The Lost World - Jurassic Park (1997)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Film C

  
  Although it has two of the original cast returning to this shamble of a movie! Although 7yrs after its classic original you would have thought that they would have had the time to perfect the storyline and make strong characters, however this movie failed on so many levels! Mainly… More
  Although it has two of the original cast returning to this shamble of a movie! Although 7yrs after its classic original you would have thought that they would have had the time to perfect the storyline and make strong characters, however this movie failed on so many levels! Mainly they shouldnt have made a sequel without the original characters but im glad there names arent but to this terrible sequel which is a shame as i adore the first one!

• Albert K

  
  Some imaginative action sequences isn't enough to help save this disastrous sequel. The score is just as annoying and the narrative even more pale in comparison to its predecessor. At least the visual effects are off the chain.

• Candy R

  
  Another island is discovered with living dinosaurs. Do they learn any lessons? Good cast.

• Scott G

  
  An absolute killer movie, to me, it's one of the best portrayal's of Earth's most deadliest predators, what's best about this installment is that it didn't shy away from killing off any characters, I do not know why it is seen as a let down compared to the… More
  An absolute killer movie, to me, it's one of the best portrayal's of Earth's most deadliest predators, what's best about this installment is that it didn't shy away from killing off any characters, I do not know why it is seen as a let down compared to the first.

• Directors C

  
  Nowhere near as good as the first. A simple reason for this is it's a repetition of the first film and Jeff Goldblum in the lead role was another bad idea. Its like Jaws, it cant really be done more than once. I enjoyed Jaws 2 because it managed to create suspense which is… More
  Nowhere near as good as the first. A simple reason for this is it's a repetition of the first film and Jeff Goldblum in the lead role was another bad idea. Its like Jaws, it cant really be done more than once. I enjoyed Jaws 2 because it managed to create suspense which is something The Lost World didn't do.

• Matt G

  
  Easily the laziest sequel in film history. A real embarrassment for Spielberg (and even Vaughn).

• Brad W

  
  There was more screen time with the dinos this time, which is what I wanted. But the problem is the characters are so boring, the plot is "ehhhh." Spielberg knew what he was doing, but the writers sure didn't. But this is not fun and boring, but is not a horible… More
  There was more screen time with the dinos this time, which is what I wanted. But the problem is the characters are so boring, the plot is "ehhhh." Spielberg knew what he was doing, but the writers sure didn't. But this is not fun and boring, but is not a horible movie. The effects and music are great though, but thats expected from Spielberg. Just a bad movie, and a disapointment.

• AJ V

  
  One of many unneeded sequels to Jurassic Park. At least this one takes it off the island and into the real world. It's a fun and entertaining movie, but that's all.

• Eric A

  
  Amazing as a child, but descent reviewing it now.

• Melvin W

  
  Dr. Ian Malcolm: Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that's how it always starts. Then later there's running and screaming.  "Something Has Survived" Not nearly as good the second time around for Spielberg and his Jurassic Parks films. Replaced the two annoying kids for one… More
  Dr. Ian Malcolm: Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that's how it always starts. Then later there's running and screaming.  "Something Has Survived" Not nearly as good the second time around for Spielberg and his Jurassic Parks films. Replaced the two annoying kids for one equally annoying girl. Swapped Dern's annoying performance for Moore's annoying performance. Then there's the plot which is nowhere near as exciting as the first. It seems and this is more than likely the case, that Spielberg really didn't care if this movie was good. It was going to make money because of the success of the first one. He was right, of course. The movie made a shit load of money. Sam Neill is gone and is replaced as the lead character by Goldblum. The acting is worse in this one and the action sequences seem much less suspenseful and satisfying. The movie is saved by a good sequence near the end when the T-Rex runs through the streets of San Diego. There's no denying; that scene was pretty awesome. Other then that though, the movie as a whole was kind of dull. That's the last thing I thought I would be saying about a Spielberg movie. The Lost World in my opinion is the Spielberg's worst directorial effort. Many would argue for War of The Worlds, but I liked that much more then this poor sequel. The only life in this movie is remembering how good the first one was. Sure, the dinosaurs still look awesome, but the movie needs more than that. We already know the dinosaurs are cool.  I'll probably watch the third one soon out of curiosity. But I definitely won't expect much out of it after this train wreck.

• Steven C

  
  "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" is brain dead sequel to the brain dead "Jurassic Park." Don't get me wrong, I love "Jurassic Park" because it's superficial and silly, a pulpy dinosaur yarn, and that's exactly why I like part two. These are… More
  "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" is brain dead sequel to the brain dead "Jurassic Park." Don't get me wrong, I love "Jurassic Park" because it's superficial and silly, a pulpy dinosaur yarn, and that's exactly why I like part two. These are just chase movies, plain and simple. The effects and set pieces are thrilling and fun and so is it's cast. Are they playing actual characters? No. They are cardboard cutouts running around, but it's dumb and entertaining. What more do you want from a dinosaur picture? On a side note, "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" has one of Steven Spielberg's most eclectic casts. I wish he would work again with many of these actors, actually giving them something worthwhile to do on screen,

• Chris W

  
  Spielberg said he purposely didn't make this film as good as it coulsd have been because he didn't want it to eclipse the first one. What a bunch of crap. If he didn't wanna make it a masterpiece, that's fine, but he could have at least made it just slightly lesser… More
  Spielberg said he purposely didn't make this film as good as it coulsd have been because he didn't want it to eclipse the first one. What a bunch of crap. If he didn't wanna make it a masterpiece, that's fine, but he could have at least made it just slightly lesser than the first instead of far behind it. The main issue is that this film strays too far from the source material, and it is all handled sloppily. It's just spectacle without the intelligence and wonder of the first one. There are moments of this movie I do like, but this is probably my least favorite Spielberg and definitely one of his weakest.

• Michael E

  
  surprisingly considered the worst, i liked it more than the first, not as much as the third i liked it better than the first by far

• Lucas M

  
  Boring, much talk and nothing to show. Neither looks like a Jurassic Park sequel, terrible. Rotten.

• Jacob E

  
  In my Jurassic Park review, I noted that most of the acting is enough to distract from the dozens of deviations from the novel. Here, it isn't. Instead of dozens of deviations, there are HUNDREDS of deviations from the novel. Now, before I got all book fanboy on this film, I want… More
  In my Jurassic Park review, I noted that most of the acting is enough to distract from the dozens of deviations from the novel. Here, it isn't. Instead of dozens of deviations, there are HUNDREDS of deviations from the novel. Now, before I got all book fanboy on this film, I want to point out that as a film geek I understand that books have to be streamlined to make it to the screen or else any film based on a book would be about 4 hours or longer. But, at the very least, FOLLOW THE DAMN BOOK. The novel "The Lost World" doesn't involve San Francisco. At all. The trailer hanging off the cliff sequence during the first half of this film is at the end of the book. The villains in the book and film are completely different, several characters have been removed, and I could go on for several more paragraphs. But one question still remains, why did I give this 4 stars? Because Steven Spielberg decided to use this film as a way to pay homage to monster-on-the-loose films of the 50s, with references to Godzilla and King Kong. The film geek side of me mercifully added a star because of that and Jeff Goldblum is quite fun to watch. Now as for Jurassic Park 3...

• Jeff "

  
  After the Epic Jurassic Park, you'd expect something great from it's sequel, right? I mean it's only natural that one could expect that the sequel would deliver something. Unless the sequel is The Godfather Part II or Tron Legacy, you're of course going to be… More
  After the Epic Jurassic Park, you'd expect something great from it's sequel, right? I mean it's only natural that one could expect that the sequel would deliver something. Unless the sequel is The Godfather Part II or Tron Legacy, you're of course going to be disappointed. The Lost World fails to capture the elements that made the first Jurassic Park so great. The magic is gone. It's clear that Spielberg is trying to overdue the film and focus more on special effects than on story development. The idea of the film is good and the concept of Ingen going on a safari hunt on the island hunting dinosaurs was a good concept. However the story feels likes hanging in midair with no place to go. What made the first Jurassic Park so great is that you don't know what will happen to the characters as they are in a theme park with living, breathing dinosaurs and it keeps you guessing what will happen to them. But with The Lost World, the element of the unknown is not there as we know that the hunters and researchers will be lunch for the free roaming dinosaurs. Right off the bat we know the outcome. The predictability of the film it's it's biggest weakness. Some of the characters I thought were so poorly developed and simply just stupid. For example Ian Malcolms daughter lacked common sense and judgement all around. I mean wtf? was she thinking? Listen to your dad, it might save your life! The Lost World has high concept thats not fully explored in my opinion and though it had some action packed moments such as the T Rex attacking San Diego, the film was average and frankly a disappointment. I give it three stars for the appealing special effects, story wise and acting wise this film would be worth a two star or two and half stars. Luckily the third entry in the Jurassic Park franchise redeems the idiocy of this film.

• Mike S

  
  Doesn't quite live up to the greatness of the original, but still a very good sequel, despite leaving much to desire script-wise. My review is a bit biased though as I'm a big Spielberg fan and happen to love everything that involves dinosaurs. But if you enjoyed the thrills… More
  Doesn't quite live up to the greatness of the original, but still a very good sequel, despite leaving much to desire script-wise. My review is a bit biased though as I'm a big Spielberg fan and happen to love everything that involves dinosaurs. But if you enjoyed the thrills and excitement of the first one, chances are high that you'll like this one as well.

• Ken S

  
  Suffers from terrible screenplay. Even the great cast and Steve's direction can't make this even half as fun as the last film.

• xGary X

  
  Another team returns to Ingen's research facility to document the dinosaurs in their natural environment but find themselves in a race against time to stop another team sent by the corporation to pillage the animals to populate a new theme park. I always thought that the original… More
  Another team returns to Ingen's research facility to document the dinosaurs in their natural environment but find themselves in a race against time to stop another team sent by the corporation to pillage the animals to populate a new theme park. I always thought that the original Jurassic Park was hugely over-rated; once you got past the Oooh! and Aah! factor of the special effects, the weak story meant that there was little more to it than a computer generated zoo full of fake animals. The SFX of its sequel are just as impressive, but now we can't switch on the Discovery channel without being confronted by herds of computer generated dinosaurs it seems a lot less of a big deal. Jeff Goldblum reprises the least uninteresting of the characters from the original and tempers the dry scientific mumbo jumbo with a peppering of funny one-liners, Pete Postlethwaite brings some presence to the screen as a morally ambiguous big game hunter and Julianne Moore is a lot more tolerable than Laura Dern as the romantic interest. The plot is pretty much a rehash of King Kong as the team are confronted with bloodthirsty dinos in a series of well engineered set pieces leading up to a somewhat tacked-on sequence as Rex Kong crashes through San Diego, but the character dynamic is a lot more interesting with a team of bad guys to clash with and although they once again insisted on inflicting a child on us, she's a lot less irritating than the previous two. As a whole, it's purely an exercise in milking the dino, but it's done with efficiency from one of the masters of popular entertainment.

• KJ P

  
  I don't hate the second Jurassic Park, it's just not anything special. If it weren't made I would have no regret of not seeing it, but it is just a harmless sequel with many flaws!

Read all 20 featured audience ratings