The Lost World: Jurassic Park1997

After marveling once again how good the original Jurassic Park still is, I wanted to see if the first sequel, The Lost World: Jurassic Park, could do anything to keep up with it.  Would the returning Jeff Goldblum and basically a whole new set of victims manage to keep the magic going, or were people right, and this was just a quick sequel for the money?

Jeff Goldblum, in The Lost World: Jurassic Park, is just the neurotic naysayer he was in the original, and the role still fits him like a glove.  His character has grown a bit, as he now has a daughter, played by Vanessa Lee Chester, and a girlfriend, played by Julianne Moore.  They all work surprisingly well together, making for an entertaining – but incredibly dysfunctional – family unit. 

Backing them up is Vince Vaughn, who tones down the irritation factor to deliver a decent performance, Richard Schiff, in a smaller role, shines as usual, and Pete Postlethwaite dives into his jungle hunter character with a vengeance.  There are a couple of brief performances by familiar faces Richard Attenborough, Joseph Mazzello, and Ariana Richards, too. They are able to bring a bit of brief nostalgia with them, and a sense of closure for the kids’ stories (in the dinosaur realm anyway) too.

The story is obviously contrived in The Lost World: Jurassic Park.  A second island no one mentioned?  How utterly convenient.  And they are sending people there?  Gee, that sounds familiar.  Sadly, it doesn’t get much better from there, with a whole second part that sees a Tyrannosaurus invade San Diego (with little fanfare).  Yikes.  While this may be based off a second book, the book couldn’t be nearly this empty-headed, could it?

The biggest problem in The Lost World: Jurassic Park is how unconvinced the viewer is that the characters are making the right choices.  Most of what they do seems utterly idiotic, and – surprising no one – always gets them into trouble.   It makes the whole film seem more like a spoof of the first than a sequel.  In fact, at one point, while T-Rex is running around San Diego (apparently… good luck trying to spot a landmark), it looks like there is a nod to the ridiculousness of the situation (with an obvious reference to the original Godzilla).  It just leaves the viewer a bit bewildered, not knowing if the laughs are intentional or not.

The other problem?  There are no new dinosaurs in The Lost World: Jurassic Park.  Again, the biggest threats are the velociraptors and the T-Rex.  They again show pterodactyls in the background, but they never attack anyone, with the little compys having a bigger death count.  Why?  If they brought back so many species, why are there only about 6 in the film?  Apparently, they did bring pterodactyls into the mix for Jurassic Park III, so that’s good – but why did they wait so long?  It just seems so repetitive in this sequel.

The special effects have not improved at all in The Lost World: Jurassic Park.  There are still some instances where the dinosaurs look obviously green screened or mechanical (the baby T-Rex feasting on a dead dinosaur), but for the most part, they still look pretty impressive – just as impressive as the original, but without the same breathtaking wide shots.

Sadly, after seeing The Lost World: Jurassic Park, it’s obvious this was only made because they made a bunch of money off of Jurassic Park, and churned out a sequel as quickly as possible.  While there are some good performances from the cast, the storyline is incredibly weak – with the first half trying to copy the first film, while the second goes on a needless trip to San Diego.  Toss in that it’s again down to velociraptors and tyrannosaurus rex attacks (and still just a tease of pterodactyls), and there’s really nothing new to see here – so why bother?  Just re-watch the original again.