Own the rights?
83 out of 118 people found the following review useful: Underrated, 19 October 2003 Author: MF210 from Baltimore
My Rating: *** out of ****. I dont understand all the horrible reviews for this film. Sure not a great film, but definitely a good, entertaining movie. I enjoyed it just as much as the first Jurassic Park. The Lost World still contains impressive, eye popping effects. These are just as flawless as the CGI as the first Jurassic Parks. There are more dinosaurs and they all look great. The film contains more action than the first and its all exciting. One scene that stands out is the scene with the Raptors in the fields. I love the way Spielberg shot it.This is not a big acting movie, but its not that bad. Jeff Goldblum is good as Ian Malcolm, but had a little more energy in the first one. Julianne Moore is adequate but looks a bit uncomfortable at times. Vanessa Lee Chester is better than the other kids in the last film. The rest of the acting is adequate. Many people thought this film was redundant of the first. I wouldnt call it redundant but it is a little bit too familiar in areas. The Lost World takes place in a different area but it is not much different from the first one. However, it is an entertaining movie. The action overshadows the story.The big problem I have with The Lost World is the ending. It doesnt make sense how The T-Rex got loose. Its also a King Kong Rip-Off. Its visually stunning looking, the TREX doesnt look out of place at all. But it was showing CGI instead of doing something with the story. Nevertheless, even with its flaws The Lost World is entertaining and not worthy of its horrible reviews.
69 out of 108 people found the following review useful: I like it, 19 August 2001 Author: jann-6
I saw this in a theater in 1997 and I thought I liked it. I just saw it again on DVD last night, and I now I know I do. What I can't figure out is why so many people think it's so horrible. After seeing JP III a few weeks ago, I still think The Lost World is better. Of course the original is the best, but The Lost World is packed with suspense, witty dialogue (especially Goldblum's), and of course, the usual great looking dinosaurs. There are a few things I don't like, the gymnastics routine towards the end being at the top of the list. But other than that and a few silly lines, this movie is almost as thrilling as the first. Personally, I don't care if the plot of this one is weak. I've never even really given that any thought. The first 100 minutes or so are loaded with excitement, then the finale with the T-Rex in the city is, if you ask me, played mostly for laughs. Yes it's like Godzilla, and The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, but that's the point. It's like those movies but with 21st century (almost) special effects. And it's just plain fun to see this dinosaur stomping through the suburbs, drinking from a swimming pool and, wreaking havoc at gas station minimart. I think if you don't take the San Diego scenes too seriously, and look at it as Spielberg's way of paying homage to *and* poking fun at the Godzilla-type movies, you can appreciate this portion of the movie. Then to wrap it all up with Bernard Shaw from CNN, and an obvious open door to a sequel - what more could you ask for? Well, maybe a better plot as some people seem to be saying, but I think this is a great popcorn movie and it works for me.
34 out of 46 people found the following review useful: No Dinosaur Pun, it's Just Bad, 25 December 2002 Author: Fenrir-5 from California, USA
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Where Jurassic Park succeeded by showing us a world that had been limited to our imagination, "The Lost World" fails due to the lack of imagination of the screenwriter, hack extraordinaire David Koepp.I can't imagine anyone reads these things without expecting to hear plot points; however I will warn you that there are spoilers in this review.It was pretty obvious that this movie was in trouble when Sam Neill refused to come back. This is nothing against Jeff Goldblum - he is a great actor, and certainly has the presence to carry a movie. But here he is saddled with quite a few problems. First, the screenplay is terrible. There is only one sympathetic character - Richard Schiff's Eddie Carr - and he is killed off rather early. You are left to pick your hero from among these likeable characters:- Julianne Moore - an actress of whom I am not fond - playing a know-it-all paleontologist who cannot act in a coherent, logical manner. At the beginning of the movie, she actually pets a dinosaur, then admonishes the others for getting near them. "We musn't disturb them!" she states. Then, against all scientific wisdom, she takes a wounded baby T-Rex, whining and howling, into the camp. The results, like the movie, are predictable- Vince Vaughn as Nick Van Owen, a Greenpeace hippie so stupid he actually takes bullets out of peoples' guns, resulting in a lot of "he's going to save that guy by shooting the dinosaur ... no, wait, the hippie got to his gun! Horray for nature!" And then another character gets eaten.- Jeff Goldblum, mugging for the camera at every opportunity. Again, a funny, capable actor, but with nothing to work with here- Malcolm's daughter, who is for some reason black (never explained, and apparently only part of the script so someone can make the "no family resemblance" joke). She mainly screams and chastises daddy for not keeping his promisesAll of this is the product of Mr. Hack, David "Panic Room" Koepp. The screenplay is all over the place. First there are the errors in scientific reasoning and basic character behavior listed above. Some might think, "who cares?" Well, I do, dammit. If you're going to write a dinosaur movie, is it so rough to write a good one? This trash isn't even camp - camp is winking at the audience. This script is just junk. Let me list a few plotholes:- How did the daughter manage to stay aboard the trailer during its entire time of transit and nobody noticed her? - Why did the daughter build a fire outside, when the trailer has all the comforts of a modern home inside? - Why are all of the large weapons discarded after the first dinosaur attack? - Why are none of the soldiers aware of what they are facing, so they can do stupid things like run from T-Rexes, wear headphones during life-or-death situations, and generally act like a bunch of redshirts?- How, exactly, did the dinosaurs on the ship kill the entire crew, keep the ship steered perfectly towards the harbor, then seal themselves back into the cargo hold? - How did the dinosaurs on the friggin' ship escape? They were all in containers! Are we supposed to believe all of the containment failed, or that one dinosaurs got out and selflessly released all the other ones?- Why didn't the "world's most deadly neurotoxin" have ANY effect on the T-Rex?The answer to all of these questions: the screenwriter is terrible. David Koepp seems to completely forget the sci-fi surrounding in which his characters are immersed, glossing over HUGE areas of potential interest to get to: family conflict. That's right! See the daughter chastise daddy for not being around! See mom talk about how she "needs her space". Isn't that why you go to see a dinosaur movie - to hear people working out their personal issues?There really isn't anything to recommend this movie. The scenes in San Diego are particularly ridiculous. Koepp tries to go for some form of light comedy - "Mommy, there's a dinosaur in the backyard!" - instead of the true carnage we all wanted to see.Even Jurassic Park III - with Tea Leoni stinking up the screen and screaming at the drop of a hat, and that annoying little kid - was better than this at providing sheer thrills and excitement.
52 out of 87 people found the following review useful: Another Steven Spielberg Classic Comes To Life, 19 December 2003 Author: departed07 from United States
It has been four years since Jurassic Park was destroyed and the island Isla Nublar itself was drowned by a hurricane killing most of the dinosaurs; now there is a new island (called Isla Sorna) that has been genetically engineering the same animals, but abandoned the project after the company InGen declared bankruptcy.The film's short prologue introduces a rich family who are trying to enjoy their vacation on the beach of Isla Sorna, but their little girl wanders off into the jungles of the beach where she encounters a small dinosaur called a Compy in which she assumes it's a friendly creature, but turns out to have little friends of its own when they start pecking body parts of her off screen.Jurassic Park survivor Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) returns to John Hammond (Richard Attenbrouogh) after being called upon. This time Hammond wants Malcolm to send in a team of specialists to go in and document the island where he wants to show the world that the dinosaurs are safe and not dangerous animals. Malcolm finds out that his girlfriend Sarah Harding (Julianne Moore) is already on the island and doesn't realize what she's getting into.With the team on the island, they track down Sarah and realize that Malcolm has another surprise that his daughter Kelly has sneaked in one of the trailers and disobeyed her father's orders of staying on the mainland.Another team is on the island not to document but to capture and retrieve the animals to make a zoo. The team is lead by Hammond's nephew Peter Ludlow (Arliss Howard in a bad English accent) who wants to make a profit after the company InGen suffers a lost in profit and damage from the original Jurassic Park. He gets a big game hunter name Roland Tembo (Pete Postelwaite) who wants to bag a Tyrannosaurus Rex as his trophy.The Lost World: Jurassic Park is great entertainment; the special effects are twice worthy than the original. Though I find this film more frightening than the original, it reminds me of the film "Aliens" where the suspense gets bigger and twice as scary as the original.
