The Lost World (1992) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
22 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Starts off excellently, but then....
G.Spider19 June 1999
Finally Conan Doyle's masterpiece is re-made (and without the help of made-up lizards). This film starts off very promisingly indeed, is faithful to the text in the original novel. But before long things start to go downhill. Roxton is nowhere to be seen and the number of people who end up stranded in the lost world is far too large. The film seems more interested in political correctness than drama. Challenger, though well acted, is nothing like the fiery character he was envisaged as by Conan Doyle. In fact everything seems to be very cosy and twee. The dinosaurs are the biggest disappointment of all. Apart from one okay scene by a lake, the giant reptiles are rubbery and lifeless, the T-Rex seemingly rooted to the spot and only visible from the chest upwards. The creatures are also few and far between and there's no sense of awe and wonder about them.

If you want to see a decent adaptation of Conan Doyle's work then watch the silent 1925 version. Even in these days of CGI and other such effects the first adaptation remains the best.
21 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
the cast seems enthusiastic, but I don't believe the screenwriter was in this low-key adaptation of Arthur Conan Doyle's classic
TheUnknown837-15 July 2010
When you look at the multiple screen adaptations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's hit science-fiction novel "The Lost World," (I have seen six) there is rarely one where you don't see at least something that you don't like, even if you don't care for the movie entire. That is the case for me with the low-budget, low-key adaptation done in 1992. Looking at this movie, I admire the spirit and the enthusiasm of the cast and the casting choices. I also admire the enthusiasm that one gets from its director, Timothy Bond as he makes the best out of what he has in terms of budget and screenplay. Well, the former can be dealt with in limitations, however a lack of enthusiasm in the latter, which is more controllable, tends to be crippling. I just don't sense that the movie's writer was having particular fun when he wrote this. The movie is really lacking in connections not only between characters, but in plot elements as well and also the timing, though packed with sporadic moments, is really just as stiff and plodding as the rubber dinosaurs in the back-lot jungle.

The movie does sport a very strong cast. Over the years and adaptations, Conan Doyle's iconic character of Professor Challenger has been played by the best, including Wallace Beery, Claude Rains, and Bob Hoskins. Here, a very well-cast John Rhys-Davies takes a very aggressive and determined note in the character and does it very, very well. Rhys-Davies, an enormously underrated actor, has appeared in a lot of low-key stuff as of late, and this is one of his more enthusiastic performances. The movie also features David Warner, who handles his contrarian lines well enough to keep the character from being annoying. Eric McCormack is also enthusiastic and very good as the reporter, Nathania Stanford is good as the jungle girl with a heart, and I really liked the gorgeous Tamara Gorski as one of McCormack's love interests, characters that are *always* added to the film adaptations. Oh, and there's also a tag-along kid played by Darren Peter Mercer, but this is a weaker point. It's not that I don't like the young actor's performance really, it's just that I don't like the whiny character.

The ultimate weakness of the movie is the lack of enthusiasm in its screenplay. There are some fine moments and many more than fine ideas that are presented, such as a tribe of native people who wear skeleton-like war paint as they sacrifice captives to a tyrannosaurus, but these ideas are rushed and thrown out the window without giving them their own due. Another weakness is the fact that too many characters were crammed into the story. A notable character from the book is missing and replaced with a second romantic interest for the reporter when one was clearly enough. This love triangle also never really plays itself out to its rightful potential. But really the most interesting element in the movie is the relationship between McCormack and *one* of his love interests. It's well-written, charming, and yet does not overplay itself to the point where it becomes sappy.

I like the cast of the movie, I like the relationship between Eric McCormack and Tamara Gorski, and I like some individual moments, but ultimately this version of "The Lost World" is really just a plodding bore as it just moves from one point to another without any intelligence or real sense of motivation. There's nothing really terrible about it, but it is quite disappointing. How does it compare to some of the other adaptations that I've seen. I guess I liked it a little more than the 1960 version, but it pales when compared to the 1925 silent classic and especially so with the marvelous, involving 2001 masterpiece directed by Stuart Orme.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Pedestrian family adventure with plastic dinosaurs
Leofwine_draca19 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The ubiquitous Harry Alan Towers was a man devoted to turning a profit on ultra-low budget B-movies and THE LOST WORLD is his attempt at the classic Conan Doyle novel. Incredibly, it's a film which seems even more dated than the first adaptation, a silent, black and white movie made in 1925. My guess is that plastic looking toy dinosaurs just don't age very well on film.

The first half an hour is actually pretty good. The recreation of Victorian London is passable and Towers managed to get a couple of decent character actors in the cast. First up is John Rhys-Davies as Professor Challenger; along with Brian Blessed and Bob Hoskins, he's one of the few actors who you can actually see on the written page playing the role. He turns out to be delightful and one of the highlights this production has to offer. Opposite him is the reliable David Warner as Professor Summerlee, a nemesis who becomes a friend during the course of the movie. Aside from Rhys-Davies and Warner, the cast is adequate at best. The square-jawed Eric McCormack seems bland as reporter Malone, turned American here. There are women and cute kids along for the ride. The only interesting actor is Innocent Choda, a genuinely hulking black actor stuck in a bit part as a native guide.

Once the action moves to Africa, nothing much develops. There's some nonsense about an evil skeleton-painted tribe and a few dodgy dinosaurs lurking in the bushes, but that's all the content we get. Eventually the characters head home, where the ill-advised toy plastic dinosaur makes an appearance. Other than the silly models, there are a few 'flying dinosaur' effects, but the less said about them the better. The script, by Towers himself, offers no sense of excitement or danger, we're instead stuck in a pedestrian zone of family adventure, safe all the while. A sequel, RETURN TO THE LOST WORLD, was shot back-to-back with this. It remains to be seen whether it's any better.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cheaply made but likeable.
Cajun-49 October 1999
There is something rather endearing about this cheapie production, there is no sex or nudity and any violence or gore is muted, it's obviously made for the family audience.Although low budget it's rather a pleasant looking production.

The acting by the leads is good but some of the natives look as though they would be more at home on urban streets or in a disco than in a jungle, however Nathania Stanford as Malu has a cheeky grin and looks pretty good in a sarong.

The monsters are hokey with no attempt to hide the fact that they are puppets (Jurassic Park this ain't), usually they are more cute than frightening.

All in all not badly done within it's limits.
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Worth picking up, but far better when put back down again.
MaxwellLord30 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
A two is rather generous for this, and it only gets that much because of Davies and Warner. The plot is vaguely in line with the book, but the acting is bad, the effects are laughable and the whole point of the Lost World is that it's supposed to have dinosaurs in it. Dinosaurs, I tell you! Not rubber feet and brief glimpses of rubber snouts. Dinosaurs! And if you manage to sit through the entire film (which, incidentally, doesn't actually have any dinosaurs in it), you have a pathetically soppy ending involving Percy the Pteradon.

And where's Roxton? Oh no, he's been replaced with two women and a (shudder) stowaway child. And Malone's American for some reason, but that didn't bother me so much as the annoying child stowaway; and of course the fact that the film seemed to be lacking in something . . . Ah yes! Dinosaurs.

in all, the saving grace of the film is in seeing Davies and Warner act against one another in a state of petty rivalry. The sequel was better (I picked them both up on the same day so felt obliged to watch the second one). At least that one had some dinosaurs in it.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Tame version of Arthur Conan Doyle's sci-fi novel
SimonJack23 September 2020
This 1992 film was well down the line of movies that have been and will be made based on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's science-fiction adventure novel, "The Lost World." It's also not the best nor the worst of the various renditions of movies.

John Rhys-Davies plays Professor Challenger and Eric McCormack plays Edward Malone. In this version, the person of Lord John Roxton is absent and a new character is added. Tamara Gorski plays Jenny Nielson, a wildlife photographer. She became part of the expedition since her wealthy father put up the money for the venture. David Warner plays Professor Summerlee, an antagonist of Challenger, who is selected by the Royal Science Academy to head the expedition.

The setting for this version of Doyle's novel is central Africa, instead of South America as in the novel. There are no noted performances, and anyone familiar with The Lost World story will know the general plot of the film. It has several diversions from the novel, but nothing that makes the story any better. If anything, those may have weakened the story by cluttering it up with too much detail and taking away from the dinosaur-age animals and encounters.

