The Lost World - Jurassic Park (Widescreen Collector's Edition) Reviews

• Okay, but........

  
  By on 2000-09-08
  I see reviews here that give this film one star, and in a way, it does deserve just that. However, there are certain parts that must make you think this movie is better than most people say it is. For one, the special effects are better than the original, and the way the film is shot makes them seem much more realistic. However, great special effects are no match for a good story.

  Jurassic Park, the original, had a wonderful plot. Two dinosaur experts visit a park, not knowing what to expect. And the scary part is this....something like that could actually happen. Now, tell me this....why would Dr. Malcolm, Jeff Goldblum, go back to an island just to save his girlfriend? Yeah, he loves her and all, but I'm pretty sure that Mr. Hammond could get her back safely without making him go all the way there.

  Also, there are several inconsistantcies in the film. Look at the original: There's a raptor expert with a gun hunting down what he knows best. What happens? He gets killed. Now look at JP2: A young girl that knows nothing about the animals, and might I add that she doesn't have a gun, takes out three of them using gymnastics. Maybe is she was Jackie Chan......I'm not gonna even get into that.

  Jurassic Park 2 needed to have a plot that would make you think, "Oh yeah, that could happen." Not, "They must want pictures of those cute, innocent dinosaurs!" And they all know that they're dangerous, but yet, they want the pictures. I'd be like, "Forget that! I can live without 'em!" Spielberg, in my opinion, is the greatest director of all time. He scored big with the original, Saving Private Ryan, Jaws, and several others...but when it comes to JP2, it just didn't work out.

  I prey that Jurassic Park 3 will be something worth the money I'm paying, not a plot where the film doesn't develope right, so they go back to get more pictures! (I only hope they don't read that and go, "Great idea.")

  If you liked Jurassic Park, you'll be disappointed with its sequel. But if you really loved Godzilla, and you thought that was the best movie ever, you might like this one. But go ahead and see it anyway.....some of the action scenes may be funnier than a comedy.....
  
  

• Sound vs Extras

  
  By A2TKY65AFT3K2E on 2000-06-22
  Just when you'd think that scientists had realized dinosaurs and humans don't mix, along comes The Lost World: Jurassic Park to prove you wrong. In this sequel, John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) summons chaos theorist and onetime colleague Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) to his home with some startling information - while nearly everything at his Jurassic Park had been destroyed, his engineers happened to have a second site, where other dinosaurs, resurrected through DNA cloning technology, were kept in hiding. It seems the dinosaurs on the second island are alive and well and even breeding; and Hammond wants Malcolm to observe and document the reptiles before Hammond's financiers can get to them. Malcolm had enough of the dinosaurs the first time out, but he decides to make the trip when he finds out that his girlfriend, paleontologist Sarah Harding (Julianne Moore), is already there. However, Ian and Sarah aren't the only visitors arriving on the island; a camera crew led by ecological activist Nick Van Owen (Vince Vaughn) is on the way, as is Roland Tembo (Pete Postlethwaite), a world-class wild game hunter who is supposed to round up the dinosaurs and who hopes to bag a prehistoric trophy for himself in the process. This sequel to Jurassic Park boasted even more impressive special effects than the first film, though the acting and screenplay aren't always at the same level.

  This DTS version has less extras (Deleted Scenes, Illustrations and Conceptual drawings, Storyboards, Models, The World of Jurassic Park, Industrial Light and Magic), but the sound is sure going to compensate that. The French Surround is not available too. Thats why it is on you to decide whats more valuable.
  
  

• Not as good as the first, but still a lot of fun. . .

  
  By A2ZNJKY01ANDHG on 1999-12-09
  The Lost World - Jurassic Park has gotten a lot of criticism since its release. Much of it is justified, but equally as much is based on a very unfair comparison to the blockbuster original. Only a handful of movies can justifiably claim the title of "classic", and none that I know of are sequels.

  The biggest problem for The Lost World is that it is impossible to recreate the sense of awe and wonder that was inspired by Jurassic Park's groundbreaking effects work. Instead, too much emphasis was placed on the savagery of the carnivorous dinosaurs and the incredible stupidity of the humans invading their territory.

  However, it must be pointed out that the T-Rex's, raptors and other sauripods in this film are equally as impressive as they were in Jurassic Park. There are some very good, shuddery action sequences. When the location shifts to San Diego, there is a good deal of very legitimate comedy. The total absurdity of an Animal Control truck's headlong response to a rampaging Tyrannosaur could only be countered by its equally headlong departure from the area.

  No, The Lost World is not as good as Jurassic Park. Yes, it's a little too violent and yes, Jeff Goldblum's moralizing gets to be just about sickening. But for all of these minor distractions, this is a very entertaining movie that is well worth your investment of viewing time and maybe a few dollars. And after all, this time the critters win!
  
  

• Evidence against the need for sequels

  
  By on 2001-08-02
  OK, everyone's mentioned how wonderful and truly groundbreaking Jurassic Park is and I agree. But this movie was horrible. Julianne Moore needs to stop taking roles in sequels (hannibal) Anyway, I would have given this movie 3 stars but it lost one star because scenes were ridiculously long and the scene where the Malcolm's daughter does her olympic bar routine to fight the dinosaur--talk about corny.
  
  

• "Nothing" has survived from the novel by Michael Crichton.

  
  By A2UYXNDGENSAMK on 1999-11-29
  I don't know why The Lost World producers insist in telling that this motion picture is based on the novel by Michael Crichton if almost nothing has survived from his remarkable story in this motion picture. "If I hadn't found a story I was interested in, Jurassic Park would have remained just a nice memory for me," says Steven Spielberg. However, the bestseller novel The Lost World, by Michael Crichton, which is really a great story and the perfect sequel to Jurassic Park, seems to be "ignored" by this motion picture producers and the cinematographic adaptation of the original story became a running and screaming breathtaking adventure with amazing visual and sound effects, and an spectacular soundtrack, but with a little convincing story, completely different from the proposal of Michael Crichton for The Lost World, disappointing everybody who had read his novel. A lost story concerning a Lost World!
  
  
• Disappointing sequel makes no sense.
  By on 2000-07-01
  This is a very silly movie.How silly?Well,for a start the heroes are directly responsible for everyones deaths.Firstly,they cause their friend's death when they kidnap a baby T-Rex to put a cast on it's broken leg(were they coming back to take it off?).this causes the baby's mother to come after them and eat their friend.They then sabotage the camp which causes all the others deaths!And it doesn't matter how many people get eaten,nobody fires one single shot at the dinosaurs,even when one T-Rex rampages through a city.Are they supposed to be bullet-proof or something? No,this is a very silly movie.It makes no sense at all.How this got good reviews and Godzilla bad ones is absurd.
  
  
• An insult to Michael Crichton
  By on 1999-08-06
  I am very disapointed in this excuse for a movie based on a book. The book is a great example of Michael Crichtons amazing work, but this movie takes all that and tosses it out. It depresses me to know that people would see the movie without reading the book. When someone hears "The Lost World" Michael Crichton should come into mind, not Universal Studios. It contradicts so many points in the book it is offensive. Sure the visual effects are good, but so what? That's all nothing without a friggin plot. If you see this move, please, for Crichtons sake, read the book first.
  
  
• Give 'em lots of dinos. That's what they want, ain't it?
  By on 1999-10-03
  Is any further proof needed that Hollywood today is populated by people with no imagination whatsoever. Nobody can even think up original names for films, it seems.

  This has nothing to do with Conan Doyle's timelessly wonderful epic. Neither has it very much to do with Michael Crichton's highly readable follow-up to his excellent book 'Jurassic Park'.

  Things start well, with some gritty direction, and strong characters are played by Jeff Goldblum and Pete Postlethwaite. There is also a mildly interesting plot about a ruthless organization attempting to abduct the dinosaurs and a few humorous scenes involving a send-up of Robert Bakker. But they're soon lost in the avalanche of special effects and one chase scene after another.

  Admittedly the special effects are as good as before and there are a few genuinely suspenceful scenes, but most of it seems to be played for laughs. There's no sense of awe and wonder, the dinosaurs just being taken for granted. Halfway through the film I had completely lost interest.

  And as for the final T-Rex scene - it's just a joke. A 50-foot long, 18 foot tall dinosaur stomping through the middle of a densely-populated city and hardly being noticed?

  Worth going to see for the special effects, but this is one of those all-too-common sequels which is about money rather than quality.
  
  

• A sick, sadistic film
  By AAHNPLJ1L109Y on 2000-07-19
  Having loved the first Jurassic Park film, I came to this one expecting more of the same kind of thrills. Unfortunately, what I got was an extremely mean-spirited and poorly-written excuse for a film. It felt as though Spileberg had directed the film from home via satellite communication (save the one day he made a cameo appearance in the TV reflection at the end).

  My biggest complaint with the film is, as I've stated above, the large amount of sadistic, mean-spirited violence throughout the film. The first Jurassic Park was fairly light on dinosaur-involved fatalities, and each time one occurred, it was treated horrifically, intending the audience to be shocked at the grisly deaths. In The Lost World, the deaths are treated as eye candy, at which the viewers are meant to be in awe of. Sometimes, deaths are protracted to uncomfortable length (such as the man who is attacked again and again by the tiny scavenger dinosaurs). I decided that I didn't like the movie, however, after my favorite character was killed by the two T-Rexes in a particularly graphic manner. (They make a wishbone of his body.)

  What burns me even more are the actions of the Vince Vaughn character. The animal rights wacko he plays is responsible for the deaths of many humans, however the audience is supposed to feel that he is justified, because after all, only the "nasty corporate guys" get killed (with the exception of the death of the aforementioned favorite character, also a result of the eco-terrorist). Apparently, we are suppposed to believe that the dinosaurs should be preserved at all costs (including human lives), despite the fact that they had been selected by nature to become extinct.

  And then, of course, there is the horrible T-Rex-on-the-loose-ending sequence, in which more people are killed unnecessarily. (Fortunately, the screenwriter, David Koepp, who also made the abysmal adaptation of the wonderful novel A Stir of Echoes, plays one of the victims.) I keep wondering, though, how a T-Rex could kill everyone on the boat without causing any damage to the cabin or the rest of the ship, for that matter. Yet another protracted and sadistic death takes place (once again, it's okay, because he's a corporate jerk) before the film is over.

  Spielberg should be ashamed of this film. I rather hope he one day issues a written apology for it.
  
  

• Sequel Blues
  By AQBRMBQ99ESI7 on 2005-06-05
  The original JURASSIC PARK was rightly hailed as a masterpiece. It was a winner on several fronts including story, performance and, especially, the special effects that created the dinosaurs that starred in the film. Of these criteria, the only one which THE LOST WORLD can lay claim to is that of the special effects. The dinosaurs are just as stunning in the sequel as they were in the original and there is some additional variety as well. That being said, everything else about this one is weaker.
  
  A few years after the original story, a scientific team heads back to the islands to learn what they can. Included among them is Jeff Goldblum's girlfriend. He has no wish to return but does so in order to protect her. Unknown to him, his daughter stows away. Things are exciting and tense enough with that setup but the board of directors of the company that originally financed the venture sends in a large scale team in order to capture some of them and bring them back to a "zoo". Inevitably, there is conflict between the capitalist exploiters and the environmental types. They put these differences aside, however, when it looks like all of them are on the menu. Things get even more complicated when it looks like all of San Diego is on the menu as well. It is all very reminiscent of KING KONG.
  
  The film is well done and the acting is credible but it is just not as exciting as the first. It is certainly worth viewing, especially if you like dino flics but save it until after you have seen everything else that is high on your list.
  
