The Lost World (1992)

Well acted and truer to the book than most versions, this film keeps you interested as long as you are not concerned about the dinos. John Rys Davies and Warner are very good as usual. The rest of the cast are virtual unknowns even today, so you are not seeing seminal performances by current well known actors. As far as the dinos, think Dr. Who back in the Jon Pertwee era. Some scenes aren't bad but generally we're talking rubber dinos that look like rubber dinos. As in Who, the story outweighs the special effects. (Current Who TV has great special effects of course.) still, as I said, some scenes are better than others.Notwithstanding them, the film is worth a look.

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.

This was a good movie but it was no Jurassic Park. Would have been better if they could have used something other then puppets for the dinosaurs. The thing that saved this was the acting. Good performances by Eric McCormack and David Warner. I give it a 6/10.

Finally Conan Doyle's masterpiece is re-made (and without the help of made-up lizards). This film starts off very promisingly indeed, is faithful to the text in the original novel. But before long things start to go downhill. Roxton is nowhere to be seen and the number of people who end up stranded in the lost world is far too large. The film seems more interested in political correctness than drama. Challenger, though well acted, is nothing like the fiery character he was envisaged as by Conan Doyle. In fact everything seems to be very cosy and twee. The dinosaurs are the biggest disappointment of all. Apart from one okay scene by a lake, the giant reptiles are rubbery and lifeless, the T-Rex seemingly rooted to the spot and only visible from the chest upwards. The creatures are also few and far between and there's no sense of awe and wonder about them.If you want to see a decent adaptation of Conan Doyle's work then watch the silent 1925 version. Even in these days of CGI and other such effects the first adaptation remains the best.