This is a relatively tame sci-fi flick, in spite of the script's attempt at mystery to play on a fright factor. Those who like sci-fi should enjoy this film, although aficionados of the genre will find this one lame compared to such great films as Jurassic Park and King Kong.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Story back in its Edwardian time
bkoganbing22 March 2019
John Rhys-Davies and David Warner play our dueling professors Challenger and Summerlee in this remake of The Lost World. Unlike the 1962 version that starred Claude Rains and Richard Haydn this one is set in Arthur Conan Doyle's own time of Edwardian England and not updated.

Professor Challenger says he's been to a prehistoric Lost World in East Africa and his rival Summerlee disputes him. So Summerlee goes along on this second expedition and they are accompanied by photographer Tamara Gaski and young Darren Peter Mercer just about hitting puberty. Why he was along God only knows though he proves useful getting in and out of tight places.

The dinosaurs are indeed there including some suspicious natives who worship the beasts when the carnivores aren't eating them. Native girl Nathania Stanford also proves useful in a part Dorothy Lamour would have done decades ago.

Sadly this Lost World and its sequel came along around the time of Jurassic Park and the special effects are really cheap and not so special.

Still the dialog with Rhys-Davies and Warner makes this one somewhat enjoyable.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not nearly as good as its predecessors.
klinefelter330 December 2015
I love Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original book and the 1925 silent film classic. I even have a soft spot for the 1960 Irwin Allen film; despite the lackluster effects, it had colorful cinematography and an appealing cast.

The 1992 adaptation does not compare favorably to what came before in almost every single way. The first film of "The Lost World" is 90 years old and yet it still has impressive visuals; the magnificent stop-motion showed us full-body shots of the dinosaurs in full motion. Due to budget restrictions, the 1960 film ended up using lizards with various added appendages to pass off as dinosaurs.

As low as that was, the effects in the 1992 film are atrocious in their own right: we never see full-body shots of the dinosaurs. What we *do* see are low-budget puppet heads with very minimal articulation in movement. These are perhaps suitable for a kid's dinosaur exhibit at a museum, but do not work as the only effect employed to make us believe these animals are real. In 1992, CGI was in its infancy and "Jurassic Park" hadn't even come out yet. Still, some stop-motion or at the very least men in suits would have been preferred over such limited footage.

The whole movie feels cheap despite Zimbabwe providing the "lost world" location. It only very loosely adapts the book, resulting in minimal dinosaur encounters and too much time spent dealing with "rival African tribes" which I am almost certain are there because the effects budget was too low. The original film successfully convinces us it is set on a plateau, isolated from the rest of the world. This just feels like it's set in some place in Africa that you could probably easily drive to.

The best thing that can be said is the cast. For the most part, I liked everyone in the film. I give high marks especially to John Rhys-Davies as Professor Challenger, and David Warner as his rival Professor Summerlee. They perfectly capture how I feel Challenger and Summerlee should be portrayed, and are probably the biggest reason to see the film.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
I'd skip it
davefoc-18 November 2009
Caveat: I gave up after about an hour.

An interesting and entertaining beginning followed by poor acting, hoke dialog, and special effects that would have made Ed Wood cringe.

Our band of merry adventurers after 17 days paddling up an African river doesn't show the slightest signs of sun exposure or physical discomfort. They hike through dense jungles with the ease of people strolling through a city park. The movie's plot devices have such a contrived flavor that it is hard not to imagine the writer's moaning with discomfort as they created them.

Davies' performance was the only bright note for me, although I disagreed a bit with the folks that didn't like the kid. I thought he did a reasonable job, certainly compared to the rest of the cast who in their defense were provided with pretty bad material to work with.

I noticed a few people liked Warner's performance also. I wasn't enthused but it was serviceable and far from the worst in the movie, IMHO.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Well done version, dino notwithstanding
mam1314318 December 2012
Well acted and truer to the book than most versions, this film keeps you interested as long as you are not concerned about the dinos. John Rys Davies and Warner are very good as usual. The rest of the cast are virtual unknowns even today, so you are not seeing seminal performances by current well known actors.

As far as the dinos, think Dr. Who back in the Jon Pertwee era. Some scenes aren't bad but generally we're talking rubber dinos that look like rubber dinos. As in Who, the story outweighs the special effects. (Current Who TV has great special effects of course.) still, as I said, some scenes are better than others.

Notwithstanding them, the film is worth a look.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
The Lost World (1992)
fntstcplnt1 May 2020
Directed by Timothy Bond. Starring John Rhys-Davies, Eric McCormack, David Warner, Tamara Gorski, Nathania Stanford, Darren Peter Mercer, Gene Kovacs, Kate Egan, Fidelis Cheza. (PG)

Rival researchers/explorers Challenger (Rhys-Davies) and Summerlee (Warner) trek into the wilderness in search of a mysterious plateau believed to be a "lost world" untouched by the passage of time. Third attempt to adapt Arthur Conan Doyle's story as a feature film; as in other versions, a female is added to the expedition team (Gorski, playing a photographer), but this one goes further and moves the action out of South America and into the heart of Africa. Old pros Rhys-Davies and Warner are in solid form, but McCormack is a spiritless reporter "everyman"; adventure aspects inspire indifference--the film is far more involving before they ever even reach the plateau. And when they get there, the dinosaurs they find are a sorry sight, with parts of their bodies shot in close-up to make up for limitations of the paltry budget; the prehistoric beasties in "The Flintstones" looked more realistic! Followed by a sequel ("Return to the Lost World") that was shot at the same time.

40/100
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rubber puppets in a world that time forgot.
chris_gaskin12331 January 2002
This version of The Lost World is not as good as the 1925 or 1960 versions, but it is still quite enjoyable.

What few dinosaurs appear look rather rubbery. Give me stop-motion any day. The theme music to this movie is excellent, as is the acting with great performances from David Warner (Titanic, The Omen) and John Rhys-Davies (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade).

I rather enjoyed this movie, despite the cheap looking dinosaurs.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.
13 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Awful
Androyd22 August 2019
This was more like a pilot for a Saturday morning kid show.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
The lost sense
jamesjustice-9212 April 2023
I have watched two adaptations of this marvelous novel by Arthur Conan Doyle: 1925 version still stands as the best one, 1960 version was less impressive but fairly good nonetheless. And after watching this 1992 version I have to admit that it's gotten even worse.

Should it have been a TV movie I don't know but it sure feels like one: lack of budget fills every frame, the dinosaurs are never shown in full, only their heads and legs, and their general look and some animatronics that were involved in recreation of the creatures are subpar to say the least compared even to the 1925 movie.

The whole movie is rushed and jumps from one scene to another without really bothering to dwell on the moment - which in the end results in the movie being a collection of events rather than a full-fledged motion picture. I know that there was a sequel to this which came out that same year but I won't bother myself with watching that after this - I think if the creators are not capable of entertaining a viewer just enough to be invested in the second movie they ought not to get that pleasure after all.

The movie basically tells us nothing about its characters besides their names, occupations and a mutual desire for adventures so why should the viewer be empathetic to some paper-thin people who rush the narrative in hopes to see the lost world which one wouldn't even get to see in full. There is though some topics worth getting myself into this mess of a movie for, such as friendship - that even your rival can become a good friend when you've been through a lot with him side by side - and even a bit of a romance is present but it is so irrelevant to the story that you can simply ignore they even brought it up in the first place.

