All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Having only seen a few other Tarzan movies before this one, I can't really say if it's better or worse than usual. Seen the way that I saw it, it's an okay way to pass the time. On the positive side, the movie is shot in some interesting locations, moves along at a fairly brisk clip, and Mike Henry does make a fairly good Tarzan, doing the physical side of the character well while showing his character also has some brains.At the same time, something seemed a little off about this particular Tarzan. It's probably because he seems a little TOO sophisticated. The reports from other users here that he comes across as a James Bond-like hero are pretty accurate. No surprise, because James Bond was really hot when this movie was made. There are also some other 1960s touches that feel out of place, like a shrill and dated musical score and bizarre opening credits.Other problems can be found with the script. The bad guys seem a little weak in my opinion. Not enough time is given to them to really make them memorable or truly menacing. And the climax of the movie is pretty weak, with the bad guys defeated in just a few minutes (and pretty easily, if you ask me.)Despite what I've said, the movie does has some fun. If you are in an undemanding mood, the movie does pass the time fairly well as I said. Still, the movie is some distance from what I think an ideal Tarzan movie should be like.

I've gotta admit that I've always liked the high tech Tarzan, as personified by Mike Henry, better than any of the others (although Gordon Scott comes in a close second). Henry could've (and should've) played Batman or Superman: he had the "built-in body armor" that any good superhero worth his tights should have- and he could act well enough to pull it off, too (despite what some critics seem to think, he comes across as a cerebral savage who vacillates between the contemporary, "civilized" man and the cave man). A buddy of mine tells me that Henry wanted to play Doc Savage; in my opinion, it would've been a perfect fit. (The soon-to-be-doomed) Dinky never really comes close to stealing the show in TARZAN AND THE VALLEY OF GOLD, but he does a commendable job in what turns out to have been his swan song. All things considered, TARZAN AND THE VALLEY OF GOLD is a lot of fun and the one Tarzan movie I can recommend without reservations.

this movie is fine!it is filmed in mexico,which makes it special!mike henry is the best tarzan actor of them all!he is very sexy running in his loincloth barefooted!his well buit body is fine!!he puts a full nelson on the bad guy,he never stops,untill he snaps his neck. at the end the gold is safe!this movie is a perfect 10!

In terms of pure aesthetics Mike Henry is head and shoulders above all the other Tarzans. He looks the part more than anyone who's ever played it. This man's physique is a work of art, and he's not at all hard to look at. I defy anyone to take their eyes off him when he's on screen. He's perfectly cast, the story moves likes lightning, the action sequences are great(with even a nice touch of James Bond thrown in),this movie is well worth the price of rental or purchase(if you can find it).It's well worth it