The Lost World (1992)

Don't listen to the negative reviews

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

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.

There isn't anything to add regarding most of the production values or plot summaries that hasn't been addressed earlier.What impressed me was our hero,the bold Professor George Edward Challenger- an outstanding portrayal by an outstanding character actor.The original character,as conceived by Doyle,is truly larger than life.Bold,brave,arrogant,brilliant,insightful,virile,unscrupulous when attaining his goals,humorous,and reckless,and resourceful.John Rhys-Davies epitomizes this character without a flaw.(Brian Blessed is the only other actor I can imagine pulling it off,but the portrayal would have had a gleefully sadistic element not in keeping.And Warner is a worthy foil-arch,pompous,equally arrogant and ereudite,yet possessing the same high level of scholarly integrity and brilliance.Watch this,not as great art(I don't think they ever intended it as such,but as a lot of fun.

Based on an original story by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (the same guy who wrote "Sherlock Holmes" novels so many years ago), this movie has a pretty good plot but is hampered by a low budget and television censorship (or so it would appear). I've never read the original novel, so I can't comment on how close the film tracks to the original story. I've seen another adaptation that glossed over some of the plotlines raised in this film, and between the two films that I've seen, this one probably follows the novel closer.Dr. Challenger is on an expedition in a jungle when one of his bearers tries to steal a map from him while he sleeps. Challenger suffers a leg wound in the struggle and ends up killing the bearer. The next day he is poised to climb an escarpment and spots a winged creature flying over the cliff's ledge but because of his wound he is unable to continue his expedition and is forced to turn back. Returning to England, he makes a speech to a British scholar's society about how he came upon a land where a dinosaur life form thought to be extinct - a pterodactyl, a bird-like dinosaur that either flew or glided -still exists(interestingly enough, this book was written before the discovery of the pcelocanth (a dinosaur fish) caught in a fisherman's net off Madagascar in the 50s or 60s).Back in England, the scholars scoff Dr. Challenger and rebuke his claims. A newspaper reporter in search of a story and some adventure calls out to the scholars, stating that they should launch an expedition to prove Dr. Challenger's claims true or false. The scholars retort that perhaps if the Society were to fund an expedition that perhaps the reporter would like to join them, along with a young boy in the auditorium. There is, of course, much laughter until their offer is accepted by the reporter, the boy, and a female photographer who happens to be a wealthy supporter of women's rights and offers to fund the expense of the expedition. Money talks and the expedition is prepared, on the condition that Challenger remain in England, to avoid any complications to the leadership of Challenger's rival, Dr. Summerlee.Once at the jungle station, Dr. Summerlee opens an envelope that is supposed to contain the map to the escarpment, but the paper inside is blank! Ta-daa, Dr. Challenger arrives with the map and joins the expedition. Also joining the expedition is the boy, who stowed away in the ship from England, and an attractive native girl ("Malu") who is to act as an interpreter for the group. The group gathers up some native bearers and proceed up the river into the jungle.In my opinion, the movie spent too much time getting our heroes into the adventure. I can understand the need for character development and motivation, but it just seemed too tedious, particularly since all of the characters are stereotypical and there really isn't any development anyway. But, I suppose when the story was originally written, all of this was new to the viewers so it had to be explained.Once in the jungle, our heroes climb the escarpment, only to find themselves stranded when the brother of the bearer Challenger had killed earlier comes along and cuts their climbing ropes. The group makes a camp, but must battle fierce native warriors who capture Challenger, Summerlee, the photographer, and the native bearers and are going to feed them to a tyrannosaurus rex by placing leaves around their necks and pushing them off a cliff into the t-rex's claws. The boy figures out how to save them by making a balloon out of a shirt and natural gas from some hot springs nearby and scaring the native warriors.Later, the group finds a friendly tribe and one of the young girls of the village has a baby pterodactyl that's dying. Summerlee reasons that perhaps the leaves that the warriors had placed around their necks to feed the t-rex might be some sort of dinosaur food, so he collects some and revives the baby pterodactyl. Challenger and Summerlee congratulate each other -Summerlee congratulates Challenger on discovering living dinosaurs and Challenger congratulates Summerlee on figuring out how the dinosaurs survived extinction - and they become friends.John Rhys-Davies has become the prototypical explorer/adventurer actor. He did an outstanding job in the Indiana Jones films, this film, a remake of "Ivanhoe", the "Shogun" miniseries, and he recently did the narration for "Empires of Mystery" Inca/Aztec/Maya exhibit at the Florida Internation Museum. In my opinion, he carries this film. The actress playing Malu has one of the best smiles I've seen on camera, right up there with Erik Estrada and Donnie Osmond, and looks like she belongs in a steamy jungle of Brazil. She has a pretty good body in that sarong, too. The dinosaur scenes are mediocre. The puppets aren't going to win any special effects awards and in this day of Computer Generated Images they almost look ridiculous, but they get the idea across. The fierce native warriors look pretty good - their white paint makes them look like skeletons and look suitably ferocious. I was surprised that the adventurers managed to stay in full dress, complete with vest, long pants, and long coat, while the natives dress in sarongs and loincloths. I would think that they would "go native" for comfort, if not for practicality. But, I suppose the standards of Doyle's time didn't allow for such freedom. You can go forth wreck indigenous species and interfere with other cultures, but you can't take off your shirt.No skin, no foul language, no gore (in fact, the gunshot wound to the bearer has no blood at all), nothing terribly frightening. A good movie for the whole family. Fans of jungle films may enjoy it, but you'd probably get more entertainment out of a good "Tarzan" film.