Overall this is certainly not the worst movie of all time, it has some fine African landscapes, solid performances by John Rhys-Davies and David Warner and a good enough explanation as to why the dinosaurs have genuinely survived all those years but it all falls flat when you see how poorly this immortal story was executed with cheap special effects, unnerving soundtrack and a basic lack of well-thought-out characters and the absence of a truly engaging story to back them up with and it all combined just hits the final nail into this movie's coffin.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Hilariously bad, confusing storyline
gabrielwho-4439030 December 2020
Since I bought the DVD for the story of other underrated dinosaur movies barely ever heard of in 2016, I watched the two films and they both focused on two archaeologists just fighting over each other for no reason, and involves killing one of the betrayers of the fat professor, and other natives I encountered in the film that mean nothing to me other then the dinosaurs. I discount this movie of ever being a good movie, it's bad and unfunny, even for the second film which is also so awful!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Not Jurassic Park
Op_Prime13 June 1999
This movie is a remake of the old story about a land of Dinosaurs. The special effects aren't great, but it is fun to watch.
4 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Doyle's Professor Finally Appears
hans1010677 December 2000
There isn't anything to add regarding most of the production values or plot summaries that hasn't been addressed earlier.What impressed me was our hero,the bold Professor George Edward Challenger- an outstanding portrayal by an outstanding character actor.The original character,as conceived by Doyle,is truly larger than life.Bold,brave,arrogant,brilliant,insightful,virile,unscrupulous when attaining his goals,humorous,and reckless,and resourceful.John Rhys-Davies epitomizes this character without a flaw.(Brian Blessed is the only other actor I can imagine pulling it off,but the portrayal would have had a gleefully sadistic element not in keeping.And Warner is a worthy foil-arch,pompous,equally arrogant and ereudite,yet possessing the same high level of scholarly integrity and brilliance.Watch this,not as great art(I don't think they ever intended it as such,but as a lot of fun.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"Fortune - favors the brave" - Terence
Bernie444418 March 2024
Reporter Edward Malone talked professor Challenger into gloating Professor Summerlee into proving that there is no lost world. Thus with a few other companions, the adventure begins. Watch out for nefarious plots.

They take time to impress that there are women and kids on the expedition.

There have been several versions of the 'Lost World' based on the classic book by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I doubt that this 1992 version with John Rhys-Davies as Professor Challenger is one of the best versions. There have been TV series after this and there are bound to be more.

You can have the same people in "Return to the Lost World" (1992)
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Good, clean fun in a land that Time forgot.
TroyAir20 September 1999
Based on an original story by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (the same guy who wrote "Sherlock Holmes" novels so many years ago), this movie has a pretty good plot but is hampered by a low budget and television censorship (or so it would appear). I've never read the original novel, so I can't comment on how close the film tracks to the original story. I've seen another adaptation that glossed over some of the plotlines raised in this film, and between the two films that I've seen, this one probably follows the novel closer.

Dr. Challenger is on an expedition in a jungle when one of his bearers tries to steal a map from him while he sleeps. Challenger suffers a leg wound in the struggle and ends up killing the bearer. The next day he is poised to climb an escarpment and spots a winged creature flying over the cliff's ledge but because of his wound he is unable to continue his expedition and is forced to turn back. Returning to England, he makes a speech to a British scholar's society about how he came upon a land where a dinosaur life form thought to be extinct - a pterodactyl, a bird-like dinosaur that either flew or glided -still exists(interestingly enough, this book was written before the discovery of the pcelocanth (a dinosaur fish) caught in a fisherman's net off Madagascar in the 50s or 60s).

Back in England, the scholars scoff Dr. Challenger and rebuke his claims. A newspaper reporter in search of a story and some adventure calls out to the scholars, stating that they should launch an expedition to prove Dr. Challenger's claims true or false. The scholars retort that perhaps if the Society were to fund an expedition that perhaps the reporter would like to join them, along with a young boy in the auditorium. There is, of course, much laughter until their offer is accepted by the reporter, the boy, and a female photographer who happens to be a wealthy supporter of women's rights and offers to fund the expense of the expedition. Money talks and the expedition is prepared, on the condition that Challenger remain in England, to avoid any complications to the leadership of Challenger's rival, Dr. Summerlee.

Once at the jungle station, Dr. Summerlee opens an envelope that is supposed to contain the map to the escarpment, but the paper inside is blank! Ta-daa, Dr. Challenger arrives with the map and joins the expedition. Also joining the expedition is the boy, who stowed away in the ship from England, and an attractive native girl ("Malu") who is to act as an interpreter for the group. The group gathers up some native bearers and proceed up the river into the jungle.

In my opinion, the movie spent too much time getting our heroes into the adventure. I can understand the need for character development and motivation, but it just seemed too tedious, particularly since all of the characters are stereotypical and there really isn't any development anyway. But, I suppose when the story was originally written, all of this was new to the viewers so it had to be explained.

Once in the jungle, our heroes climb the escarpment, only to find themselves stranded when the brother of the bearer Challenger had killed earlier comes along and cuts their climbing ropes. The group makes a camp, but must battle fierce native warriors who capture Challenger, Summerlee, the photographer, and the native bearers and are going to feed them to a tyrannosaurus rex by placing leaves around their necks and pushing them off a cliff into the t-rex's claws. The boy figures out how to save them by making a balloon out of a shirt and natural gas from some hot springs nearby and scaring the native warriors.

Later, the group finds a friendly tribe and one of the young girls of the village has a baby pterodactyl that's dying. Summerlee reasons that perhaps the leaves that the warriors had placed around their necks to feed the t-rex might be some sort of dinosaur food, so he collects some and revives the baby pterodactyl. Challenger and Summerlee congratulate each other -Summerlee congratulates Challenger on discovering living dinosaurs and Challenger congratulates Summerlee on figuring out how the dinosaurs survived extinction - and they become friends.

John Rhys-Davies has become the prototypical explorer/adventurer actor. He did an outstanding job in the Indiana Jones films, this film, a remake of "Ivanhoe", the "Shogun" miniseries, and he recently did the narration for "Empires of Mystery" Inca/Aztec/Maya exhibit at the Florida Internation Museum. In my opinion, he carries this film. The actress playing Malu has one of the best smiles I've seen on camera, right up there with Erik Estrada and Donnie Osmond, and looks like she belongs in a steamy jungle of Brazil. She has a pretty good body in that sarong, too. The dinosaur scenes are mediocre. The puppets aren't going to win any special effects awards and in this day of Computer Generated Images they almost look ridiculous, but they get the idea across. The fierce native warriors look pretty good - their white paint makes them look like skeletons and look suitably ferocious. I was surprised that the adventurers managed to stay in full dress, complete with vest, long pants, and long coat, while the natives dress in sarongs and loincloths. I would think that they would "go native" for comfort, if not for practicality. But, I suppose the standards of Doyle's time didn't allow for such freedom. You can go forth wreck indigenous species and interfere with other cultures, but you can't take off your shirt.

No skin, no foul language, no gore (in fact, the gunshot wound to the bearer has no blood at all), nothing terribly frightening. A good movie for the whole family. Fans of jungle films may enjoy it, but you'd probably get more entertainment out of a good "Tarzan" film.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Excellent cast, fun, entertaining.
danielshumwayslc8 February 2024
No Spoilers Arthur Conan Doyle's skeleton is believed, by some,or one, to have clawed its way to the surface and danced for joy in the moonlight when this movie was released! John Rhys-Davies deserved an Oscar for best actor, David Warner for best supporting actor, and the cast a Saturn for best ensemble for this fantasy/sci-fi thriller!

The music is excellent, with full symphony orchestra, composed by four outstanding composers. The direction, cinematography, period costuming, makeup, and writing are top-notch, as well. It is filmed in real jungle locations.

While it can be a little intense, it is a wonderful watch for your family.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Good, but no Jurassic Park
Rose-356 October 1999
This was a good movie but it was no Jurassic Park. Would have been better if they could have used something other then puppets for the dinosaurs. The thing that saved this was the acting. Good performances by Eric McCormack and David Warner. I give it a 6/10.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"This Maniac Attacked Me!"...
azathothpwiggins25 June 2020
In THE LOST WORLD, a reporter named Edward Malone (Eric McCormack) is assigned to write about Professor Challenger (John Rhys-Davies), a noted, though quite eccentric scientist. After hearing Challenger's fantastic tale of possible living dinosaurs, Malone joins his expedition to the location of the title.

Leading the team is Professor Summerlee (David Warner), a long-time skeptic of all things Challenger. Photographer, Jenny Nielson (Tamara Gorski) and an eager, 13 year old boy named Jim (Darren Peter Mercer) round out the group. They are also joined by a beautiful -No, seriously, this is one of the most breathtakingly gorgeous women ever filmed!- interpreter named Malu (Nathania Stanford). After an arduous journey through Zimbabwe, the mesa is reached, and the dino fun begins.

This movie is a nice, family-friendly update of the 1925 original. Rhys-Davies is his usual, awesome self, as is Warner. Oh, and Ms. Stanford has many scenes! The entire cast returns for the sequel...
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed