This movie was just a big excuse for a sequel. Why did something have to survive'?

Rating: Null/10 (29 April 2004)

I might be pre-empting the cinema going public around the world here, but I believe most of them would have loved the 1997 sequel to Jurassic Park titled The lost World'. Well there is movie-goer that did not like it that much, and that was ME! This movie loses the appeal that was created in the first movie, has moments where it so over the top that it kills the movie, and lacks the depth of characters that could make me care. Jurassic Park: The Lost World' is living proof that it takes more than a big budget, a successful director and box office hype, to make a decent movie sequel.

It has been four years since the disaster at Jurassic Park. The individual scientists who had been hired as consultants on the project agreed to remain silent about it. Now something is wrong at second Remote Island of prehistoric inhabitants. Dr. Ian Malcolm and his group are about to find out... something has survived.
The special effects in this film are the only saving point for me. Once again the special effect team make the dinosaurs come frighteningly to life, in a way that I really like. These creatures actually cease being special effects and seem real. Back doing the dinosaur special effects in the Lost World are Dennis Muren, Stan Winston and Michael Lantieri. To say that the one reason to watch this film is because of the continuation of the great special effects would be an understatement.
Yet the story presented is very corny, perfunctory and does things just because they need to be done. First time around I was convinced that seeing a dinosaur theme park going wrong was entertaining, but in the second part of the story I feel it is a complete waste of time, as it is just not that interesting, in fact it is down right boring. The story is based on Michael Crichton's second novel of the same name, which I have read many people criticise for being a farce. Then back again as screenwriter is David Koepp, whose screenplay has many problems including clichéd characters, boring storylines and bad flat spots. The other problem to the Lost World story is that it did not allow the dinosaurs to be the main stars of the film, which is what the first film did better in my view.
Now was Steven Spielberg actually directing this film? From where I viewed it, it did not feel like it. From all my research, I agreed mostly with movie critic Roger Ebert. He said about Steven Spielberg as director of The Lost World, This feels like the kind of sequel a master hands over to an apprentice, and you sense that although much effort was lavished on the special effects, Spielberg's interest in the story was perfunctory.' Now while I am big a fan of Spielberg, I am afraid that I agree with Ebert here. The strong presence that I was expecting from Spielberg is not present here and it brings the film down.

I also agree with Ebert about the key weaknesses to the film. There are too many scenes drawn out and elaborate for the sake of being just that, not good enough in my view. The worst scene in the film has to be where the research trailer is hanging over the cliff, we see a terrifying drop and of course there is a dinosaur attacking our characters to just add to the cliché of it all. This scene is placed into the film, forty-minutes after the most boring of lead-ups I have ever seen.
While the last half an hour to the film seemed too much like a typical Hollywood ending, with the film overstaying its welcome. Now while most people would be thrilled by these set-ups, I found them very frustrating in this film, as I believe it did not add anything to the film, although Spielberg and his team wanted the audience to believe it had. Well it did not work on me!
The movie stars some famous names. Back for a second dose of dinosaur action is scientist Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum). Now I had problems with his performance in the first film, but Goldblum here is unconvincing as the dinosaur expert, as his dialogue is delivered in such a quiet and unconvincing way. Malcolm is in a relationship with another dinosaur expert, Dr. Sarah Harding (Julianne Moore). Now this character was ok in parts of the film, as she has intimate moments with dinosaurs, which were interesting to see.
Also along for the ride is a wasted character in Malcolm's daughter, Kelly (Vanessa Lee Chester), who is one of the characters I have referred to as clichéd', as she does nothing that makes her seem that important to the story. However, my favourite character in the film has to be the game hunter Roland Tembo (Pete Postlethwaite), whose character is very smart, while being surrounded by people, getting eaten by dinosaurs. When asked about the possibility of working full time with dinosaurs he states I have spent enough time in the company of death'.
This movie had a rival coming out around the same, that being Godzilla', another big budget Hollywood farce in my view. Spielberg I can only imagine looked at this movie as competition, and in a way tried to out stage it before it was released. Now while I think neither movie have had a positive influence on cinema, I think Spielberg should have been more focused on getting his movie right. I mean this film could have been as good as the first, but with so many flaws, I cannot forgive it. It is only lucky that this film got the box success it did, because I firmly believe it could have hurt Spielberg's career, or may have even started the end of it.

CMRS gives Jurassic Park: The Lost World': 1 (Bad Film)