Pluskylang
Great Film overall
CrawlerChunky
In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.
Jonah Abbott
There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.
Billy Ollie
Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable
Zach Klinefelter
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.
davefoc-1
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.
Chris Gaskin
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.
Rose-35
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.
