The
Lost World
(1997)
Rated: PG-13
Runtime: 2 Hours and 9 Minutes
Reviewer: Dale
Grade: BPeople were disappointed by this movie. God knows why. Sure, it lacks the sense of awe that the first one had. Sure, it, uh, well, the concept doesn't seem quite as fresh as it did the first time around. Sure, uh.... what am I supposed to dislike here, exactly??
I'm sorry, but I never did understand why this movie was picked apart so mercilessly. Sure, it isn't great cinema, but it is great fun. Why is that so bad? Just because a man makes movies about Nazi war atrocities and slavery, about the indignities of war and the torment of battle and dark stuff like that, and they are very, very great movies. Oh my Yes! But lest you forget, the man started out making movies like this. He started with a movie about a man being chased by a semi driven by a faceless menace and another little movie about a hungry fish.
Both of those movies were far better than they had any right being. They were popcorn films that went for the throat. They were movies that provided spectacle and were still thought-provoking. They were movies that went for the throat, went for the whole damn body in the case of "Jaws". And they were brilliant. They really were. "Raiders of the Lost Ark", for my money, was the best damn action movie ever made. And even better, it was bloody cool!
Okay, I will be the first to admit that "The Lost World" is no "Raiders". It's no "Jaws". But, hell, neither was "Jurassic Park". "Jurassic Park" was better, but not that much better. It was, in all honesty, maybe five percent better. Granted, it did not have a little black girl kicking a raptor onto a spike. But it did have two annoying kids in it. It did have Wayne Knight as one of the biggest putzes in recent memory. It did excise most of the coolest stuff from the book it was based upon, which pissed me off for about the first three viewings.
On first viewing of "The Lost World", however, I was thoroughly hooked. I was on the edge of my seat for better than an hour. I was enraptured, mesmerized, maybe dumbed down, but I had a good time. I had a good time, and that was all, I suspect, that I was supposed to have.
It seems contrived that, of all the characters in "Jurassic Park" to make a comeback, that Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum, who is never better than he is in one of these movies) should be the one to return. Sure, the character development ain't the hottest. But let's face it: you aren't watching this movie for the character development. If you wanted that, you would have picked up "Magnolia" or something instead. You are in the seat because you want to see some dinosaurs eat some people. Come on, level with me. I thought so. So shut up and enjoy it, would you? You picky bitch!
The reason that I enjoy this movie more than the first one, even though I think, structurally and movie talk wise, the first one is the better movie, is simple. I love Pete Postlethwait's performance as the dinosaur hunter. He is the coolest. This guy makes Quint from "Jaws" look like a pussy. If he had been in "Jaws", that shark would have been his bitch. One look at him, and that shark would have shut up and made the guy a ham sandwich and then moved south. If that dim bulb Vince Vaughn hadn't removed bullets from his gun, those dinosaurs wouldn't have stood a chance.
In fact, that is another problem I have with this movie. The good guys. They want to save the dinosaurs. Save them! Dinosaurs eat people! They do! We all know it! And yet they want to save them? To let them live in their native environment? What the hell is that all about? Sure, I say leave them alone. But, well, I hope the third movie is nothing but dinosaurs getting wasted. And pterodactyls. Can we please have some pterodactyl attacks? I mean, I don't think you should go out of your way to put yourself in a situation where you might end up a chew toy for a dinosaur, but if you do...well, why not send a couple of them to hell with a shotgun? Is that too much to ask? Like Sigourney Weaver said in "Aliens": "So what if they exist on earth for the first time in a billion years? Kill 'em!" Okay, she didn't say that. But she would if she was on Isla Sorna, that much I know for sure. When you identify more with the alleged bad guys of the movie than you do with the good guys, the film has a couple of problems. The good guys just came off as a bunch of tree-hugging pansies to me. That's all.
But that isn't anything against the movie itself. It's far more exciting than the first film. The scene with the trailer hanging over the edge of the cliff as a man struggles to keep it from going over the side and two Tyrannosaurs are approaching and Julianne Moore has nothing but cracking glass between her and a tremendous fall. Well, that got my blood pumping more than anything in the first movie. And the ending gives you everything you want out of a dinosaur havoc movie....until the very ending, that is. Then it just wusses out. Something that never would have happened if Roland the dino hunter were still in the movie.
Despite its faults, however, there are still several pulse-pounding scenes and some very cool special effects. It has the cool dino hunting guy and Jeff Goldblum doing what Jeff Goldblum does best (something that is hard to describe). And Julianne Moore is in a movie with commercial possibilities for a change! That alone is worth a look. She straddled Mark Wahlberg's massive member and was chased by dinosaurs in the same year. Talk about range.