  
  
• Needed more from book
  By AI71HSTLF6XY7 on 2003-11-06
  I really thought the whole, My girlfriend is on the island so I must go save her, was really stupid. Coulden't they find a better way to get him there? Unlike others, I did not think the acting was that bad. I really thought Jeff did a good job. I thought the special effects were good too. The thing that really made me mad was that the movie was compleatly different from the great book by Michael Crichton. If you read the book but have not seen the movie, DO NOT BUY THE MOVIE. It will be a waste of your time and money. Instead go and read the novel again. The fact that they changed the characters and made new ones for the movie was just plain stupid. I say it would have been a better movie if they just stuck to the book.
  
  
• Low Point Spieldberg's career; High Point in Goldblum's
  By A2LZWOWISA7RS7 on 2002-05-19
  Don't get me wrong, it's a great movie, but for a Spieldberg film, it bites the dust.

  It is very LOOSELY based on the book. Where's Levine? Hammond is alive? A rescue mission? Nuh-Uh. he movie is nothing compared to the GREAT book.

  Ian Malcom and a rescue squad go to an island to rescue his ex, Sara [in the book, SHE comes after HIM]. His black [?] daughter sneaks on [in the book, she is white, her BEST FRIEND is black, who also sneaks on in the book]. He never figures out what InGen was doing on Isla Sorna! Meanwhile, some bad dudes are transporting dinosaurs to San Diego [might be in the book, might not've reached it]. I know for a fact the San Diego scene is not in the book.

  Overall, I really liked this fantastic movie. It is great, but not based on the book!
  
  

• The true sequel to Jurassic Park
  By A2I3S5UIL5YV7S on 2001-08-17
  Does this movie have flaws? Yes, But at least it's a respectful sequel to the original. Jeff Goldblum is in fine form as the lead, and Pete Postlewaite is great as the big game hunter out for the ultimate game. The film is not as good as the first but it�s much, much better than Jurassic Park 3. This film deserves your attention, and it really does deliver on its thrills.

  If you want to watch a real sequel to Jurassic Park that really delivers on what it promises, then The Lost World Is your Film.
  
  

• Terrible movie.
  By on 2001-07-31
  I saw The Lost World: Jurassic Park 2 when it was first released way back in Spring of '97. I was utterly disgusted. The acting in the film is horrendous, especially that of the little girl (gymnastics anyone)? Jeff Goldblum reprises his role as the smart-aleck math guy from the first movie, and Richard Attenborough makes a brief cameo appearance as John Hammond, the old man from the first movie, the two kid's who were in the first movie are back as well for brief cameo's. The action doesn't pick up until about 1 hour into the film when Goldblum's character ends up on an island inhabited by dinosaurs. From there on it's pretty much just "oh no! a dinosaur! run!" type of thing. The last half hour of the movie takes place in San Diego (or Fransisco, I don't remember) where a T-rex runs rampant, knocking over buildings and stuff - it's basically a parody of Godzilla. By the time this movie was over I had a headache and was sick for hours afterward - this movie is that bad. Please, don't see this movie unless you liked the first one.
  
  
• Wildly Underrated
  By A2HJZ2KN9YA9L2 on 2001-02-14
  I'm going to begin by talking about the 2 major shortcomings of Michael Crichton's novel Lost World. In Dr. Crichton's novel Jurassic Park, the mathematician Ian Malcolm dies. There is no satisfactory explanation for his resurrection. Just a major continuity error. The second problem is the title. It is stolen from the novel by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (The same guy who created Sherlock Holmes) about a group of explorers who find a remote plateau where Dinosaurs still live. Taking that into consideration, the title almost feels like a form of plagiarism.

  This is why the movie is better. Mr. Spielberg works in several leftover plot bits from Jurassic Park into Dr. Crichton's basic story, then twists the plot a bit more so that he can work in elements of Sir Arthur's story as well. The result is a hodge podge of some of the cooler elements of both novels by Michael Crichton as well as some decent acknowledgement to the original source material as provided by Sir Doyle.

  Doyle's influence is most strongly felt in the T-Rex in San Francisco climax. In the original 1925 silent film The Lost World, a captured Brontosaurus wreaks havoc in London. In the original novel, a baby Pteradactyl causes panic in a lecture hall.

  Of course the movie lacks some of the wonder of the original. Once the audience is used to seeing such exceptionally realistic dinosaurs, they can't really go back. And the characters aren't much more memorable in this movie than they are in the first, in spite of efforts to make them stronger. This is because, in spite of the audience's familiarity with the visual effects, those effects still overpower the characters. This has always been the way with this type of movie. Does anyone remember any dialogue from King Kong besides "It was beauty killed the beast?" King Kong is even boring until they finally get to Skull Island.

  People are prepared to compare The Lost World: Jurassic Park to either Michael Crichton's novel Lost World, or to Steven Spielberg's movie Jurassic Park. I am of the opinion that Mr. Spielberg, in working in elements from older, similar stories, tried to take his movie further than Dr. Crichton's contrived plot allowed. And for the most part, Spielberg succeeded
  
  

• Easily Steven Spielberg's worst movie to date!
  By on 1999-04-25
  When I think about Schindler's List, Jurassic Park, ET and Saving Private Ryan I find it hard to believe that a director as brilliant as Steven Spielberg actually had a role in making this horrible film. This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen! Nowhere as brilliant as Jurassic Park was. It insults the audience with its horrbly unoriginal plot. Guess what? There's a whole other island filled with dinoaurs that we didn't know about before! And you know what? some evil greedy men want to bring those dinosaurs back so its up to Jeff Goldblum to stop them! See what I mean? But then it REALLY gets bad. At the end an adult T-Rex takes over a ship and invades an American city Godzilla style. Basically the entire movie is a pointless and slow dinosaur massacre through which we just keep asking, why don't they just shoot the damn things with those freakin guns?! I would have given this 0 stars if I could. Horrible. I know I basically spoiled the movie for anyone who hasn't seen it, but trust me, I did you a favor.
  
  
• Atrocious, Contemptible, Contemptuous
  By on 1999-02-08
  The most pathetic waste of film ever to come out of Hollywood. Spielberg owes me my $8 for this load of junk. No script, no characters, just a lot of running and yelling and computer generated special effects, and a surreal message that dinosaurs are better parents than humans. And to think that Spielberg actually released this, thinking that it was fit for audience consumption! This shows the absolute contempt Spielberg has for the movie-going public. Boycott it.
  
  
• PLEASE READ THE BOOK!!!
  By A2MJJDW41VUQDD on 2005-08-14
  I remember how disappointed I was when I first saw the movie (in the theaters). I recently read the book (I've been on a Michael Crichton kick). Anyway...the book gets a 4 or 4.5 star rating!
  
  I can't believe Michael Crichton actually allowed this farce to have the name "The Lost World" when they are nothing alike. There are over 30 people in the movie, only 3 of which are in the book. From this, you should easily guess that the plots are totally different. I won't tell you more, because I want you all to read the book!
  
  Three cheers to Crichton -- a Bronx cheer to Spielberg.
  
  BTW -- I did the book on tape while in the car. George Guidall (narrator) is excellent (as usual).
  
  
  
• The Lost World
  By AP0R9UZK7W5UB on 2000-09-13
  This sequel to the 1993 blockbuster is good as sequels go but isn't a great movie. Jeff Goldblum gives a good performance as Dr. Ian Malcolm and Julianne Moore contributes too. The screenplay based on the novel by Michael Crichton is poorly done but has a few funny lines. The cinematography is good and captures the horror very well, and the production design is very frightening. The soundwork is very good, but the editing by veteran Michael Kahn (Close Encounters, Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T.) is not very well done, you can hardly digest what is happening. John Williams contributes a rousing yet ominous score. One thing that keeps this movie moving are the incredible Oscar nominated special effects done masterfully by the great Dennis Muren and Stan Winston. The basic plot is that John Hammond, the creator of Jurassic Park, has an island where dinosaurs roam freely but must send Malcolm along with his girlfriend and two other companions to photograph the dinosaurs so Ingen will be kept from disturbing the dinosaurs. Overall, fairly well done, suspenseful, but fails to capture the awe, greatness, and wonder that the original possessed. There is also a Jurassic Park 3 coming out. I can't wait.
  
  
• Far Inferior Sequel
  By A2I6MHMAZZDCRX on 2005-03-01
  Dr. Malcolm is surprised to learn that there is another island full of dinosaurs. He's even more surprised when he learns that his girlfriend has gone to the island to study the dinosaurs in their natural environment. Convinced she's in danger, he sets out to rescue her.
  
  Meanwhile, another group arrives on the island, intent on capturing the creatures for a theme park in San Diego. When the two groups meet, ciaos ensues, and suddenly it's a fight for survival against these ancient beasts. Who will get off the island this time?
  
  To my surprise, I enjoyed the first movie and looked forward to this one. I made the mistake of reading the book first, however. While the first one was a decent adaptation of the book, this movie tried too much to do it's own thing. And the story suffers as a result. Don't get me wrong; there are some great action scenes. The trailer sequence is especially a favorite. But most of the time, it doesn't hold up to the book or the first movie. And don't even get me started on the ending.
  
  The first movie will be considered a classic monster film. This movie left much to be desired. Just another example of how bad sequels can be.
  
  
• Why oh why?
  By A38H45CTT9T39K on 2006-09-16
  Let me start by saying the first movie of the series was absolutely fantastic. Regardless of the fact that it didn't stick with a few key plotlines in the book, everyone still did a great job adapting the original Jurassic Park. Then came this piece of trash...
  
  Whereas the first movie at least attempted to loosely base itself on the book, this one just takes the brilliant writing of Michael Chrichton and throws it directly out the window.
  
  First off, John Hammond is supposed to be dead. He dies at the end of the first novel. Secondly Ian Malcome is supposedly dead, or at least MIA at the end of the first book, and we join him in a costarican hospital in the opening of the 2nd. There is no bratty daughter, and the entire premise has much more to it.
  
  MOST IMPORTANTLY... the entire ending in san diego with the T-Rex... which was possibly the worst conceived plot line in the history of movies... did not exist in the book!
  
  I went into this movie expecting a tightly woven plot, a huge concentration on the conspiracy of having such an island exist, and the anticipation of some good dino-scenes to top it off.
  What I ended up getting was the writing equivalent of a monkey at a typewriter drooling on a page. Not only that... but because of the lack of plot, the dino scenes are complete over-kill. When you see so much of it, you lose that awe and wonder of the first film. When you see that Brachiosaur in the first 20 mins of the original film, the wonderment is difficult to rival. There are no such moments in this film.
  
  If you're looking for a quick fix for decent looking dino FX, go nuts. However, if you're looking for something more substantial with an actual plotline, flick off the dvd player and pick up the book.
  
  Oh and one more thing... don't go NEAR the 3rd movie. They didn't even have a book to be untrue to. I can't imagine how much more long-winded and rambling my review would be for that one.
  
  
• A LOST SEQUEL!
  By A2BT7IC8PT1ZC9 on 2005-05-06
  The original was great, but this sequel stunk! The story must
  have been written in 1 day, it was so stupid! Jeff Goldblum, was
  even more annoying than usual, and had a black daughter, who was
  a gymnast, yeah that's believable! Do yourself a favor, watch
  1 and 3, they're good! This #2 belongs in the toilet, with my#2!
  
  
• Waste of two hours.
  By A30ZIGG3JM3YSH on 2000-08-07
  This plotless wonder has you cheering for the dinosaurs from minute one. First, you hope they eat the entire cast, then, you hope they eat the entire city of San Diego. Nice special effects cannot counteract a muddled script, poor acting, a pointless plot and a kid.

  Save two hours of your life, you'll never get them back if you watch this turkey.
  
  

• Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World
  By A3SZXI925AAGVR on 2008-04-05
  I'm a big fan of the Jurassic Park franchise. Even though this movie was reviewed by the so-called "media experts" as not being as good as the first movie, I liked it very much. Would recommend this movie to all.
  
  
• Less impressive than the first yet still very enjoyable...
  By ANCOMAI0I7LVG on 2007-11-29
  So as far as sequels go, this is far from the train-wreck many reviewers make it out to be. Is it as amazing as the original `Jurassic Park'? No, but that doesn't make this a failure of a film. In fact, I happen to much enjoy `The Lost World' and feel that, while it could have been better I can't really find much I dislike about it. There is lots of intense sequences, some stylized deaths and there's that whole `T-Rex gone mad' scene at the end that makes this whole rendezvous worth it. Sure, the plot is a little tired and it's a little ridiculous when you think about it (albeit `Jurassic Park III' is even more ridiculous) but if you just want a good action flick with realistic special effects then `The Lost World: Jurassic Park' will not disappoint.
  
  So we meet up with Ian Malcolm again this time played less annoyingly by Jeff Goldblum (I was not a fan of his character in the first film but here he seems to have gotten a hold of his performance and ironed it out). Ian is still shaken by his encounter with the cold-blooded beasts in the first film, and rightfully so. When he finds out that there is a second island hosting the dinosaurs he is far from interested until he hears that his girlfriend Sarah Harding is already on the island studying the dinosaurs (it's ridiculous to me that she would go there alone...that would NOT happen) and so he immediately gets together a rescue team to travel to the island. Little does he know that he has a stowaway aboard, his daughter Kelly.
  
  The rescue team is thwarted by the efforts of another team sent for an entirely different purpose. This makes big trouble for the group, especially when they take matters into their own hands.
  
  Remember that this is an action film. The story is assumed less important than the graphics and so it does take a backseat unfortunately. The acting is descent for a film of this nature. Like I said, Goldblum ups his game in that he is far less annoying this go around (which is a good thing since he has a much larger role). Julianne Moore can add another film to her résumé she can be ashamed of, but at least her performance isn't horrid. Vince Vaughn to me was a standout, but again, he's been much better in many other films. Vanessa Lee Chester is a descent young actress.
  
  The real actors though are the people in charge of creating the dinosaurs and they do a dynamic job once again. There are a slew of creative action scenes that make up for the lack of depth in the plot. The raptor attack through the field is great, as is their ambush at the communications tower (although the whole acrobatics scene is horrifically stupid). The T-Rex though is champ here for his two main scenes are the best in the film. The whole `trailer over the cliff' scene (which was the best part of the novel by the way) is brilliantly constructed, and the whole `T-Rex loose through the city' scene at the end (which is so `King Kong') is just amazing. They also introduce a new dinosaur this go around, these little devils that hunt in packs.
  
  So, while `The Lost World' is not as well crafted as the original `Jurassic Park' it is still very enjoyable and worth our attention. I'm sure most everyone has seen this movie so I don't think it's a movie you `recommend' as much as discuss. So, for all of you who have your own opinions of this movie, what do you think? Am I right, wrong or somewhere in between?
  
  
• Made for money only!
  By ARS9W9BC3ST8Q on 2006-11-25
  Do yourself a favor and skip this sequel. The first one was great, however; this sequal was only made for cheap thrills and money. Pass "2" up and go strait to Jurassic Park 3, which is actually pretty good.
  
  
• 2 1/2 stars...So-so
  By A10C0TAWDYVMFU on 2004-08-20
  This movie is kind of drab, monotonous and uninteresting. All of the wonder, magic and thrills of the first film (a masterpiece) are gone. Instead we get Malcolm thrown on an island with a some totally uninteresting characters (including his girlfriend and daughter, but especially everyone else), in a dark barrage of somehow boring dino action scenes. Not much in this movie stands out, as opposed to the original where every scene was uniquely captivating. This movie just doesn't have a spark to it.
  
  Ian Malcolm made a great character in Jurassic Park. He had a big impact in a small role. Here, he's in the lead, and either the character isn't cut out for it or the writing wasn't done in the right way to make it work. 'Cus it doesn't work. He's boring here. The whole movie is boring. Even the dinosaurs are boring. It just never takes off the ground. I can't say I cared for the book version either, I still haven't managed to read it completely. But it's pretty funny that the movie combined two characters to form Malcolm's super-gymnist daughter. Why didn't they use two seperate kids? One kid is lonely. One kid doesn't work.
  
  And the ending. Dear Lord. The T-Rex flying down a city street destroyed whatever sense of integrity and wonder this movie had. They made the T-Rex mundane somehow by bringing it into the every day world. It was just cheap, cheesy, and sucked any enjoyment out of the film. Bah.
  
  So, it wasn't too great of a movie. Sadly, in comparison to Jurassic Park 3, it's brilliant.
  
  
• Better than The third, not as good as the first.
  By A3SXLJTZS6OAKC on 2001-12-18
  While it's not as good as the first movie, it's a hell of allot better than Part 3. Jeff Goldblum is great as Ian Malcolm( Unlike Sam Nell, who embarrasses himself and the series with his performance in Jurassic Park 3) and The movie is up to snuff with the legacy of the original, Unlike Jurassic Park 3. If you want to be entertain, then The Lost World Is your Film.
  
  
• totally dissappointed at the contempt the filmmakers have
  By A3HNYZQHZX1MZ0 on 2000-10-08
  for the public at large and especially the fans of these two films.Fans,who in large part,helped make both films blockbusters.I purchased an all in one dvd/surround sound reciever with DD5.1 and DTS capability.I agree that DTS is the superior sound standard.It's more powerful,clearer,and the sound channels are seperated more effectively(no aspect of the audio dominates at any one time).It's a sound standard that Spielberg helped to invent ,and it was first utilized in the theatrical version of Jurassic Park.He's a huge advocate of this format,and that's why i would like to know why fans of DTS and The JP films,like me, are being treated like an unwanted stepchild.Get DD5.1 and you get extras,purchase the DTS version and you get zilch.Oh wait you get a documentary.A documentary that's been televised numerous times before,around the time each film was released,it's nothing new.Storyboards.Please stop.Storyboards leave me board.Please throw me another bone mr SS.I don't want to hear that because DTS isn't compressed that they couldn't fit the extras.Didn't they ever hear of a Two-Disc Set?I'm officially protesting these Dvd's until they start showing some respect for the consumer and give the fans what they want.Plus,you know there's probably a "definitive version"waiting to be released after the all the first generation dvd's are sold.Just like boogie nights and evil dead and countless others.SS has become way too arrogant and self important that's he's forgotten who made him who he is,the moviegoing public and his fans.I'm not a fan of his but i do like JP and the Lost World.PS:with the purchase of the 83.00 box set i think you get a coupon for a rampaging rhino lollipop,compliments of ILM and Mr berg himself.There such swell guys.
  
  
• Special fx. That's all they want, ain't it?
  By on 1999-05-04
  Why is it that films like the Friday 13th series receive such bad press and yet films like this one get rave reviews? Special effects, of course. They seem to be all that matters in films today. To heck with originality, character development, constructive plotting and innovation. Just give 'em lots of dinosaurs running around.

  Actually the first twenty minutes or so of this are okay and you think you're going to see a decent film. But then the dinosaurs take over and all you're left with are special effects, chase scenes, more special effects, more chase scenes, more special effects, and then a few more special effects thrown into the bargain.

  Oh yes, and there's quite possibly one of the tamest, most predictable rampaging-through-city sequences since time began.

  Maybe it's just as well dinosaurs have died out. If they saw this film they'd eat its makers. Hmm, mabe that's not such a bad thing.
  
  

• Jurassic Park III (Widescreen Collector's Edition)
• Jurassic Park (Widescreen Collector's Edition)
• Godzilla
• U.S. Marshals (Special Edition)
• Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (Special Edition)