The Lost World - Jurassic Park Reviews

Page 1 of 782
Super Reviewer
½ June 16, 2015
It tries too hard to become more serious, thus losing its adventurous tone and ultimately becoming a lackluster sequel. The Lost World - Jurassic Park may have some of the impressive visuals from its 1993 predecessor, but the dull narrative and less-than-effective edgier tone ultimately leads to the film's mediocre result. 2.5/5
Super Reviewer
½ January 13, 2010
After the success of the first film, everyone wanted to see more of what they loved, and here was Spielberg thinking it was a good idea to bring back everything people loved about the first one, while just recreating the same elements and not even half as good. This has got to be one of the biggest disappoints I have ever seen, because since the first film was so amazing, this one really needed to try something different, and the funny thing was that it did the exact opposite of that. Every second of this film, aside from the last 30 minutes, feels like a retread of it's predecessor. Even Jeff Goldblum acts like a 99 cent version of his character in the original. Sure the effects have improved and the budget has clearly increased, but the story is worse and the characters motivations are forced. I did not like this film at all, in fact I almost hated it.
Super Reviewer
½ June 13, 2011
With a darker tone and no shortage of fast-paced action thrills, Spielberg's 1997 follow-up to his original dino-classic manages to be a an underrated gem that is very much worth checking out for action junkies.

Personally, I am shocked at the amount of hate this sequel has gotten over the years. While far from a cinematic masterpiece, it is levels above the abominable "Jurassic Park III" and in some respects a bit of an improvement over the original.

One aspect that the sequel improves upon are the characters. Although far from spectacular, they posses a lot more charisma and a bit more layers than the first batch. Ian Malcolm, who was regulated to the sidelines in the original, is given center stage and the film is all the better for it, especially given Jeff Goldblum's more dynamic portrayal. Julianne Moore and Vince Vaughn also give decent supporting performances but Pete Postlethwaite steals the show as the thrill-seeking hunter Roland Tembo (also has probably the most fascinating character arc out of all the cast). Even the dinosaurs are given more characterization than the first, especially the velociraptors and the T-rexes. It's also a plus that the dialogue and banter yield a bit more emotional meat outside of just providing clunky exposition.

The visuals and action are just as spectacular as the first and Spielberg follows the "Aliens" template of giving the audience more dinosaurs. My favorite sequences include the nerve-racking breaking glass sequence and anything involving the velociraptors (tall grass sequence).

As far as plot goes, it does lack some originality (it's pretty much Spielberg's big budget remake of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Lost World") along with containing a few plot contrivances and ridiculous moments (Ex. velociraptor killed by gymnastics). Although to be fair, it's not like the first movie was lacking in ridiculous moments either. The closing San Diego sequence, while thrilling, did feel overall tacked on. Almost as if Spielberg desperately wanted to make a mini-Kaiju movie in the vein of Godzilla and he saw this flick as his only chance to do so. Ironically, the sequence ended up being a much better and more faithful representation of Godzilla movies than the crap-storm Roland Emmerich version that came out a year later.

On a side note, John Williams provides the score once again but unfortunately the music feels phoned in and lacking in memorable ques. It doesn't end up being as moving as the first one.

It's far from a masterpiece or a significant highlight in Speilberg's long and prestigious career, but it's a nice guilt-free slice of action/adventure fun nonetheless.
Samuel Riley
Super Reviewer
August 8, 2012
Rather underrated as its constantly compared to its visual revolution of a predecessor. With more dinosaurs, the intensity does go up, mainly with Peter Stormare's encounter with packs of compsognathus. Which I thought meets up to the intensity of the original's opening. Jeff Goldblum and Richard Attenborough reprise their roles, while backed by Julianne Moore and Pete Postlethwaite. However, I suddenly lost track when *SPOILER* a T-Rex is transfered to San Diego and brings destruction within the city. There are some moments that do seem overly dramatic, if compared to most scenes in the original. Besides these, the visuals and acting are at a similar level to the original. Don't compare this too much witht original and this will be an interesting ride.
Super Reviewer
½ September 4, 2007
Although it has two of the original cast returning to this shamble of a movie!
Although 7yrs after its classic original you would have thought that they would have had the time to perfect the storyline and make strong characters, however this movie failed on so many levels!
Mainly they shouldnt have made a sequel without the original characters but im glad there names arent but to this terrible sequel which is a shame as i adore the first one!
Super Reviewer
½ March 24, 2012
Some imaginative action sequences isn't enough to help save this disastrous sequel. The score is just as annoying and the narrative even more pale in comparison to its predecessor. At least the visual effects are off the chain.
Super Reviewer
August 4, 2007
Another island is discovered with living dinosaurs. Do they learn any lessons? Good cast.
Super Reviewer
October 29, 2011
An absolute killer movie, to me, it's one of the best portrayal's of Earth's most deadliest predators, what's best about this installment is that it didn't shy away from killing off any characters, I do not know why it is seen as a let down compared to the first.
Directors Cat
Super Reviewer
October 30, 2011
Nowhere near as good as the first. A simple reason for this is it's a repetition of the first film and Jeff Goldblum in the lead role was another bad idea. Its like Jaws, it cant really be done more than once. I enjoyed Jaws 2 because it managed to create suspense which is something The Lost World didn't do.
Super Reviewer
½ January 22, 2011
Easily the laziest sequel in film history. A real embarrassment for Spielberg (and even Vaughn).
Super Reviewer
April 23, 2011
There was more screen time with the dinos this time, which is what I wanted. But the problem is the characters are so boring, the plot is "ehhhh." Spielberg knew what he was doing, but the writers sure didn't. But this is not fun and boring, but is not a horible movie. The effects and music are great though, but thats expected from Spielberg. Just a bad movie, and a disapointment.
Super Reviewer
September 6, 2010
One of many unneeded sequels to Jurassic Park. At least this one takes it off the island and into the real world. It's a fun and entertaining movie, but that's all.
Super Reviewer
½ July 31, 2011
Amazing as a child, but descent reviewing it now.
Super Reviewer
½ July 29, 2011
Dr. Ian Malcolm: Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that's how it always starts. Then later there's running and screaming. 

"Something Has Survived"

Not nearly as good the second time around for Spielberg and his Jurassic Parks films. Replaced the two annoying kids for one equally annoying girl. Swapped Dern's annoying performance for Moore's annoying performance. Then there's the plot which is nowhere near as exciting as the first. It seems and this is more than likely the case, that Spielberg really didn't care if this movie was good. It was going to make money because of the success of the first one. He was right, of course. The movie made a shit load of money.

Sam Neill is gone and is replaced as the lead character by Goldblum. The acting is worse in this one and the action sequences seem much less suspenseful and satisfying. The movie is saved by a good sequence near the end when the T-Rex runs through the streets of San Diego. There's no denying; that scene was pretty awesome. Other then that though, the movie as a whole was kind of dull. That's the last thing I thought I would be saying about a Spielberg movie.

The Lost World in my opinion is the Spielberg's worst directorial effort. Many would argue for War of The Worlds, but I liked that much more then this poor sequel. The only life in this movie is remembering how good the first one was. Sure, the dinosaurs still look awesome, but the movie needs more than that. We already know the dinosaurs are cool. 

I'll probably watch the third one soon out of curiosity. But I definitely won't expect much out of it after this train wreck.
Super Reviewer
July 28, 2011
"The Lost World: Jurassic Park" is brain dead sequel to the brain dead "Jurassic Park." Don't get me wrong, I love "Jurassic Park" because it's superficial and silly, a pulpy dinosaur yarn, and that's exactly why I like part two. These are just chase movies, plain and simple. The effects and set pieces are thrilling and fun and so is it's cast. Are they playing actual characters? No. They are cardboard cutouts running around, but it's dumb and entertaining. What more do you want from a dinosaur picture?

On a side note, "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" has one of Steven Spielberg's most eclectic casts. I wish he would work again with many of these actors, actually giving them something worthwhile to do on screen,
Super Reviewer
½ June 9, 2006
Spielberg said he purposely didn't make this film as good as it coulsd have been because he didn't want it to eclipse the first one. What a bunch of crap. If he didn't wanna make it a masterpiece, that's fine, but he could have at least made it just slightly lesser than the first instead of far behind it.

The main issue is that this film strays too far from the source material, and it is all handled sloppily. It's just spectacle without the intelligence and wonder of the first one.

There are moments of this movie I do like, but this is probably my least favorite Spielberg and definitely one of his weakest.
michael e.
Super Reviewer
½ June 6, 2011
surprisingly considered the worst, i liked it more than the first, not as much as the third i liked it better than the first by far
Super Reviewer
½ May 27, 2011
Boring, much talk and nothing to show. Neither looks like a Jurassic Park sequel, terrible. Rotten.
Super Reviewer
April 27, 2011
In my Jurassic Park review, I noted that most of the acting is enough to distract from the dozens of deviations from the novel. Here, it isn't. Instead of dozens of deviations, there are HUNDREDS of deviations from the novel. Now, before I got all book fanboy on this film, I want to point out that as a film geek I understand that books have to be streamlined to make it to the screen or else any film based on a book would be about 4 hours or longer. But, at the very least, FOLLOW THE DAMN BOOK. The novel "The Lost World" doesn't involve San Francisco. At all. The trailer hanging off the cliff sequence during the first half of this film is at the end of the book. The villains in the book and film are completely different, several characters have been removed, and I could go on for several more paragraphs. But one question still remains, why did I give this 4 stars? Because Steven Spielberg decided to use this film as a way to pay homage to monster-on-the-loose films of the 50s, with references to Godzilla and King Kong. The film geek side of me mercifully added a star because of that and Jeff Goldblum is quite fun to watch. Now as for Jurassic Park 3...
Super Reviewer
April 24, 2011
After the Epic Jurassic Park, you'd expect something great from it's sequel, right? I mean it's only natural that one could expect that the sequel would deliver something. Unless the sequel is The Godfather Part II or Tron Legacy, you're of course going to be disappointed. The Lost World fails to capture the elements that made the first Jurassic Park so great. The magic is gone. It's clear that Spielberg is trying to overdue the film and focus more on special effects than on story development. The idea of the film is good and the concept of Ingen going on a safari hunt on the island hunting dinosaurs was a good concept. However the story feels likes hanging in midair with no place to go. What made the first Jurassic Park so great is that you don't know what will happen to the characters as they are in a theme park with living, breathing dinosaurs and it keeps you guessing what will happen to them. But with The Lost World, the element of the unknown is not there as we know that the hunters and researchers will be lunch for the free roaming dinosaurs. Right off the bat we know the outcome. The predictability of the film it's it's biggest weakness. Some of the characters I thought were so poorly developed and simply just stupid. For example Ian Malcolms daughter lacked common sense and judgement all around. I mean wtf? was she thinking? Listen to your dad, it might save your life! The Lost World has high concept thats not fully explored in my opinion and though it had some action packed moments such as the T Rex attacking San Diego, the film was average and frankly a disappointment. I give it three stars for the appealing special effects, story wise and acting wise this film would be worth a two star or two and half stars. Luckily the third entry in the Jurassic Park franchise redeems the idiocy of this film.
Page 1 of 782