore. Weissmuller did these and then a short-lived Jungle Jim TV series. Weissmuller must have been jungled out by the end.
Sheffield fared a little better with Bomba over at Monogram. He was too old to play Boy, yet somehow not too old to be cast as a Jungle Boy. The original Bomba books were set in South America, but, you guessed it, here's he's been transplanted to Africa where he has adventures that might feel a bit familiar. Lost cities, Arab slave traders, evil poachers, you know the drill. And I hope you love stock footage because there's tons of it. Stock footage zebra herds to marvel at. Stock footage lions to menace the cast. Stock footage of monkeys leaping through trees. Ed Wood's dream of a movie composed entirely of stock footage is very nearly achieved in places. But Sheffield's charm shines through and there's a few decent movies along the way. As knock-off Tarzans go, you could do worse.
Next time: Two for the road
|
|
|
Post by johnnypt on Sept 22, 2023 10:16:34 GMT -5
Little behind the scenes look here-never thought I’d have to think about using the Explicit switch on the podcast but trying to write about the 1981 Tarzan the Ape Man is getting close…and that’s just talking about the life of the director!
|
|