29 out of 47 people found the following review useful: Let Me Get This Straight..., 31 January 2007 Author: possumopossum from United States
You have a bunch of idiots on an island populated by carnivorous dinosaurs. One dude gets eaten alive by these little pirhana-like creatures while he's taking a whiz because he doesn't have sense enough to stay close to his party. Brilliant. I don't suppose it ever occurred to these idiots that meat eating also included human flesh if it was around when the dinosaurs were really alive. Then you have a bunch of people running around in the grass, knowing that there are grass raptors around. Again, brilliant. Where did these people get their science degrees? K-Mart Blue Light Special? Some dingbat picks up a baby tyrannosaurus rex because it has a broken leg and takes it to her lab to treat it. Uh..excuse me. That baby has a momma. And momma won't be very happy to see some human with her baby.Not content with all this silliness, they have to top themselves and, as far as I'm concerned, win the all-time prize for being stupid in a no stupid zone. They put a tyrannosaurus rex on a ship bound from Costa Rica to San Diego. Did they really think there was a cargo hold that could hold that creature for very long? And to add insult to injury, they have this same creature terrorizing the streets of San Diego. "Mom! Dad! There is a dinosaur in our back yard." Right. Go back to sleep, kid. And then he eats the dog? And drinks out of the swimming pool? This brings me to a dumb question. What effect would drinking chlorinated water have on a tyrannosaurus rex? Okay, enough of this foolishness. This movie was stupid, and the so-called scientists did not show an ounce of common sense. And neither did the script writers. 1 out of 10.
58 out of 105 people found the following review useful: One word to sum up this movie..., 9 November 1999 Author: Justin J. Petersen (jurassiraptor@hotmail.com) from Rapid City, SD
If I had to sum up The Lost World: Jurassic Park in one word, it would be "fun." The movie was definately not what one would expect from reading the novel which it is based on. That's what you get when you base a movie on a novel that's a sequel to a movie based on another novel. In fact, there's more from the first novel in this movie than there is from the second novel. But the movie does deliver, and is a completely acceptable sequel. It is a great peace of work and is a worthy edition to anyone's video library. * * * 1/2 out of * * * *.
22 out of 38 people found the following review useful: Pretty Good- Not as Good as Jurassic Park, not as bad as JP3, 25 March 2006 Author: indy42 from United States
Okay, the best Jurassic Park is obviously Jurassic Park. It was the most faithful to the fantastic Michael Critchton books, plus it was well done. As a sequel, The Lost World does just fine. Of course, I'm used to seeing horrible sequels all the time. Jeff Goldblum does a good job reprising his role as Ian Malcolm, and the newcomers of Julianne Moore and Vince Vaughn do well too. The story is a little unbelievable, though. After recently being replaced by his nephew as CEO of InGen, John Hammond(Richard Attenburough) reveals to Ian Malcolm(Goldblum) a site B: A place where dinosaurs run free. He sends him and his girlfriend, Sarah Harding(Moore), technology expert Eddie Carr(Richard Schiff) and photographer Nick Van Owen(Vaughn) to document the dinosaurs, while the official InGen team, led by Roland Tembo(Pete Postlethwaite), tries to capture the T. Rex and transport it to San Diego. As always, there is many bone-crunching deaths, the Special FX are excellent, but the story and plot fall a a bit short. Overall: 7/10
5 out of 5 people found the following review useful: Solid action-adventure film, 6 June 2008 Author: AdnanZ
"It always starts like this... ooh, ahhh. Then there's running... and screaming."- Dr. Ian MalcolmWhile in "Jurassic Park" both the 'ooh, ahh' parts and the 'running... and screaming' parts were equally enthralling and captivating, it's mainly the running and screaming that's of interest here. Outside of the opening sequence much of the early section of the film just isn't very interesting.The strength of this franchise as a whole is its setting. The creepy, slightly spooky and weird islands with plenty of rain provide a perfect setting for some inventive dinosaur attacks and dramatic tension. This is why taking the dinosaurs off that island and into civilization was a mistake- it's too familiar. It loses the spookiness and distinctive feel of the 'Lost World' fiction sub-genre and ends up feeling cheap and silly. I'd say that from about thirty minutes in until the last thirty minutes this film is on par with the first installment in terms of pacing, characterization, and dialogue... then it deteriorates. The film never gets bad enough for it to be unwatchable but there are mediocre parts here in addition to the exciting parts.The characters are solid as well as the cast. Dr. Alan Grant is sorely missed, but Malcolm is fun enough to compensate. Dr. Sarah Harding played by Julianne Moore is a good supporting character as is Pete Postlethwaite's Captain Ahab-esquire Roland Tembo. The cinematography by Janusz Kaminski is solid here and although Spielberg doesn't seem to be very inspired here he is a professional and knows how to make a film work.If it wasn't for the dull opening half hour and the misguided final act this would have been a consistently entertaining, action-packed romp. Sadly, it wasn't to be. Still, "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" is far, far from the garbage some would have you believe it is and is actually a solid action/adventure film.7/10
14 out of 23 people found the following review useful: Not as original as the first, but good in it's own right., 31 December 2002 Author: lovesguidinglight from Paris, France.
While it does not come close to the originality of the first movie, it does manage to keep up the pace that the first film set forth. Jeff Goldblum does a welcome return as Ian Malcolm, and manages to hold his own with The extravagant special effects that even manages to surpass the first film in some degree. Julianne Moore, and Pete Postlethwaite hold their own as well, and the action has double this time around, letting the movie have some of the most spectacular, and scary scenes ever to put to modern film. If you want a very good time, then you really can't go wrong with it. Maybe except if you want to follow it with Jurassic Park 3, then you are in trouble.
9 out of 14 people found the following review useful: Wasn't there some kind of book at one point?, 10 December 2000 Author: Leonidos from Oklahoma
**SPOILERS**One of my biggest complaints with this movie was the tagline "Something has survived." So? Why wouldn't something have survived? As I recall at the end of Jurassic Park everyone just evacuates the island and leaves the dinosaurs to themselves so of course something has survived. Now if you read the book where they bomb the island back to the stone age (no pun intended) it would make sense that everything should have been dead. Then they go on to tell us that it was based on Michael Crichton's book. Could someone please tell me which parts? (spoilers) First of all the opening scene where the girl gets attacked by the compys is actually the beginning to the FIRST book. What was up with that? Then when we get into the plot the ONLY character that even remotely resembled his character from the book was Ian Malcolm. The rest of the characters were either one character's name transplanted onto another's personality or completely made up for the movie such as the ENTIRE expedition that was attempting to capture live dinosaurs. Then at the end that whole T-Rex rampage through town, what moron thought that would be a good idea? Another element that never happend in the book. O.K. I understand that movies are basically never exactly like the book, but shouldn't there have been at least ONE scene from the book included in the movie? The only one I can remember is the T-Rexs kicking the trailers off the cliff and the kicking of the trailers was the only thing about that scene that was correct nothing else. One last question: What was the high hide hanging from?"Gentleman, you can't fight in here! This is the war room!"
Add another review
