Lost World: Jurassic Park, The (1997)

reviewed by
Ted Prigge


THE LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK (1997)
A Film Review by Ted Prigge
Copyright 1997 Ted Prigge

Director: Steven Spielberg Writer: David Koepp (kinda based on the novel by Michael Crichton) Starring: Jeff Goldblum, Jullianne Moore, Pete Postlethwaite, Vince Vaughn, Arliss Howard, Richard Schiff, Peter Stormare, Vanessa Lee Carter, Richard Attenborough, Ariana Richards, Joseph Mazello

I saw "The Lost World," the sequel to "Jurassic Park," for a buck twenty-five at my college's cheap movie theater, since I wouldn't pay a good five bucks to see it in a regular one when the rest of the world was seeing it. Since I had passed a good environment up for crap quality, a pan-and-scan format, and sound that was muffled and blaring, as well as the question of whether or not the whole screen would even be in focus, you can tell I had low expectations.

Yeah, I really liked "Jurassic Park." It was breathtaking, scary, and just good old fun. But, well, you know that good sequels are about as plentiful as good college food (so I have no school spirit...). With the rare exceptions ("Empire Strikes Back," "The Godfather Part II," "T2," "Addams Family Values" - that was about it), the sequel is pretty much just a gimmick to make even more money on a gimmick that worked once. I mean, was it just me, or was "Home Alone 2" just "Home Alone," just in a different locale?

No, "The Lost World" is not nearly as good as the first one. But did it thrill me? Oh yeah.

Many people criticize this film, and with good reason, but let's face it: Steven Spielberg knew there wasn't much he could do with this, but just wanted to make a fun movie, and toss in some little guilty pleasure stuff he couldn't work into the original because he was trying to make a little message. So, while the first one was majestic, and somewhat satirical in respects to cloning (though not a masterpiece or anything), this one is darker, more violent and gorey, and even features one and a half more T-Rex's. Why one and a half? Because one of them is only a baby.

Of course, when you're making a film like this, where you want suspense scene after suspense scene, you're bound to run into some little problems. For one, he never really builds up any of the characters, with the exception of the only person from the original to have a major part - Dr. Ian Malcom (Jeff Goldblum) - but that's because he was IN the first one. Also, the script is only marginally funny, with most of the cool lines going to Ian (duh), while it does what most big budget/let's-give-the-audience-what-they-want-and-deserve flicks do: use characters' idosyncrasies as cheap plot devices (i.e. a characters sadism towards the smallest dinosaurs on screen, another characters' gum chewing, etc, etc, etc). And there are more plot holes than you can shake a stick at.

The plot is anti-climactically cheesy and flat: there was ANOTHER island, where they bred hte dinosaurs or something, and the "capitalist turned humanist" John Hammond (Richard Attenborough, proving again that he is a better actor than a director) asks Ian to go back to the dinosaurs and make sure they're okay. Obviously he wouldn't want to go back there, but we have an incredibly cheap plot device where his girlfriend (Jullianne Moore) is already there. So off to the other island for some more dinosaur adventures.

Unlike the first one which pitted a couple characters together with one goal - getting off the island in one group - we have two groups. One the good side are Ian, his girlfriend, his stowaway daughter (Vanessa Lee Carter, who's mallato-ness caused a bit of a stir in the audience), a buff photographer ("Swingers"' Vince Vaughn), and Mr. First-Death (Richard Schiff, who was a scene-stealer in "City Hall").

And on the bad side are the company stereotypes, and their employees. We have the nephew of Hammond (Arliss Howard, who NEVER looks the same in any of his movies), the big hunter chief guy (Pete Postlethwaite), a sadistic hunter (Peter Stormare, lukewarm off of "Fargo," although I think he rocks), and a couple of other guys (read: dino food). They are united about halfway through the film, following one of the big suspense scenes.

After the traditional "Jurassic Park" long opening (although not nearly as awesome as the beginning of the first one, since you were being kind of educated and awed), we get to the point of the film: to scare the shit out of you with improbable but highly skilled suspense scenes. Yes, the truck-hanging-over-the-cliff sequence is totally unbelievable for nearly every second, but when you're watching, you're too freaked out to even notice. Spielberg, as it turns out, is a pretty good director, and even if he lets plot holes like "why did Ian not make sure his daughter was on a train or something before leaving" fly out into the open, he knows exactly how to frighten us. There were times, like in the original, when I jumped, and even when I actually let out a little Ted-like scream.

The ending, which is the most improbable of them all (the T-Rex is let loose in the streets of San Diego), is actually done well. It's all tongue-in-cheek, with lots of inside jokes (a "Burger King" sign on a ravaged bus - get it?), as well as blatantly funny ones (the video store has signs for Robin Williams in "Jack and the Beanstalk" and Ah-nold Schwarzennegger in "King Lear"), and even a couple parodies tossed in for good measure (three japs running in terror from the Rex). The ending is not as satisfying as the original, mainly because we've been scared for no good reason.

So is that a bad thing? Not really. I mean, yeah, we were scared in the original, AND there was a reason for it. But I personally see no real reason why being scared for the sake of being scared is a bad thing, other than that means you have to watch this film numerous times intermittently. No, the cloning-is-bad message is no longer really there, but who cares? It's a sequel.

The cast is amazing, yet there aren't any real acting stand-outs, let alone Postlethwaite (big shock). Goldblum isn't nearly as entertaining as he was in the first one, but has a couple good lines here and there, and is nicely done by good old Jeff (who should really start demanding a percentage of the profit of his movies). Moore, who can shift smoothly between big budget film and indie, is okay. The big sadness here, other than Storemare having such a small and crappy part, is Vince Vaughn. After demonstrating exactly what a star-making performance really is in "Swingers," he gets an under-written role that merely requires him to look and act cool. I mean, yeah, he rocks, but if you're gonna have raptors jumping around and sneaking up on people in 4-foot-high grass, you might as well toss in a scene where he jumps on top of a building with a big gun and starts shooting those bastards. It's only fair.

And as for the whole unlike-the-book spiel, I'll have you know that the script and the book are two different entities. They were written at the same time to do well in their specific mediums. I mean, I read the book a long time ago, but I think Ian actually DIED in the first book, but he's alive here, and starring. So stop bitching, you Chricton-ites!

The darker tone, and the vicious-ness is a welcome surprise to the film, causing it to become more fun than the original, in cases. Sure, it had plot hole after plot hole, stupidity after stupidity, and a plot weaker than an Ethiopian (a joke, okay, a joke), but it wasn't aiming for brilliance. This was made to make money and entertain. And I think it achieved both of those, although not in any kind of spades.

MY RATING (out of 4): **1/2

Homepage at: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/8335/


The review above was posted to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due to ASCII to HTML conversion.

Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews