Universal Pictures | Release Date: May 23, 1997
7.1
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 277 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
184
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)
10
PabloBird22Aug 15, 2016
I don't **** know why some people hate this sequel, it was the coolest jurassic park sequel after Jurassic world, i love how it got nominated by an oscar
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
reviewfrom19842Aug 10, 2016
It has it's flaws but Lost World is an good movie.....................................................................................................
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
MasterRileyAug 8, 2016
The Lost World: Jurassic Park is a fun adventure and a good sequel to the original. While it doesn't quite compare to the original it still has redeeming elements. The action sequences are great, the special effects are phenomenal,The Lost World: Jurassic Park is a fun adventure and a good sequel to the original. While it doesn't quite compare to the original it still has redeeming elements. The action sequences are great, the special effects are phenomenal, Spielberg's direction and use of the camera are great, and the music is great once again. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
s10721314Jul 19, 2016
This Movie is Awesome I Love the San Diego Incident A Tyrannosaurs Rex In San Diego Is Awesome This Film Does Not get nearly the credit it deserves I love The Lost World
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Muskrat147Jul 15, 2016
Though not as original as its predecessor, The Lost World makes up for its loose ends with tense performances, edge of your seat action, and impressive special effects.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
RickyReviewsJun 23, 2016
Truth be told, The Lost World: Jurassic Park is sometimes considered the worst Jurassic Park film. That is not true. (That is JP3). Jeff Goldblum was fantastic here, as was Julianne Moore. The effects were improved from the original fromTruth be told, The Lost World: Jurassic Park is sometimes considered the worst Jurassic Park film. That is not true. (That is JP3). Jeff Goldblum was fantastic here, as was Julianne Moore. The effects were improved from the original from 1993, and even better than 2001's JP3. The storyline was 100% different from the book, but who cares. This film is one hell of a ride, and you will enjoy it. Trust me. 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
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
9
JPSpinoRex65May 27, 2016
A sequel to one of the greatest films of all time? Yes. A sequel worthy of the name Jurassic Park? Yes. The Lost World: Jurassic Park is a film that took a darker turn than the first film. Send characters to another island, this timeA sequel to one of the greatest films of all time? Yes. A sequel worthy of the name Jurassic Park? Yes. The Lost World: Jurassic Park is a film that took a darker turn than the first film. Send characters to another island, this time without fences? I'm in! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
FilmClubMar 27, 2016
Following up on the highest-grossing film of all time was bound to be a daunting task. The good news about “The Lost World: Jurassic Park” is that the dinosaur creations are even better than those in the first film — credible, breathtakingFollowing up on the highest-grossing film of all time was bound to be a daunting task. The good news about “The Lost World: Jurassic Park” is that the dinosaur creations are even better than those in the first film — credible, breathtaking and frightening. As for the rest, every department pales by comparison. Still, the film provides sufficient visceral thrills and visual delights to engage audiences and rack up bronto grosses. It remains the picture most likely to succeed this summer, even if Universal and Amblin may have to settle for somewhat diminished returns.

The premise is that 80 miles from the original “Jurassic Park,” there was Site B, the island locale where the prehistoric animals were engineered and shipped off to the failed theme park. And as the amusement attraction was being undone by man, the scientific base was destroyed by a hurricane.

Though it was presumed the dinos died for want of a life-giving chemical, they found the element in nature and have been thriving unmonitored ever since. In the words of mastermind John Hammond (Richard Attenborough), “life will find a way.”

The idea now is to send in a small expedition to chronicle the progress. The quartet is composed of documentarian Nick Van Owen (Vince Vaughn), operations specialist Eddie Carr (Richard Schiff), paleontologist Sarah Harding (Julianne Moore) and reluctant returnee Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum). Malcolm agrees only because he recognizes the lurking danger and hopes to get girlfriend Harding off the island as quickly as possible.

The arrival at Site B is a reminder of what made “Jurassic Park” so memorable. The seamless interplay between modern man and extinct creatures is pure magic. But as with the first picture, any sense of serenity is short-lived. First, Malcolm’s daughter, Kelly (Vanessa Lee Chester), is discovered having stowed away on the expedition. A short time later a second, much larger, team descends from the skies for less honorable pursuits. Led by Hammond nephew and corporate chief Peter Ludlow (Arliss Howard), this crew of mercenaries is on a mission to capture a selection of bygone species for display in a new San Diego park.

It doesn’t take long for the tables to turn. Soon, the hunters become the prey and both groups have to join forces and wiles to ensure their return to civilization. Along the way their ranks are seriously depleted by the likes of Velociraptors and Tyrannosaurus Rexes.

David Koepp’s script, from the Michael Crichton novel, is schematic and largely predictable. There’s an obvious threat and not too many ways to quell it. Underneath the technical virtuosity is a standard chase film, and director Steven Spielberg does little to elevate it dramatically. His skill at making the audience jump at the appropriate moment is nonetheless intact, and in the absence of a strong story and well-delineated characters, that’s a mighty important asset.

The cast mostly founders with sketchily written parts. Goldblum, elevated from foil to leading man, is given double duty as hero and comic relief. He simply isn’t provided with the ammunition to anchor the film. Moore and Howard are also saddled with thankless, archetypal roles. Only Vaughn and Pete Postlethwaite — as a big-game hunter with a passion to go toe-to-toe with a T-Rex — rise above the material’s limitations. The most textured performance may indeed come from a matriarchal carnivore who’ll stop at nothing to protect her youngster.

While pic is slickly produced, Janusz Kaminski’s photography seems rather self-consciously arty for the genre. It’s rife with back-lighting to accentuate the eeriness of night and fog. Otherwise, the film moves at a breathless clip that almost makes one forget the thinness of the plot.

Few filmmakers have been able to replicate the success and artistry of an all-time popular hit in a sequel. There’s simply too much baggage and anticipation. What’s surprising about “The Lost World” is an almost slavish duplication of horror conventions of the past, including many from the Spielberg canon.

An unquestionably potent formula, it nonetheless evaporates quickly because of its reliance on manipulation. One gets a queasy feeling, for instance, about making Malcolm’s daughter a mulatto. Is it a sincere statement or demographically inspired?

In the rear-view mirror the picture is calculation at the expense of inspiration. There’s no question that all the right buttons are hit by a master craftsman. Like popcorn, it’s a tasty, fun ride without a great deal of nutritional value.
Expand
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
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
10
Evyan2002Jan 24, 2016
Jurassic park 2 was a very good sequel to the magnificent Jurassic park. Some people don't like this sequel but I think it is very good. Jeff goldblum was very good too.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
FilmMasterEdJan 7, 2016
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.

One could argue that giving Ian a daughter and a girlfriend is an attempt to broaden his character. If so, it really doesn't work. The self-deprecating scientist is likable exclusively because of Jeff Goldblum; even after two films, he's still relatively one-dimensional. The rest of the characters are pretty much interchangeable from their counterparts in Jurassic Park (different names; similar functions). Vanessa Lee Chester is this film's child in danger; Julianne Moore replaces Laura Dern; and Swingers' Vince Vaughn takes over for Sam Neill. Meanwhile, Arliss Howard represents the obligatory nasty corporate villain type.

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
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
9
HazzaGallaOct 5, 2015
The Lost World deserves no where near the amount of hate some people and critics give this film. In essence, while not as awe inspiring and classic as the first movie, the darker tone, increased action, clever script and truly impressiveThe Lost World deserves no where near the amount of hate some people and critics give this film. In essence, while not as awe inspiring and classic as the first movie, the darker tone, increased action, clever script and truly impressive animatronic work provide a incredibly enjoyable sequel and one that is surprisingly underrated. 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
7
MrMovieBuffJul 18, 2015
A little underrated...I don't think it's as bad as most critics say it is, but it isn't quite the breath of fresh air that the first film was.

Here, Dr Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) goes to the "Lost World" in order to find his girlfriend,
A little underrated...I don't think it's as bad as most critics say it is, but it isn't quite the breath of fresh air that the first film was.

Here, Dr Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) goes to the "Lost World" in order to find his girlfriend, Sarah (Julianne Moore), but end up in more incidents as there are more dinosaurs who continue to eat people.

'The Lost World: Jurassic Park' still offers plenty of thrills and suspense that we've seen in the first film. Spielberg, of course, doesn't chicken out on the violence either, there are many scenes where we see characters trying to run from the dinosaurs and are eaten or stamped on with blood spilling from time to time...is this a "family movie"? The film even opens up with a little girl who we assume gets eaten by little dinosaurs known as compies. This scene can be intense for young kids, I'm sure.

All in all, I think this is a good blockbuster, you still get dinosaurs that look as real as real can be, you still get that added suspense and you still get the fast-paced thrills. The only major flaw would be the bloated run-time, the film does drag from time to time and too many characters get attacked, more so than in the first film, which can make the dinosaur attacks seem a little, "been there, done that".

