I maintain that if The Lost World was not automatically pitted against Jurassic Park by virtue of being its sequel, people probably would have gotten a kick out of it.
That doesn’t change the fact that the movie couldn’t beat its predecessor without blindfolding it, hogtying it, and sending it into the raptor cage first, but come on—there’s nothing wrong with letting Dr. Ian Malcolm carry a film with a baby T-Rex in it. So why all the hostility?
Jurassic Park entranced us for many obvious reasons, but so much of it was bound up in structure, in its conceit. It was frightening because the protagonists were isolated, because they were forced to deal with a threat the likes of which no human being had ever encountered. At the end, everyone is safe but traumatized, and what’s worse, no one in the world knows what has happened to them. Even if we had not found out about the InGen gag order in The Lost World, it’s not exactly difficult to extrapolate that scenario as the helicopters are leaving the island. In that respect, Jurassic Park has all the qualities of a good horror film—no one can hear you scream and they will never know (or believe) what you saw.
The problem with The Lost World is that it eliminates that sense of isolation. It is a film that culminates in an homage to King Kong and Godzilla—an unstoppable force coming into hard contact with a modern world that it has no hope of joining. The idea of creating that homage is not terrible in and of itself, it’s just unfortunately handled too tongue-in-cheek to make the kind of impact it had the potential for. Between drinking from swimming pools and goofy shoutouts to Gojira made by a Japanese expat, we cannot take the chills seriously. It doesn’t help that bringing in the outside world automatically takes fear out of the equation; modern weaponry and military force might make it hard to sell the rampage.
On the other hand, if someone had tried to pitch you this screenplay with the words “Tyrannosaurus Rex charging through San Diego,” would you have been able to say no? Let’s be fair here.
But what about what works in this movie? Taking the funniest character from the first film and handing the reins over to him was a pretty brazen move that paid off in more ways than one. If The Lost World was always destined to be the campy cousin of Jurassic Park, then putting Ian Malcolm center stage guaranteed all the wit and sarcasm that the movie required to make up for every groan. Though arguably the only smart person (smart meaning intelligent and practical) from the first film, that doesn’t mean that he’s necessarily a great guy. The Lost World does a good job of letting us know exactly why Dr. Malcolm is always, as he put it to Dr. Grant, “Looking for a future ex-Mrs. Malcolm.” Half of the enjoyment to be had from the film is all about watching the guy fail at handling every relationship he has, kid included.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say something that might irritate the Crichton fans out there—this movie succeeds where the Lost World novel failed utterly. It’s strange to realize that the book is actually more Hollywood than the film in this case, particularly in the manner with which it tries to reproduce its past success. The children in The Lost World novel are literally the movie versions of Lex and Tim flipped; this time the boy is a computer whiz and the girl, Kelly Curtis, loves dinosaurs. Instead, the film gives Kelly a real relationship to Malcolm (as his daughter), making her choice to stow away much easier to buy. And while she is similarly situated in the plot to save the day once or twice, she comes off as a wonderfully real teen, though one clearly related to Malcolm—you know the moment she uses words like “troglodyte” to describe a babysitter, and his instant response is, “Cruel, but good word use.” That’s family, right there.
The supporting cast of The Lost World frankly sell the film in every place where it falls down: we’ve got Julianne Moore, Vince Vaughn, Richard Schiff, and Pete Postlethwaite, who are all more than capable of picking up narrative slack. It’s impossible for Postlethwaite to be bad at any part he plays, and his hubris is delicious in this film, his insistence that he understands the animals when he really is just another white guy in the jungle. What’s more, I’d argue that the edible members of the journey are actually more likable on this rodeo than in the previous film. (No one wants to defend a “bloodsucking lawyer,” after all.) Julianne Moore as Sarah Harding provides exactly what we didn’t get from Dr. Grant and Dr. Sattler in Jurassic Park; they spent so much of the movie being understandably terrified that we got little chance to see them do what they do best—geek out about dinosaurs. Harding is fun to follow because curiosity outweighs her sense of self-preservation, and that’s what essentially moves the plot forward.
Again, I would like to point out: a woman, who is a scientist, cares so much about said science that she essentially guides us through the whole movie. That alone is reason enough for applause, no matter how much Ian Malcolm wants everyone to believe she’s crazy.
And at the heart of the film is a deconstruction of what Jurassic Park had worked so hard to build up in our minds. Rather than play the “scary beast” card, we spend The Lost World being made to understand that these big monsters are also protective parents. That what we often find inhuman is all-too-often the opposite if we take the time to look hard enough. It brings back the wonder of John Hammond’s initial concept where the park was concerned. It was meant to be a place that fueled your imagination, that renewed your sense of awe with creation. Sarah Harding’s research, her way of interacting with the dinosaurs is how we would all prefer to interact, not from behind the windows of a theme park-owned car on tracks.
For being such a lighthearted take on what Jurassic Park doled out, there are careful reexaminations of themes from the first film and beyond. Again we find Spielberg’s favorite conflict in fathers estranged from their children, but unlike Dr. Grant, who is learning how to be a father to someone else’s children, or Roy Neary from Close Encounters of the Third Kind, who is abandoning his family over a calling and obsession, we see Ian Malcolm learn how to become a better father by being forced to spend this harrowing time with his daughter. Father-daughter relationships get far less screentime in general than fathers and sons, especially rocky ones, so it’s a fresh dynamic. We also see another example of man’s disregard for the power of nature, though this time it is not only John Hammond who refuses to give the proper respect. And the post traumatic stress that Malcolm still clearly struggles with as a result of his time in the park is addressed roundly, making his anger toward everyone who ignores his warnings easy to key into.
Not to mention that when you break it down, the trip to San Diego offers a very clever twist on that King Kong rehash. What The Lost World chose to do was take Kong, itself a romanticizing of classics like The Hunchback of Notre Dame or The Phantom of the Opera—the hideous, misunderstood man who is shunned by society and denied the woman he loves—and turn it into a story about protective familial love, a completely animal instinct that defines the lives of so many of us. In turn, The Lost World becomes a story that is utterly powered by the motivations of women; a scientist who wants to understand nature, a girl who wants to know her father, a mother—and father, as it is the male T-Rex stomping through California—who will do anything to get their child back.
You know what, all that stuff I said about how goofy this movie is? I take it back. The Lost World is awesome.
This article was originally published in March 2013.
Emmet Asher-Perrin will give the baby t-rex back in just a few minutes, she promises. You can bug her on Twitter and read more of her work here and elsewhere.
While I have enjoyed many times many of your geeky articles, I really have to weigh in on this one, and I will try to do so in the order you listed your points. First off, Michael Crichton was a fine author of concepts involving leaps of science going horribly wrong, and I’ve heard that each of his novels was meticulously researched before being finished. However, his characters are often difficult to like unless outright despicable. For example, I much prefer Congo the movie to the book, because the female main character was utterly amoral. (In the movie they shift her no-cares-given attitude to her boss and almost-father-in-law while she searches for her ex-fiance. That’s the short version, anyway.)
The Lost World: Jurassic Park did indeed remove the isolation, the sense that we were alone on the scary island. But it most certainly wasn’t meant as an homage (not directly, anyway) to King Kong or Godzilla — it lifted entire scenes out of The Lost World, a thirties-era stop motion film loosely based on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s book of the same name. The special features on the DVD made that explicitly clear — entire interviews are based on that in most JP: TLW discs.
While I agree that Ian’s relationship blunders were interesting to watch, they came at the expense of the book’s (admittedly lengthy) sleuthing of the details that informed us of Island Two. Having John Hammond live through the movie allowed the script to shortcut across that, but the Crichton-level of detail on solving the mystery was particularly interesting to me (and others, I assume.) However, to claim the book was more Hollywood that the movie is shortsighted. While all the good action scenes made it in, much of the book consisted of intelligent discourse and methodical science. Some of that made it into the movie (setting the baby rex’s leg, for one) but removed all the character moments from the book, considering none of the people in that scene are the same between the two (IIRC.)
Frankly, the removal of Doc Thorne was a blow. He was one of the most interesting characters, and a father-figure as well, imparting his nuggets of wisdom to all. Not only did he provide Ian’s equipment, but also paved the way for his mischievous students to tag along. Combining his sidekick, the much more tractable Eddie, into a sort of Eddie-Thorne with all the money and equipment but none of the fatherly wisdom seems an odd choice in a movie dealing with father-daughter issues. I have absolutely nothing bad to say about the cast, however. They each shine wonderfully in the roles they were given, even if they weren’t the ones in the book (“You’re that Earth First bastard, aren’t you?” may be the most egregious character change, turning a Jimmy Olsen into a secret agent — which also happened in Batman Vs Superman, but I digress.)
Commenting that the movie focused on the animal-parent relationships with their children is also underrepresented, as that was one of central tenets of the book. Any of the scenes with attacking dinosaurs was probably lifted from the book (at least if it didn’t explicitly contain the “Marlboro Man” getting eaten by pissed-off compys) and many scenes from the original book that were cut from the first movie (such as the T-Rex/Waterfall scene) were included to flesh out a story that had been stripped of several essential points already. They would recycle scenes from both books in Jurassic Park III as well (such as the River Ride while being chased by a carnivore, and the Aviary which wasn’t even shown in the first movie.)
Just to finish, they seemed awfully quick to cover up the widescale destruction caused in the movie with a feel-good message from John Hammond about the beauty and sanctity of life — but apparently, less about the lives that were lost when his company accidentally released a rogue animal weighing tons into a populated area. While the movie’s ending may have been more triumphant than the book’s rhapsody about nature by Doc Thorne, it falls only a little less flat in the grand scheme.
Have to admit I’ve always kind of preferred The Lost World (the movie) to Jurassic Park (the movie) — it has more & better dinosaurs, and I’d argue that the plot makes more sense (it’s always irked me that in the first movie, their response to “There’s a hurricane blowing in, and the owner, the experts and some kids are arriving on a helicopter,” is to put everybody on a ship to the mainland; I realize they kind of did that for dramatic/narrative reasons, to reduce the number of characters onscreen, but still).
I do think Jurassic Park (the book) is much better than The Lost World (the book), though. And both movies are head & shoulders above JPIII and JW. Having said which, I’ll be buying all four movies on 4K when they come out next month, and I’ll be in the theater on opening weekend for JWII.
Raptors in the high grass. Man, that was freaky intimidating.
Huh, I always thought it was an homage to “Gorgo,” the movie about a giant dinosaur rampaging through London to find its baby.
I loved the film Jurassic Park way more than the book, and the book Lost World way more than the movie. That said, I was still more or less with the movie. Then San Diego happened, and I was done. It was basically Godzilla with a creature much less cool than Godzilla (I love Tyrannosaurs, but they are way smaller and don’t breathe atomic fire). And then, when Godzilla ‘98 basically made that sequence an entire film, I was…not thrilled.
I did like the progressive aspects of the Lost World film, though.
This movie had two problems. The first is not its fault, but it came when it was getting fashionable to laugh and sneer at everything the left wing animal welfare and green ideology of the early 1990s, so going with that and a hunting sab as a protagonist meant that it was walking into every lazy joke that hack stand ups and sneering nerdbois could come up with. Even a couple of years earlier and this would not be a problem.
The second is its fault. The San Diego part feels completely grafted on, it just does not flow naturally from the first part of the movie. It is the lack of Postlethwaite’s character in that section that really does it. He completely owned the antagonist-antihero role of the first part of the movie, and without him it just feels tacked on.
One of the scenes that comes to mind for me is Julianne Moore getting to close to the Stegosaurus – because then in “Jurassic World” they have people kayaking right next to some ankylosaurs. I’ve worked in parks with bison and you’re supposed to stay 50 yards away and even then watch out! SOOO stupid. That was where I lost another level of interest in “Jurassic World”
I saw both movies in theaters as a teen. I LOVED Jurassic Park, but I only liked The Lost World. Most of it was enjoyable, but there were two things that bothered me back then. One, was no Alan Grant. Adult me can see the benefits of switching to Malcolm as the lead but teen me didn’t understand and didn’t like it. The other thing that made me groan so hard it put a bad taste for the whole movie in my mouth was the incredibly convenient uneven bars in the shack that Malcolm’s gymnast daughter was able to perfectly time swinging around in order to kick a pouncing velociraptor. I just couldn’t accept it.
Why do people hate Lost World? Here’s my reason: papa Rex breaks out of the hold, eats everyone on the freighter—then locks itself back in the hold.
@brendaa #7 The movie pretty much lost me at the introduction of Julianne Moore/Sarah Harding and never got me back after that. The capable scientist from the book, extremely experienced at studying wild animals out in the their natural habitat, laughing and shrieking like a harpy when she sees her friends in a jungle surrounded by large animals that she didn’t really know much about yet. It’s hard to celebrate a strong female scientist character who’s such an idiot about so much, like leaving that bloody shirt hanging in the tent later. And I didn’t mind the kids being combined into one character who was now Malcom’s daughter, but Kelly in the book was really such a great character to explore a young girl who was bullied for being good at math and science and how Sarah and her experiences on the island help her gain so much confidence. Kelly in the movie’s main conflict (outside of her problems with her father) were all about quitting gymnastics. I mean she’s smart in the movie, but not really a STEM girl.
I didn’t particularly like or identify with any of the characters. And the whole sequence in San Diego just felt tacked on at the end, it didn’t fit well with the rest of the movie.
@@@@@ #9 DRickard — I believe that’s another stolen scene from the first novel, where raptors escape by stowing away on a ship and slaughtering the crew before it crashes into shore. That was one of the first-novel lead-ins to the second novel, where seeming phantoms would strike plantations in the night and ravage the lysine-rich food crops that grew there. It was all tied in to showing that dinosaurs were no longer confined to the original island. Why they didn’t bother with the raptors in the second movie … is anyone’s meta-guessing.
I also liked this movie when it came out. Not enough to ever have watched it again, whereas I have the the original a few times, but I have no hate for it.
I think one reason it seems like a lesser movie, is that when the first one came out, the sweeping Williams score and never-before-seen dinosaur vistas engendered an amazing sense of wonder. That couldn’t be matched in the second movie, no matter how well made.
Also count me as another viewer who had trouble accepting the gymnastics sequence.
I can tell you the number one reason *I* hated it: the deaths of innocent bystanders being played for laughs.
They made a sequel with a comedic sidekick from the original film as the lead. Mistake there. The story went down the road it did. Take it or leave it. Better editing. could have helped. Comepletely removing the gymnyst scene and his lousy team joke. The cliff scene was almost impossible to watch. If you pay attention. it’s another magic cliff that appears that wasn’t there. another problem, they wait to long for part 2. and the film starts out slow and boring. lots of talking.
Rewatching this movie as a woman and not an 8 year old girl made me absolutely hate it. Julianne Moore’s character sucked. Laura Dern was respectable as a scientist because she had an equal amount of respect and fear for the extinct yet brought back to life dinosaurs. Moore’s/Sarah’s naivete gets a lot of people killed but she suffers no consequences because of it. I just wanted to choke her out or have her cut in half but the two t-rexs.
Such a brilliant idea to bring the baby t-rex back to camp where all your friend’s are at. You dumbass! (Side note: did Vince Vaughn’s character seriously give a lecture to men who just saved his life about killing large man made carnivorous animals) Honestly I wish Moore’s character would have fallen through the glass. I wish Vaughn was also ripped in half instead of his more sensible friend.
Your argument that we see this film through the lens of a female scientist (who make’s frustratingly stupid mistake after stupid mistakes) as a progressive movie is the dumbest thing I’ve read after rewatching the movie.
Any sensible female scientist/non idiot would respect the boundaries that animals have and not start petting a child like there wouldn’t be severe consequences if the parent’s showed up.
@17 It isn’t Sarah that gets everyone killed, until Malcolm and party showed up she had everything under control. It was her meddling BF and his merry band of bros that brought the chaos and the death, and the screaming. When you want something competently but quietly documented, send a woman. If you want a lot of screw ups then send a bunch of men to try and take charge.
@18 Um..Malcom and Eddie did absolutely nothing to get anyone killed. Igen also did nothing wrong. The main blame lies with Vaughn’s character, as he actively causes all of the conflict in the movie and never gets called out on it (he should have been called out AND met a grizzly demise, like Ned in the first movie). He releases the dinosaurs in Igen’s camp (destroying their communication equipment and sending them from a position of complete control to a position of chaos), then brings the baby T-rex back to the RV (which is the sole reason the T-Rex parents chase them throughout the movie, and is the direct cause of Eddie’s gruesome and undeserved death), and finally he steals Roland’s elephant gun bullets, which leads to the T-rex rampage in the city (since Roland has no bullets, he has to tranquilize the T-rex instead, which means it was able to wake up and break lose on the ship).
Sarah is a pretty close second to Vaughn when it comes to dumbass decisions, though. The first thing she does when she appears is start petting a random baby stegasaurus, causing the parents to attack. Then when Vaughn brings the baby T-rex to the trailer, she acts completely oblivious to the obvious likelihood that the parents will show up. It’s so frustrating how she just stays there like a dumbass right up until the parents arrive, despite the continued protests of Malcom and his daughter (why couldn’t Malcom and Eddie have just stayed in their high hiding place while the dumbass duo got what they deserved?). And then Sarah brings her bloodsoaked jacket along, attracting the T-rex parents once again, thus getting even more people killed. And yet she has the nerve to act like some kind of expert? Yeesh.
I love the movie. I think a lot of people are really not getting a lot of stuff right in the comments here. Eddie and Malcolm were the most innocent of the group(other than Kelly), Sarah had everything under control before the rest showed up(she had been following the stego family, learning the behavior of them as parents, etc) and the only reason the Stego got startled was the camera screwing up and screeching. Remember the dinos have no reason to be scared of humans at this point. Now when Nick goes into the camp and sabotages things that is where all hell broke loose and people started to die, the baby rex specifically. Which, is technically Roland’s fault but Nick brought the problem to his camp as well. The gymnastics part with Kelly was a bit out there, but it is a movie and they utilized something she could do(otherwise people would complain about her total uselessness), as it was mentioned by Malcolm earlier on. Last but not least, the rex in San Diego, I liked, honestly. They were trying to push the point that you cannot bring the dinos off of the island. They cannot be controlled on the island, why would they be controlled off the island. Now, I agree, that they should have added the raptors to make it make sense about the dead crew. But I really actually love this movie, the book is great in its own right. I also really like how they made Eddie die in the movie as opposed to the book. They made him a hero instead of a hideaway. Oh, and as a kid, the doghouse hanging out of the mouth of the rex was absolutely hilarious.
I totally agree with Celi @17: Your argument that we see this film through the lens of a female scientist (who make’s frustratingly stupid mistake after stupid mistakes) as a progressive movie is the dumbest thing I’ve read after rewatching the movie.
Just what kind of scientist is this Harding woman. One who is so dumb that after lecturing everybody on how keen is the T-rex’s sense of smell, she continues to wear a jacket smeared with the t-rex baby’s blood on it! Brilliant! The rexes follow the group because of it. Let alone as a scientist even as a human I found her totally lacking. Does she and that First earth fellow, Nick, show any remorse or grief for the death of Eddie who is ripped apart by the T-rexes while trying to save these two. Even Ludlow says that he is sorry that the man died but these two have no words, more concerned as they are about the dinosaurs. While watching the movie, I wondered why Malcolm was interested in Sarah as she and Nick seemed to be more suited to each other (and definitely had more of a chemistry). When the raptor pounced on her, I was so glad, only for it to eat her bag. Just how ridiculous can one get!