MovieChat Forums > The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) Discussion > Watched again. Comes in third after 1 an...

Watched again. Comes in third after 1 and 3.


Did a run of these films again recently and the second one really stood out as the odd boy.

It just doesn't quite feel on target for the majority of the film with only a few scenes really standing out.

For a start the film looks surprisingly cheap. It's painfully obvious that the jungle bits are in a studio and it gives the majority of the film a very sterile feel. The CGI doesn't look half as good as the first film either and a lot of the camera angles seem quite awkward too which doesn't give a nice sensation.

Some points of the film which motivated the story were extremely flimsy too. The convenient second island, the fact that his girlfriend just happened to be into dinosaurs. It's just didn't wash. I found the daughter to be completely irrelevant as well as she was just there to be a forced worry.

The film really missed Alan Grant as well. Jeff Goldblum can easily play a leading man but the problem is that Ian Malcolm just isn't a leading character and to make matters worse in this film he's a different man to the cheeky, cocky person we fell in love with in the first movie.

The end felt like a monumental King Kong rip off too and the end was far too abrupt.

Of course it's Spielberg so it's not a bad film by any means. The director really pulls out his trademark tension flare with the cliff and the tent scene which are excellent and although he's playing a subdued version of the character there are a few masterful lines delivered by Goldblum. Julianne Moore was really good as well.

I think the third film is a far better adventure than this although it lacks that Spielberg touch it had Alan Grant back who was a better character to helm the film.

The Lost World is one of those rare so-so films by Spielberg which is surprising considering how masterful the first one was.

reply

All valid points and I literally agree with all of them.

One thing I'll add is that in the Original, the CGI was less noticeable because Spielberg used his "Jaws" Tricks. Whereas he shot the Water in Jaws to add all that suspense, in JP it was the Jungle Leaves and Canopy. It left alot to the imagination. In TLW, the CGI wasn't up to par yet and it was much more noticeable and hindered alot of what made the original so great.

Just as you said, it's still a good film. I love Spielberg more than most. I don't think Kubrick chose him as his Filmmaking "Buddy" by accident lol. I think Kubrick saw the technical aspects that Spielberg really mastered and understood his sensibilities were just much different than his own... But it doesn't make that a bad thing. Quite the opposite if you ask me. I prefer this over part 3 though. It was just worn out by then IMO, although I still enjoy that as well

reply

I also agree it's the weakest of the original trilogy. It just didn't have the thrills or heart the first one did. It had a very sterile and fake feel to all of it. The sets were garbage, the cgi stunk, the characters were awful (the kid especially), the run time completely unwarranted, and the whole ending is tacked on out of nowhere and a King Kong ripoff basically.

At least the third knew what it was and had fun with it, it wasn't trying to be as classic as the first. This tried to recreate too many moments from the original but without any of the charm - or Alan Grant.

reply

the cgi stunk


Absolute nonsense!

In fact, I'd argue it's very much on par with the CGI from the original JP for the most part, and far better than most CGI examples from that era alone. Mortal Kombat: Annihilation, anyone?

reply

My main problem is the movie doesn’t really seem to know what it wants to say, one minute dinosaurs are sweet, lovable living things who deserve to live, the next minute they are vicious monsters that we have to run away from and kill with gymnastics. I’m very confused.

reply