I give it a 7/10.
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
TheApplegnomeJul 11, 2015
A thrilling continuation of one of Spielberg's finest creations to date. It's thrilling and visually stunning, perhaps not as magical as the first but it got much excitement to it!

The greatest aspect is that it's freaking Jurassic Park,
A thrilling continuation of one of Spielberg's finest creations to date. It's thrilling and visually stunning, perhaps not as magical as the first but it got much excitement to it!

The greatest aspect is that it's freaking Jurassic Park, everybody knows about it. Jeff Goldblum is still in the franchise and the movie would not be the same without him! The Lost World: Jurassic Park is a much more terrifying movie than the original, a bit more horror if you can call dinosaurs that. The opening scene is great and we also have solid actors, much excitement, some unique events that we haven't seen before and of course the same thrilling soundtrack. But we also see shaky cinematography, vague practical effects and CGI here and there, and the plot is sometimes less exciting. The CGI is however great sometimes, but sometimes it's not. There're also some idiotic and silly moments that doesn't fit the movie at all, and if you must compare this with its predecessor; well it's much less magical and entertaining.

This movie is Jurassic Park without the magic and a less entertaining plot. But there're much excitement and unique events to it, and it really is a great movie to watch!

7.3/10
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
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
7
luketeddyJun 26, 2015
A lot of people hate this film I do not know why. to me this is a good movie no where near as good as Jurassic park 1 but still pretty good...........
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
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
7
ReelViewsJun 14, 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.

One could argue that giving Ian a daughter and a girlfriend is an attempt to broaden his character. If so, it really doesn't work. The self-deprecating scientist is likable exclusively because of Jeff Goldblum; even after two films, he's still relatively one-dimensional. The rest of the characters are pretty much interchangeable from their counterparts in Jurassic Park (different names; similar functions). Vanessa Lee Chester is this film's child in danger; Julianne Moore replaces Laura Dern; and Swingers' Vince Vaughn takes over for Sam Neill. Meanwhile, Arliss Howard represents the obligatory nasty corporate villain type.

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
7
grimsfieldJun 13, 2015
After the first movie, this is definitely my second favorite Jurassic Park movie. Jeff Goldblum makes this flick and having julianne moore too certainly helps.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
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
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
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
9
lukechristianscJun 6, 2015
A lot people didn’t like this film because they think this film should not have been made, that’s not true the sequel is actually impressive it’s not better than the first one but it the effects are actually impressive and awesome this sequelA lot people didn’t like this film because they think this film should not have been made, that’s not true the sequel is actually impressive it’s not better than the first one but it the effects are actually impressive and awesome this sequel is the same like first one yes it’s different but the effects are the same which is good. Four years later after the accident at Jurassic Park, the dinosaurs are free John Hammond reveals that there was another island so the dinosaurs breed before it can be transmitted to the Island to Isla Nublar. So he wants Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) to return to the island to check out “Cite B” to capture them to the mainland, Malcolm has to get their before another mercenary team gets there. The two teams confront each other in extreme danger they team up for their own survival in race against time. Director Steven Spielberg returns to direct and Michael Crichton adapts his second book in the series onto the big screen and screenwriter David Koepp returns to write the screenplay. I would not say this is Spielberg’s worst sequel I think it’s his best sequel; Jeff Goldblum once again is popping jokes and is awesome, Julianne Moore was good as Malcolm’s girlfriend and Vince Vaughn was well too. There are kick-butt moments in the film which is awesome there is a fantastic amount of character-development, terrific special effects that Spielberg and his team achieve in the first one and in this one. My favorite seen of all Is when the dinosaur is in the city. I love the film for what it is.
Grade A
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
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
7
BradySmithMay 1, 2015
A more than passable and entertaining action movie. It's not quite as good as the first but it does still have some memorable moments and a sense of adventure to it. I like the cast a lot, even if there's not much time for moments carryingA more than passable and entertaining action movie. It's not quite as good as the first but it does still have some memorable moments and a sense of adventure to it. I like the cast a lot, even if there's not much time for moments carrying any great depth. They still come off as human enough. The plot could have been better though. The ending in San Diego seemed a little desperate, and not much that happens, aside from the pushed off the cliff scene, is all that surprising. But for a sequel it still moves along swiftly and entertainingly enough so I'm giving it a pass. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
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
7
Rox22Apr 21, 2015
I do feel this movie got slammed way too hard by critics. It obviously isn't anywhere near as good as the first movie, BUT, it is still very entertaining.

I will say that what they lost in writing, they made up in effects. Even the CG
I do feel this movie got slammed way too hard by critics. It obviously isn't anywhere near as good as the first movie, BUT, it is still very entertaining.

I will say that what they lost in writing, they made up in effects. Even the CG holds ( unlike the first movie.) Sure, allot is rehashed from the first film, but it does seem this time they were trying expand on the original ideas. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't.

While the acting and dialogue are nothing to write home about, it isn't as forced and melodramatic as in the first movie,an arguable improvement.

Overall:
The Lost World may not be the classic that Jurassic Park is, it still is highly entertaining and I enjoyed it.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
teddylukeApr 6, 2015
I know the characters do some stupid things but still I just really like the lost world. and everyone in the world is going to have to deal with it ok.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
homer4presidentMar 13, 2015
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
JurassicJoeFeb 9, 2015
When I watched my favourite film of all time, Jurassic Park, I was amazed and bewildered that a film could be so perfect and the sequel was just as good, from the plot, characters and of course...the star attraction, the dinosaurs!
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
heathermJan 30, 2015
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. While I have to admit that this movie is objectively worse than the original Jurassic Park, I think I actually liked it better. It can be frustrating, in that everyone seems to be constantly making the worst decisions possible, but it leads to some pretty spectacular action scenes (even if they are only loosely held together by the plot). There are so many great deaths in this movie, since we have so many more disposable characters than in the first movie. And of course, the surprise ending where the t-rex gets loose in San Diego is just incredibly epic and over-the-top. The whole movie, really, is just over-the-top in the best, most entertaining way. Also, I loved that there was so much more Jeff Goldblum--my biggest complaint about the original movie was that he got sidelined by an injury so early on, and so I was delighted to see him take the lead in this one. This wasn't a great movie, but it's so much fun. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
Tessara_VejganJan 13, 2015
Just rewatched it on BD. Its a good movie just like the previous Jurassic Park. Solid acting, decent story, fun, action packed and good effects for that time.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
RainwholeOct 21, 2014
Not the cinematic masterpiece that the original was, The Lost World is still a highly entertaining sequel that is pushed forward by a great cast, some great dialogue, impressive action sequences, and only the occasional hip cups.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
SythusRATINGSOct 17, 2014
It has been four years since the disaster at Jurassic Park and two groups are in a race against time that will determine the fate of the remote island's prehistoric inhabitants.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
HumbertoHROct 4, 2014
It isn't the best movie of Spielberg, it isn't as good as the first one "Jurassic Park" but definitely it is a movie that you have to see, it is awesome the fact of seen de dinosaurs free in the jungle, not in a theme park, if you sawIt isn't the best movie of Spielberg, it isn't as good as the first one "Jurassic Park" but definitely it is a movie that you have to see, it is awesome the fact of seen de dinosaurs free in the jungle, not in a theme park, if you saw Jurassic park, you have to see "The Lost World" 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
8
DibbHansenJul 18, 2013
While not nearly as good as the first film, this film still triumphs in the thrills, scares, visuals, direction, music and acting- just as the first film did. The film is another triumph for Spielberg, even if it is not as good as the first film.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
Trev29Jun 24, 2013
Good quality entertainment. Could have been more original but it is fun watching dinosaurs destroy things and eat people. It filled with thrilling moments of great scope and size.
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
3
jfrotylpe532Jan 13, 2013
By far the worst film directed by this awesome director. Basically Spielberg thinks he can pull a Michael Bay and have a repeated madness of action packed events that are sustained and useless. This is the film. Momma Rex gets mad chases themBy far the worst film directed by this awesome director. Basically Spielberg thinks he can pull a Michael Bay and have a repeated madness of action packed events that are sustained and useless. This is the film. Momma Rex gets mad chases them for more then half the movie then is taken to San Diego where she kills people including the bad guy and is sent home. The end. I'm sorry Spielberg but you sucked big time. Expand
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
7
SeriosityJan 5, 2013
Still thrilling. While it is definitely scarier and has the same and more realistic-looking dinosaurs, it is not nearly as magical as the first and a lot sillier.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
8
csw12Sep 2, 2012
A very good movie but most certainly not on the same level as the first Jurassic Park. The movie didn't carry that shock and awe factor but the action and visuals were high quality.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
MonsieurEamesJul 13, 2012
It's nowhere near as good as the original, but The Lost World recaptures the same thrills and realistic-looking dinosaurs as the first one did. The one drawback is that the characters aren't very interesting.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
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
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
7
TheQuietGamerMar 26, 2011
While it's no where near as good as the first it is still a good movie, the story is interesting but it would have been nice if they added more dinosaurs, if you like dinosaurs and the first movie you'll like this.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
MovieLonely94Oct 20, 2010
it wasn't as good as the original which kicked major a**, but to be fair, its a perfect sequel and I don't think its the worst movie ever made.

Rating: 7/10
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
gm101Oct 7, 2010
This and the original are some of my favorite movies ever! It truly is much better than some sequels. In fact, for Spielberg, I liked this more than the Indiana Jones sequels.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
ManicMorrisAug 21, 2010
Not as good as the first one but does offer more dinosaurs, more action and some truly great moments. Still a brilliant film, but a few parts lessen the experience...
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
LaurenSJan 20, 2009
I am a fan of Steven Spielberg movies, even movies he produces, but The lost world, Spielberg what exactly happened? It was good, but please, if its not better than the originial, PLEASE DON'T RELEASE it. Although it was generally good, I am a fan of Steven Spielberg movies, even movies he produces, but The lost world, Spielberg what exactly happened? It was good, but please, if its not better than the originial, PLEASE DON'T RELEASE it. Although it was generally good, with some minor flaws here and there. But good overall. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
NickV.Jul 1, 2008
It has great action scenes from beginning to the end.I like the scene in which ludlow goes to retrieve his infant out of the cargo hold and then says wait to run past the adult rex.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JoyceC.Oct 6, 2007
I don't believe in evolution, adaption is my understanding of that, and the adaption of the dinosaurs within the islands is fascinating. A mistake-full experiment turns into a deadly situation, which would appear to happen the same way I don't believe in evolution, adaption is my understanding of that, and the adaption of the dinosaurs within the islands is fascinating. A mistake-full experiment turns into a deadly situation, which would appear to happen the same way for real. It isn't impossible, nothing is impossible. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
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
7
JaredC.Aug 4, 2007
Not as much as the first, but Seven Spielberg still does knows the magic of Jurassic Park. And its actually a lot funner than the first.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
GregA.Apr 18, 2007
This is my favorite movie about dinosaurs along with the first Jurassic Park. I saw this when I was a kid, and I loved it. Sure it lacks the awe of the first movie, but like the novel, this movie is more action themed. The action scenes This is my favorite movie about dinosaurs along with the first Jurassic Park. I saw this when I was a kid, and I loved it. Sure it lacks the awe of the first movie, but like the novel, this movie is more action themed. The action scenes themselves are very well done. My favorites are the trailer scene, and the raptor attack. Even the rampage scene in San Diego is fun to watch. The musical score for this film really fits with the whole feel of the movie. Aside from the big differences from the novel, I see no reason to complain about this film. If it's watched on its own, this movie is a very enjoyable action flick, and one of the most exciting dinosaur movies (Overall, I still think the first Jurassic Park is the greatest dinosaur movie of all time). As for the dinosaurs, this is the best in the series. It has T-rexes, Raptors, and even plant eating dinosaurs attacking the people. The other two movies don't have the herbivores attack the people (The third movie only has one scene with herbivores!). Not to mention that the special effects in this movie are the best in the series. If you like action and LOVE DINOSAURS, you will enjoy this movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
MulroneycakesaurusRexJan 26, 2006
"It's dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. But it has DINOSAURS, and that's the bottom line." Amen to that. It's a lot better than most sequels for being directed by Steven - but that still boggles my mind: why on earth is "It's dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. But it has DINOSAURS, and that's the bottom line." Amen to that. It's a lot better than most sequels for being directed by Steven - but that still boggles my mind: why on earth is Steven directing a studio sequel to Jurassic Park? He's Steven Freaking Spielberg, he has better things to do! Give it to Frank Marshall or something. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
GustavoH.R.Jan 15, 2006
Plot holes and uninspired performances aside, this is a very enjoyable adventure flick. Darker than the original, but not necessarily better or more spellbinding.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
TonydannieDec 29, 2005
Just Like Temple Of Doom Surpasses Raiders (Yes, I said It) Lost World Jurassic Park Surpasses The Original IN every way. Much Darker, Lots of action. And Darker Score. Fun, Fun, Fun!!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
SamOct 17, 2005
Truth be told, no matter how large my love is for the fantastic first one, no matter how bad-ass the dinasaurs are, no matter ho gorgeous the effects are, no matter how great the acting is, the sequel improves on it, in every single way.
0 of 0 users found this helpful