Watch The Lost World For Free

Good concept, poorly executed.

An Exercise In Nonsense

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

The ubiquitous Harry Alan Towers was a man devoted to turning a profit on ultra-low budget B-movies and THE LOST WORLD is his attempt at the classic Conan Doyle novel. Incredibly, it's a film which seems even more dated than the first adaptation, a silent, black and white movie made in 1925. My guess is that plastic looking toy dinosaurs just don't age very well on film.The first half an hour is actually pretty good. The recreation of Victorian London is passable and Towers managed to get a couple of decent character actors in the cast. First up is John Rhys-Davies as Professor Challenger; along with Brian Blessed and Bob Hoskins, he's one of the few actors who you can actually see on the written page playing the role. He turns out to be delightful and one of the highlights this production has to offer. Opposite him is the reliable David Warner as Professor Summerlee, a nemesis who becomes a friend during the course of the movie. Aside from Rhys-Davies and Warner, the cast is adequate at best. The square-jawed Eric McCormack seems bland as reporter Malone, turned American here. There are women and cute kids along for the ride. The only interesting actor is Innocent Choda, a genuinely hulking black actor stuck in a bit part as a native guide.Once the action moves to Africa, nothing much develops. There's some nonsense about an evil skeleton-painted tribe and a few dodgy dinosaurs lurking in the bushes, but that's all the content we get. Eventually the characters head home, where the ill-advised toy plastic dinosaur makes an appearance. Other than the silly models, there are a few 'flying dinosaur' effects, but the less said about them the better. The script, by Towers himself, offers no sense of excitement or danger, we're instead stuck in a pedestrian zone of family adventure, safe all the while. A sequel, RETURN TO THE LOST WORLD, was shot back-to-back with this. It remains to be seen whether it's any better.

When you look at the multiple screen adaptations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's hit science-fiction novel "The Lost World," (I have seen six) there is rarely one where you don't see at least something that you don't like, even if you don't care for the movie entire. That is the case for me with the low-budget, low-key adaptation done in 1992. Looking at this movie, I admire the spirit and the enthusiasm of the cast and the casting choices. I also admire the enthusiasm that one gets from its director, Timothy Bond as he makes the best out of what he has in terms of budget and screenplay. Well, the former can be dealt with in limitations, however a lack of enthusiasm in the latter, which is more controllable, tends to be crippling. I just don't sense that the movie's writer was having particular fun when he wrote this. The movie is really lacking in connections not only between characters, but in plot elements as well and also the timing, though packed with sporadic moments, is really just as stiff and plodding as the rubber dinosaurs in the back-lot jungle.The movie does sport a very strong cast. Over the years and adaptations, Conan Doyle's iconic character of Professor Challenger has been played by the best, including Wallace Beery, Claude Rains, and Bob Hoskins. Here, a very well-cast John Rhys-Davies takes a very aggressive and determined note in the character and does it very, very well. Rhys-Davies, an enormously underrated actor, has appeared in a lot of low-key stuff as of late, and this is one of his more enthusiastic performances. The movie also features David Warner, who handles his contrarian lines well enough to keep the character from being annoying. Eric McCormack is also enthusiastic and very good as the reporter, Nathania Stanford is good as the jungle girl with a heart, and I really liked the gorgeous Tamara Gorski as one of McCormack's love interests, characters that are *always* added to the film adaptations. Oh, and there's also a tag-along kid played by Darren Peter Mercer, but this is a weaker point. It's not that I don't like the young actor's performance really, it's just that I don't like the whiny character.The ultimate weakness of the movie is the lack of enthusiasm in its screenplay. There are some fine moments and many more than fine ideas that are presented, such as a tribe of native people who wear skeleton-like war paint as they sacrifice captives to a tyrannosaurus, but these ideas are rushed and thrown out the window without giving them their own due. Another weakness is the fact that too many characters were crammed into the story. A notable character from the book is missing and replaced with a second romantic interest for the reporter when one was clearly enough. This love triangle also never really plays itself out to its rightful potential. But really the most interesting element in the movie is the relationship between McCormack and *one* of his love interests. It's well-written, charming, and yet does not overplay itself to the point where it becomes sappy.I like the cast of the movie, I like the relationship between Eric McCormack and Tamara Gorski, and I like some individual moments, but ultimately this version of "The Lost World" is really just a plodding bore as it just moves from one point to another without any intelligence or real sense of motivation. There's nothing really terrible about it, but it is quite disappointing. How does it compare to some of the other adaptations that I've seen. I guess I liked it a little more than the 1960 version, but it pales when compared to the 1925 silent classic and especially so with the marvelous, involving 2001 masterpiece directed by Stuart Orme.

A two is rather generous for this, and it only gets that much because of Davies and Warner. The plot is vaguely in line with the book, but the acting is bad, the effects are laughable and the whole point of the Lost World is that it's supposed to have dinosaurs in it. Dinosaurs, I tell you! Not rubber feet and brief glimpses of rubber snouts. Dinosaurs! And if you manage to sit through the entire film (which, incidentally, doesn't actually have any dinosaurs in it), you have a pathetically soppy ending involving Percy the Pteradon.And where's Roxton? Oh no, he's been replaced with two women and a (shudder) stowaway child. And Malone's American for some reason, but that didn't bother me so much as the annoying child stowaway; and of course the fact that the film seemed to be lacking in something . . . Ah yes! Dinosaurs.in all, the saving grace of the film is in seeing Davies and Warner act against one another in a state of petty rivalry. The sequel was better (I picked them both up on the same day so felt obliged to watch the second one). At least that one had some dinosaurs in it.

This movie is a remake of the old story about a land of Dinosaurs. The special effects aren't great, but it is fun to watch.