Universal Pictures | Release Date: May 23, 1997
7.1
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 276 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
183
Mixed:
84
Negative:
9
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
5
HalfwelshmanOct 3, 2011
The highest praise I can give The Lost World: Jurassic Park is that it's by no means the worst sequel I've ever seen (that honour goes to Aliens vs. Predator Requiem). It's got some nice effects and set pieces, and for the most part it's aThe highest praise I can give The Lost World: Jurassic Park is that it's by no means the worst sequel I've ever seen (that honour goes to Aliens vs. Predator Requiem). It's got some nice effects and set pieces, and for the most part it's a story you actually care about. The film suffers from the same problem that the first did - an extreme lack of characterisation, but all actors are competent. The only standout performance comes from Pete Postlethwaite, who plays an unexpectedly rounded and well developed secondary antagonist. The stand out scene in The Lost World is a tense chase scene where the characters attempt to avoid stealthy raptors hiding in tall grass. All that is good in the Lost World however (and it must be said, it is an entertaining ride) is nearly ruined by the last half hour of the film. It is at this point that Spielberg thought it would be a good idea to subject his audience to a truly chronic scene in San Diego full of plot holes and unintentionally hilarious moments. The Lost World starts promisingly enough, but I'd strongly advise you to turn off the film before the final act, before your patience for extreme silliness wears out. Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
5
ThatCooperGuyJun 25, 2015
The dinosaurs are great to see, but that doesn't really save the film. The characters are either boring or morons, and aside from the ending having the T-Rex wreaking havoc in the city, the story is really uninteresting. It's a very mediocreThe dinosaurs are great to see, but that doesn't really save the film. The characters are either boring or morons, and aside from the ending having the T-Rex wreaking havoc in the city, the story is really uninteresting. It's a very mediocre sequel... Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
BobY.Aug 27, 2007
the thing that kills this movie is the character's hilarious stupidity.... Watch the film, and count how many times a character does something unfathomably stupid.... then a 12 year old girl does some gymnastic flip kick to knock out a the thing that kills this movie is the character's hilarious stupidity.... Watch the film, and count how many times a character does something unfathomably stupid.... then a 12 year old girl does some gymnastic flip kick to knock out a 500 pound Raptor. Yuuuuup. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JacobJun 2, 2015
The Lost World: Jurassic World should have stayed lost. Along with being an unnecessary sequel this is a poorly made sequel. While the first film was clever this one is dumb. The dramatic and intense action from the first film is goofy andThe Lost World: Jurassic World should have stayed lost. Along with being an unnecessary sequel this is a poorly made sequel. While the first film was clever this one is dumb. The dramatic and intense action from the first film is goofy and silly lacking any tension and vulnerability by the characters as it is bigger. There is no substance just the characters running around and when you think of how the first film took its time building up the dinosaurs and gave intense scenes it pales by comparison. The action scenes most of the time aren’t even clever often being rehashes of scenes from the first one relying on similar threats. The characters are forgettable even with Jeff Goldblum trying his best. Despite all this film isn’t terrible. At times especially during the middle it is a decent monster movie and the dinosaurs still look cool. Nonetheless, regardless of whether the film is decent and fun or way too dumb its sad that a clever, original, and unique dinosaur film like Jurassic Park could be followed by a generic monster movie that when it boils down to it is basically King Kong, which you could watch instead. The film isn’t terrible or painful to watch but the meh reaction this film gets from me makes it a skip. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
hoops2448Sep 20, 2011
Much like the original The Lost World has to work with a incomplete script and therefore suffers some terrible characters because of it but with this instalment the tension is ratcheted up, as well as the fun factor making set piecesMuch like the original The Lost World has to work with a incomplete script and therefore suffers some terrible characters because of it but with this instalment the tension is ratcheted up, as well as the fun factor making set pieces including a camper van and a cliff side being incredibly tense. The addition of Julianne Moore could have added something to the film if it wasn't bogged down by the script and the film is 30 minutes too long with the scenes in San Diego being downright ludicrous. Overall the film improves upon the first in making it much more tense and in some instances terrifying but with that ending and the script to boot, it doesn't cut it as a serious monster film. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
beingryanjudeSep 4, 2014
The zest and excitement of the first film simply is no longer present. Julianne Moore is certainly a nice addition, but not enough to make up for the disappointments.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
OfficialMar 8, 2014
It's darker and scarier than its predecessor, but it's not as good. We have some nice visuals and action sequences, but the story here, does not meet the previous film's standards.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
MeritCobaNov 16, 2015
(I invented my own score system:. This one got a 5 for meh.)
Last weekend was my weekend for movies done with secondary characters from other movies, one being the Lost World and the other being Hannibal. In The Lost World we see Jeff
(I invented my own score system:. This one got a 5 for meh.)
Last weekend was my weekend for movies done with secondary characters from other movies, one being the Lost World and the other being Hannibal. In The Lost World we see Jeff Goldblum resurface as that gloomy cynic from Jurassic Parc whose name I have forgotten. Being forgotten isn't actually strange because his character was a secondary one and there to cast a shadow over the very positive beginning. Of course it all would end bad and Jeff will tell us that he told us so. Or something like that.

In the first movie he had a secondary role, in this one he is the main protagonist, which is unfortunately an uphill battle against some stiff opposition.

The first and foremost of course is Jeff himself. Jeff isn't actually the kind of actor that can carry a movie on his own, certainly not one in which we expect some kind of action hero, even a reluctant and inept one. How well this shows is when Jeff is confronted by Julienne Moore, who is the woman in the movie and a much better actor. In fact she seems much like someone who is trying to have some drama infused in the whole, but Jeff.. well Jeff doesn't quite know how to match her: he just frowns. But even more he is notably overshadowed by the greatest actor in this movie: Pete Postlethwaite. Just put Pete and Jeff in one scene and you forget Jeff was even there. Jeff's greatest enemy is Jeff.

In addition in this movie Jeff has to be something more than a mere cynic and alas, cynics do not make great heroes without some kind of explaining back story that gives us some insight in the man and makes him blossom into something more than a dog that bites heels. A story we never get and a character we never see develop. Oh they try.. they even give him a black daughter to care about. Not that we see any kind of affection between the two: they might as well be strangers.

The other problem with the lost world is that it never tells a clear cut story. Any great story is basically a simple one, like for instance the first movie. It is a single line that runs from beginning to end. They arrive at the island, things go wrong, they flee. And that is about it. There are a few extras, a small part to introduce the two main characters and the plot line that tells us how everything goes wrong.

In the lost world we get a huge entangled mess. There is the story of the group of investigators who are dropped of at the island with a truck that looks cool but also unable to manage even a small ditch, let alone a dinosaur invested jungle on an island. Then, to add complexity, the daughter of Jeff somehow manages to hitch a ride without the others noticing she is in the truck until they are on the island. Then the guy who drops them off with a boat sort of 'discovers' where they are heading when they are almost there and refuses to go further or stay. This must be the first captain in human history who has no clue about his destination but somehow manages to go there regardless. More of this nonsense is served to make an entangled confusing mess of a story.

To add to the confusion another group of heavily armed mercenaries lands on the island too, lead by the experienced hunter of big game Pete, who uses a shotgun to hunt dinosaurs, holds the gun upright in the rain so water can fill the barrels, doesn't check his ammo and seems to have only two bullets for the gun anyway.(Incidentally I find this not as bad as the 'experienced' photographer who takes photos while precariously balancing on a fallen tree)Oh and there are like a ton of armed men, who never use their weapons on the dinosaurs, for they might hurt them.

And then, near the end, you think it is finished, but then another part is glued to the movie that seems totally superfluous and belonging to another movie. In fact it starts with a plot-hole that is so glaringly huge that it has to be put down to incredibly lazy writing. And that from Spielberg movie? I mean the man who made Schindler's list?
I have just one explanation for this: they did it to spite Postlethwaite. Yes, Jeff had to have some scenes with Julienne alone without Pete stealing the spotlight.

The saving grace for this movie are Julienne Moore and Pete Postlethwaite but also, without a doubt, the dinosaurs. It is so funny how two of the raptors get mad at each other when Julienne makes one drop on the other. It is one of the best scene in the movie!

Overall a meh movie though that you should watch for the dinosaurs flattening and eating people. You get two big lizards chasing people over the island. A pity they didn't eat Jeff and had Julienne and Pete escape.
Just the idea makes me laug
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
TrilobiteGJun 13, 2015
As we return to the land of dinos, there are obviously some elements of magic you just cannot recreate. But this felt like a trip to the natural history museum and the action sequences were very tiring (apart from the caravan cliff sceneAs we return to the land of dinos, there are obviously some elements of magic you just cannot recreate. But this felt like a trip to the natural history museum and the action sequences were very tiring (apart from the caravan cliff scene which is exceptional) and had no colour and humour to them like the first movie did, but overall, not the worst sequel to be produced. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
LordyLordMar 29, 2013
The plot was good enough because Michael Crichton already laid it out on paper (which no one seems to care about, sadly) to help a bit. However, somewhere along the line, someone decided to make nearly everyone on the islands idiots for aThe plot was good enough because Michael Crichton already laid it out on paper (which no one seems to care about, sadly) to help a bit. However, somewhere along the line, someone decided to make nearly everyone on the islands idiots for a little bit. You know, the scene where they bring a baby T-Rex into their super high-tech trailer that's crying for it's parents. Good idea. All of this kills the human element of Jurassic Park, which is important because you can relate to the fact that they're stranded on an island with a bunch of dinosaurs! They should have at least killed off everyone who didn't know what they were doing, not the biologist guy who knew his stuff but a snake scared him so much he lost his life. Instead we get gymnastic scenes where a young girl kicks an adult velociraptor into a pit of spikes and the scene where the estranged wife of a mathematician runs towards a flock of stegosauri. But hey, that's ~action~ for you. I was going to give it 5, but I like dinosaurs too much. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
FranzHcriticJun 12, 2016
There's not much I can say about 'The Lost World' except this; the same old story. Great visuals, a bit stretched of a story, and semi-hammy acting filled a great deal by screams of fright. I could still watch it, but I'd lost interestThere's not much I can say about 'The Lost World' except this; the same old story. Great visuals, a bit stretched of a story, and semi-hammy acting filled a great deal by screams of fright. I could still watch it, but I'd lost interest quicker than the first film. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
marcmyworksJun 18, 2015
An unfortunate sequel that should never have been made. Jeff Goldblum's character from the original was not likeable enough to be the star of this snore fest, which included not only his daughter using gymnastics to fight off theAn unfortunate sequel that should never have been made. Jeff Goldblum's character from the original was not likeable enough to be the star of this snore fest, which included not only his daughter using gymnastics to fight off the velociraptors but also the T-Rex roaming the streets of a town (a-la Godzilla) with no bystanders being injured. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
oDjentoJul 3, 2015
Short review due to Jurassic World release. Nowhere near as iconic and groundbreaking as the first film but it still has plenty of entertaining action moments. Script wasn't too bad but some casting choices are questionable. Not a bad filmShort review due to Jurassic World release. Nowhere near as iconic and groundbreaking as the first film but it still has plenty of entertaining action moments. Script wasn't too bad but some casting choices are questionable. Not a bad film and worth a watch, but still a disappointment from what we would've expected. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Robinson2511Aug 10, 2015
After the brilliant Jurassic Park in 1993, it's surprising that it took them 4 years to make a sequel, and that sequel was The Lost World: Jurassic Park, and is it as good as the original? Oh hell no! It's not bad, it's just, ok for me. theAfter the brilliant Jurassic Park in 1993, it's surprising that it took them 4 years to make a sequel, and that sequel was The Lost World: Jurassic Park, and is it as good as the original? Oh hell no! It's not bad, it's just, ok for me. the thing that really gets to me is the lack of dinosaurs, dinosaurs will randomly appear for a death or action scene, and then disappear, not to be seen until the next death or action scene, in the original, dinosaurs were something that were always there, not just a reason for the characters to get to their feet. Talking of the characters, they're kinder bland, you have the bad guys, for the sake of having bad guys, the good guys for the action scenes, and the tag-along characters for someone to kill off or be rescued. This film really lacks thrills and suspense, the only thrilling moments that come to mind are the trailer hanging of a cliff scene, and the San Diego scene at the end, apart from that the thrills a scarce throughout the film. A lot of the scenes are rather unbelievable even for this series as is some of the acting, but Spielberg's direction is for the most part, top-notch. This film doesn't come close to the awesomeness of the first film, with it's lack of thrills, memorable characters and dinosaur action, but it's worth checking out at the very least. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
vikesh2206Jun 12, 2015
Most of The Lost World is a relatively entertaining adventure-thriller but the third act sends the movie into near extinction with its sheer implausibility.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
MovieManiac83Apr 25, 2015
When Jurassic Park was released in 1993, it set a new standard for state-of-the-art visual and audio effects. It was suddenly possible to see humans and dinosaurs interacting in a way that had never before been possible, and to feel theWhen Jurassic Park was released in 1993, it set a new standard for state-of-the-art visual and audio effects. It was suddenly possible to see humans and dinosaurs interacting in a way that had never before been possible, and to feel the entire theater shake with the approach of a Tyrannosaurus Rex. Four years later, not a whole lot has changed. Effects houses like Industrial Lights and Magic have tackled bigger, more imposing objects such as tornadoes and volcanoes, but it's still basically the same technology that Jurassic Park ushered in. And, because The Lost World doesn't offer anything especially innovative, it seems rather familiar and almost (but not quite) disappointing.

Like its predecessor, The Lost World is basically a big-budget monster movie of the sort that has been popular ever since the dawn of motion pictures. Unfortunately, like many entries into the genre, it falls into expected patterns. As a result, much of this movie seems like a retread of Jurassic Park (with a little King Kong thrown in at the end), not because director Steven Spielberg is intentionally copying himself, but because there's really not much more that he can do with the premise. If there's a third movie in the series, it will probably follow pretty much the same storyline as the first and second installments.

Still, repetitiveness notwithstanding, The Lost World boasts several edge-of-the-seat moments. The dinosaurs aren't nearly as awe-inspiring, but they remain formidable adversaries for a group of plucky, overmatched humans. The standout sequence in this film features two T-Rexs, a lot of rain, spiderweb fissures in glass, and a literal cliffhanger. The ending, which takes place in San Diego rather than on a tropical island (where most of the film transpires), is a little anticlimactic. Next year's Godzilla will hopefully do a more impressive job with the "dinosaur loose in a city" concept.

The differences between Jurassic Park and The Lost World can be summed up relatively simply: more dinosaurs, fewer legitimate thrills. In this case, familiarity doesn't breed contempt, but it results in a movie that's unlikely to keep viewers going back time-after-time the way they did for the original. The Lost World is solid entertainment the first time; it's not something I have any great desire to sit through again.

Perhaps the most disappointing thing about The Lost World is how perfunctory and unimaginative Steven Spielberg's direction often is. In his more than two decades of film making, Spielberg has been responsible for a variety of innovative action/adventure movies -- Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Jurassic Park, to name a few. On this occasion, he seems content to turn things over to the gurus at ILM. The magical spark that characterizes so many Spielberg films is largely absent.

The Lost World ends up being what a British acquaintance of mine calls "a jolly good romp." It is to this year what Independence Day was to last year -- the summer's single "can't miss" motion picture (or so the advertisers would have us believe). It also comes early enough in the season so that we're not already sick to death of this kind of effects-oriented action/adventure. So, although The Lost World has its share of problems, chief of which is the familiarity factor, it still offers a couple hours of glitzy, hi-tech fun. And that's just about all that anyone can reasonably expect from this kind of blockbuster.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
TheDude-Jun 12, 2015
The lost world does have cool practical effects and action sequences but that cant make up for plot holes,stupid and uninteresting characters,forced dialogue,cliches and contrivances,poor character motivation and just a completely dullThe lost world does have cool practical effects and action sequences but that cant make up for plot holes,stupid and uninteresting characters,forced dialogue,cliches and contrivances,poor character motivation and just a completely dull forgettable film
Really disappointing in comparison to the original
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
buttonscasperJul 7, 2015
It deserves to be the sequel to the great first but it is not as brilliant as the first because Ian Malcolm seems to be a bit boring but it has great dinosaur scenes.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
EpicLadySpongeFeb 9, 2016
Jurassic Park's out of the park and into the world. The so-called 'Jurassic World' before Jurassic World. This was a huge letdown from the original and the ideas felt tired.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
FuturedirectorMar 20, 2016
Steven Spielberg tries to show how did visual-effects develope, with terrific science-fiction and thriller stunts, that appears just at the end, with a boring and not enjoyable beginning. The characters are also very unremarkable and it has aSteven Spielberg tries to show how did visual-effects develope, with terrific science-fiction and thriller stunts, that appears just at the end, with a boring and not enjoyable beginning. The characters are also very unremarkable and it has a very different plot so it doesn't continue with it's predecessor correctly. Fans may be disappointed, as me. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
BerCJun 1, 2016
The artistic medium of film is very subjective. Every audience member has a different set of criteria they use to measure their viewing experience. Not everyone shares the same set of criteria. If we did, what a bland and uninspired worldThe artistic medium of film is very subjective. Every audience member has a different set of criteria they use to measure their viewing experience. Not everyone shares the same set of criteria. If we did, what a bland and uninspired world this would be.

What I Personally Liked About "The Lost World: Jurassic Park":
The Stegosaurus, my favorite dinosaur when growing up, hits the big screen in a believable form with a prominent role early on in the film. In addition, anyone who can make the cute little Compsognathus seem like a credible threat is all right in my book. Another big highlight for me was the presence of Julianne Moore. From the very first time I saw her (in 1993's "Body of Evidence"), she has been one of my favorite actresses. It doesn't matter if it's a classic piece of cinematic gold or a turgid pile of malodorous garbage, Moore always gives her best and seems to genuinely enjoy being a part of the production. The return of Ian Malcolm is another wonderful addition in my eyes. So many people wanted Sam Neill's character to return, but I preferred the neurotic energy and bug-eyed terror Jeff Goldblum managed to imbue into the role.

What I Personally Disliked About "The Lost World: Jurassic Park":
Let's get the biggest of all blunders out of the way, shall we? Moving the action in the finale of the film off of Isla Sorna. Michael Crichton's novel took the right approach by keeping the action squarely located on the island. Seriously, as if escaping the dangerous island wasn't exciting enough? The Tyrannosaurus seems woefully out of place on our mainland and the pacing of the film is completely destroyed once that happens. It merely becomes another monster-delivers-carnage cookie cutter presentation and the entire film suffers for the foolish maneuver. Another thing I absolutely detest is pointless twenty second cameo appearances. Ariana Richards (as Lex Murphy) and Joseph Mazzello (as Tim Murphy) were big parts of the original movie while they are relegated to nothing more than meaningless shadows here. They're not here for comic relief. They're not here to deliver crucial information. They're utterly pointless and that's an insult to fans of the first movie. I can understand bringing Richard Attenborough's John Hammond back as it furthers the plot of the film, but his grandchildren should have been left behind where they belonged. Last on the list in the major complaints department is the direction of Steven Spielberg. It simply seems derivative of the effort he turned in for the first film. Over the course of the "Indiana Jones" series, he bestowed each entrant with a slightly different personality while retaining the overall tone of the franchise. Here, he seems to be cruising on autopilot and has no personal investment whatsoever with the telling of the tale.

My Overall Impression of "The Lost World: Jurassic Park":
This is a case of the bad elements outweighing the good elements. It might be a passable time waster, but it's certainly below the average mark Spielberg usually sets for his blockbusters. The original was a classic that could withstand multiple viewings, however I found it hard to sit through this lackluster sequel.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews