The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) (part 1 of 5)

Ah, bad sequels. Is there any other category of movies quite as craptacular? For every sequel that equals (The Godfather Part II) or surpasses (Aliens) the original film, there’s a mind-boggling slew of awful follow-ups that take everything that worked with their predecessor films and completely ignores it. Witness our current subject, The Lost World: Jurassic Park. As a huge Michael Crichton fan, what angered me more than anything was how the story was so needlessly changed from Crichton’s original novel. So, occasionally, I’ll take time out during this recap to point out just how different things are compared to the book version.

To read the rest of this article, support the Agony Booth on Patreon.
This post is available to our patrons who pledge $5 or more per month on Patreon. Click the “Unlock with Patreon” button below to sign up with Patreon or to log in with your existing Patreon account.
Already a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to access this content.

Ryan Lohner

Ryan lives in Sparta, New Jersey, a quaint little burg without much for kids to do except go to the movies. Thus began a lifelong love affair, as even back then he grew to love examining why a film worked, or didn't. He is a member of the Sigma Tau Delta English Honor Society, and currently studying for a Master's Degree in Library and Information Science. His hobbies include running, piano, and annoying people with that damn lowercase forum user name.

Multi-Part Article: The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

You may also like...

  • drdvdplayerhandbook

    From all the recaps I’ve read in this site, this is the only one I’ve disliked, as it’s irritatingly nitpicky. I’m sure the author was banging his head against the table just trying to constantly make up increasingly ridiculous excuses to hate this movie.

    The Nostalgia Critic did a far better job of showcasing the movie’s problems, and did so in a clever, logical way, not like this guy, who resorted to overanalyze every little detail in order to make this movie sound much, much worse than it is.

    • Fantasy Mission Force

      Did you happen to forget which website you were visting, bucko?
      “Overanalyze every little detail” for the sake of humorus effect is kind of the point, no? I could be wrong, now, but I don’t think so…
      The flaws and gaffs he mentions are almost all glaringly egregious, especially considering the amount of money and time that went into a production of this magnitude (possibly the worst of which being the one with the T-Rex locked in the cargo hold, even though everyone on the ship is clearly dead, and for some reason a disembodied hand is keeping the door closed. I saw the movie with a ten year old, who picked up on that immediately).
      This movie made itself look terrible on it’s own, and certainly didn’t need any kind of microscopic analysis to be percieved as such. It was poorly thought out and completely untrue to the source material (and I am no Crichton fan, by any stretch).
      He wasn’t making things up to hate about the film, as everything he mentions is definitely contained within the movie.
      You don’t need to go out of your way to rag on a sloppy, lazy production that costs millions of dollars.

      • drdvdplayerhandbook

        No, I did not forget about this site, as I said already, I read lots of recaps here. This is the only one I disliked, and for the reason I mentioned. And there’s very little humor here, unlike in most other recaps in the site. I didn’t say he never makes a fair point, I just said that most of the points he makes are nitpicky. “It doesn’t even make sense logically: How many people still make their dogs sleep outside?” Really? You can’t tell me that’s not nitpicking.

        Also, the scene you mention in the ship, there’s an explanation for that, there’s a deleted scene involving raptors, and they were the ones killing the ship’s crew. Yes, it was stupid to remove the previous scene without fixing the rest, but there is an explanation at least. Something someone who recaps the movie should be familiar with, specially since he already mentioned other deleted scenes.

        And more to the point: what the hell is the matter with you? You don’t reply to a comment made a month ago. That’s ridiculous. It’s no different from replying a text message in your cellphone one month later. If you have something to say about the comment and you arrived a month too late, you either don’t say anything or put a separate comment mentioning the other.

        • Greenhornet

          If the scene has been deleted and the situation is never mentioned, IT NEVER HAPPENED. But how did the Raptors get on the ship? What happened to them? Did they really eat the WHOLE helmsman, even the bones, but not the hands?
          I’m sorry, you have some good points, I’m sure, but if the explanation doesn’t hold up, it’s a “fail” on the movie-makers’ part.

  • Ashley Nicole

    dear guys,
    Ashley Nicole him Marriage boyfriend and Am girlfriend i love you and come here pick him and ask you
    protect me and stay away and totem my wolves my fault and Nick van Owen is hello and Dr Sarah in
    Roland Tombo is come and you hurry come with you and rescue me ! and cumming GA 30040 box or
    moving here come with you come Cumming GA 30040 drive

  • Ashley Nicole

    dear guys,
    understand me with wrong me she my fault or stay away Roland Tombo do, Touch me back fight come you fighting together with shoot you with come protect me stay away with i like you and come with you
    anger like you and clam down is about me Roland Tombo blood shoot me and Ashley Nicole with you

  • John Berndt

    I actually liked the movie. Any movie that makes Greenpeace activists look like the fools that they are is a good one in my book! I can just picture them acting like Nick van Owen, if not even more clueless.

    • Michael Bagamery

      Translation: ‘Garbage that shares my opinions can be excused because it shares my opinions.’
      Have you even seen this movie? If so, did you never think someone might as well have spiked your beverage with reverse Tylenol while watching?
      Do you not also recognize the multifarious ways in which humans have defiled ecosystems across the globe?

      • KHarn

        So you agree with me that Owen should have been KILLING the dinosaurs because of the damage they would have caused to the modern ecosystem?
        Owen and his radical ideals caused most, if not all of the deaths in this movie. But we’re supposed to feel for him because he “cares”. In reality, he’s a “Mary Sue” and that’s supposed to make him not only “right”, but JUSTIFIED in anything he does.

        • Greenhornet

          Greenhornet’s post above. I use my own name on another site.

        • Michael Bagamery

          No, I don’t agree with you that he should have killed the dinosaurs. It would have been much better for all concerned if he had not gone to Isla Sorna, though. And I am familiar with the concept of a Mary Sue.
          I didn’t feel for him or, for that matter, any of the humans in this movie. Would you care to explain why you think he should have been killing the dinosaurs, though? Surely we can discuss this like the intelligent adults we are.

          • Greenhornet

            Nothing against you, of course.

            Well, for one it would have been a more interesting twist.
            Owen –as I see it– could have been portrayed three ways:
            1. He would have ADORED Gen-Tec for bringing extinct animals back to life. Do you remember when the Sci-Fi channel had the FTL Newsfeed mini show? At one point the head of a cloning company pulls out what I believe was a Passenger Pigeon and says “the only place you’ll find ‘extinction’ is in the dictionary”. An animal-lover would find that attractive, I believe.
            2. He would have HATED Gen-Tec for exploiting the dinosaurs for profit.
            3. Owen could have been concerned for the damage to the modern eco-system that the dinosaurs would have caused as nature “adjusted” to the dinosaurs. We have resurrected Diplodocus and Stegosaurus, but they have made the African Elephant and Pronghorn Antelope endangered. That’s why I think he should have OBJECTED to the dinosaurs.

            They should have made this movie more like the old fashioned adventure movies and left out the preaching.
            A research team gets permission to go to the island and contact is broken. A rescue team is sent, including Sara, whose (Fill in the blank) was part of the original team. She dislikes Roland for being a mercenary and hunter, but she soon learns that he’s a good guy, even though she still disapproves of his lifestyle. Their transport and radio gets wrecked and they have to make their way to the abandoned research center. Roland finds Sara’s “whoever” and they hold a private funeral (A deleted scene from the 1925 movie). The team gets down to survival and eventually builds something to get them off the island.
            THE END.

            Also, the next movie should have explored the Pterodactyls leaving the island at will.

          • Michael Bagamery

            That does make much more sense than what the movie actually did. I suspect you have at least one of those stories in your viewer’s cut of this movie.

          • Greenhornet

            Thanks.
            You know how in #4 that guy has a rapport with the raptors? How about Owen gets stranded on the island and develops an empathy with the raptors and goes “mad scientist” on his enemies? “Stupid humans! You’ve mishandled the world for too long, but now there will be a new world! A Jurassic World!”
            Oh well, that’s what fan-fiction is for.