Maybe it is a low budget movie, but in 1998 with computer aid the dinosaurs could have been better. Very predictable and the first half is something bored. I think Sir Arthur Doyle could die again if he saw this movie.
19 Reviews
This movie could have been good.
slayer-318 February 1999
The movie had the potential to be good. But, after about 20 minutes the viewer should give up. Granted I was not expecting great special effects, but good special effects would have been nice. The effects were BAD, they can't even be classified as special. The make-up, oh-so bad. The storyline BAD, BAD. The blond haired Diva, yea ok she looks this good after living alone for 11 years? The primitive tribes, I think they came from "Gilligan's Island". The costumes - where did the two Divas get those lace up shoes? This movie could have been good, if they never would have made it.
*1/2 out of *****.
*1/2 out of *****.
Disaster not adventure
greggwh7 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
When you see the title of a movie adaptation of a novel that has the novelist's name in the title, don't assume that means a faithful adaptation, cases in point Bram Stoker's Dracula, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein etc. But perhaps the best example yet of that caveat is this movie, where while Challenger (in the movie beardless) and Summerlee (in the movie elderly) are scientists, that's about the only holdover from the book. Roxton is not a lord, not even British but American, and the screenwriters got the bright idea of turning him into a villain! Other commentators have pointed out that the title place is set in 1930s Mongolia rather than 1910s South America and that the dinosaurs aren't accurate (at least they aren't monitor lizards and caimans), but what they've neglected to mention is that this is not really an adventure but a disaster movie. Why? The plot follows the latter's standard procedure of knocking off the cast one by one in various gruesome, even sadistic ways (the first victim dies in part because of his own and the others' stupidity), but you'll likely guess who survives. Finally, the movie breaks with a plot element in the ending of every other Lost World adaptation that has ever been made, though considering what's happened up to that point, it's about the only logical plot development in this turkey. Beware!
worth a look
loosid_dreamers10 January 2009
I kind of agree with Matthew: "...I would probably buy it if I had the chance, but not because I thought it was a good movie, it would be because of the fact that there were two things I enjoyed: the unpredictability of the story, and how Malone deals with the T-Rex in the ending. " I have never read the original and I should before commenting on any of the movies, but this one was oh so dark, right from the beginning and all the way to the end. It's the only version I know of where everyone dies and the last person is marooned. NOTHING like any of the other versions. Now that's a courageous idea but unfortunately it was very badly executed. And what was Bergin thinking? He was so awesome in Mountains of the Moon.
Probably the worst film I've ever seen
iansat7 May 2006
This film starts fine but once the mission to find "The Lost World" starts, it goes from not so good, to bad, to terrible and is very quickly farcical.
I would imagine that this was a box office flop and if so, I'm not surprised. Mind you, on the budget it was clearly made on, they (the Financiers) can't have lost very much money, I think my Children's pocket money for a year could have paid for better special effects.
The inaccuracy too is ludicrous. Since when did the original location of Conan Doyle's masterpiece transpose from South America to Mongolia? And since when did Mongolia look so much like Canada? If you've never seen another version of this film or read the book, you might enjoy it. Bon Chance!
I would imagine that this was a box office flop and if so, I'm not surprised. Mind you, on the budget it was clearly made on, they (the Financiers) can't have lost very much money, I think my Children's pocket money for a year could have paid for better special effects.
The inaccuracy too is ludicrous. Since when did the original location of Conan Doyle's masterpiece transpose from South America to Mongolia? And since when did Mongolia look so much like Canada? If you've never seen another version of this film or read the book, you might enjoy it. Bon Chance!
Do not watch it!
koalablue_199323 August 2008
It is impossibly bad. The acting was terrible, i feel sorry for the actors who where involved in this. The movie has no plot at all. The dialog is cringe worthy. And the special effects were obviously made on a very cheap budget. This movie is pooh. It is a transvesty. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle must be twisting in his grave. All that happens in the story is some people getting killed in a variety of gruesome ways. My friend got it for one dollar in a cheap DVD shop. But honestly i wouldn't pay five cents for this piece of garbage. Its so bad it hurts. I am personally humiliated to have watched this. God have mercy on the people who made this movie! Avoid at all cost.
This Movie Is Awful
Hilts-413 February 2001
Awful dialogue. Bad acting, worse special effects. This is low budget poo. Tacky. Appears to have been shot on video tape, rather than film, and that lends to it's overall cheap tackiness. Lame. I'm watching it on HBO right now. It's ending. The music and credits and much of the film appears to have been done on a computer. There's some spectacularly bad rear projection stuff too
Possibly the cheapest movie ever
roy-hochstenbach27 May 2009
Just watched the movie, and I got to say it's just terrible. First of all, the effects. A movie from the 40's has better ones. Also the dinosaurs really look like a robot/ cartoonish. It's not caused by the year, as Jurassic Park looks much better.
The other problem that I like to add, is that this movie hasn't got a good story. Now how's that? Well, they cut out all the action, and made a movie with just these pieces. All the story material has been thrown away.
It's like playing an entire movie in Fast Forward. So either they didn't had any money, or the kids of the director had the opportunity to make a movie, and got that result.
The other problem that I like to add, is that this movie hasn't got a good story. Now how's that? Well, they cut out all the action, and made a movie with just these pieces. All the story material has been thrown away.
It's like playing an entire movie in Fast Forward. So either they didn't had any money, or the kids of the director had the opportunity to make a movie, and got that result.
The Lost Lost World Film
Bezenby31 August 2016
I'm not sure what the folks in charge of making this film were thinking. It's like they thought they should make a film based on the novel aimed more at adults, but then with most punches pulled, and with horrible (and I mean horrible) CGI thrown in for good measure.
You know the drill, scientist finds dinosaurs, sets out to prove it's true, yadda yadda natives, dinosaurs, lucky escape etc. Due to this film being made in the nineties, there's a strong environmental message about killing the land left by a native Al Gore.
There's a bit of gore here and there, but I can't help but feel there should have a been a bit more of the red stuff and bit less of people having punch ups and travelling (so much travelling).
Not the worst film ever, but nowhere near any good either.
You know the drill, scientist finds dinosaurs, sets out to prove it's true, yadda yadda natives, dinosaurs, lucky escape etc. Due to this film being made in the nineties, there's a strong environmental message about killing the land left by a native Al Gore.
There's a bit of gore here and there, but I can't help but feel there should have a been a bit more of the red stuff and bit less of people having punch ups and travelling (so much travelling).
Not the worst film ever, but nowhere near any good either.
Faithful, albeit gritty and adult, retelling of Doyle's story.
Clark Holloway7 December 1999
Not to be confused with the 1999 TV pilot movie of the same name (a mistake made by many of the reviewers on this site). Although made by the same production company, the 1999 version has a different cast (except for Michael Sinelnikoff, playing an endearing Dr. Summerlee in both versions), takes place in South America, introduces the bikini-clad jungle girl, Veronica, and the female adventurer, Marguerite Krux, sanitizes the violence, has cheaper effects, and lacks an ending (as may be expected in a TV pilot episode). In contrast, this 1998 version is a direct-to-video release that adheres more closely to the spirit of Doyle's novel, contains adult violence and gore, packs considerably more emotional wallop, and has a dynamic climax.
Other than inexplicably transposing the "lost world" discovered by Maple White from South America to Mongolia in the mid-1930s, and adding the character of Amanda (White's daughter--a character roughly parallel to the one created by Bessie Love in the 1925 silent version), this movie is a fairly faithful, albeit gritty and adult, retelling of the boys' adventure story written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in 1912. Despite the introduction of adult character motivation, explicit violence, and a perhaps justifiable alteration of the ending, the majority of the action and dialogue, including a delightful exchange between Challenger and Summerlee that's lifted almost verbatim from Doyle's novel, suggests that the screenwriters were at least somewhat familiar with their source.
Patrick Bergin plays an effective, though whisker-less, Professor Challenger, Julien Casey is believable as the reporter, Ned Blaine, and Michael Sinelnikoff is well cast as Dr. Summerlee. David Nerman makes a surprisingly dastardly John Roxton, Jayne Heitmeyer is fine as a somewhat anachronistic Amanda White, and Gregoriane Minot Payeur is sympathetic as one of the local guides whose family has an unfortunately high mortality rate. The dinosaur scenes, while not quite up to the standards established by Jurassic Park, and not quite as prevalent as one might wish, are generally convincing, exciting, and gruesomely violent.
This movie is available on videotape (though currently at a prohibitive cost), and has been shown on Showtime and Cinemax (the version originally aired on TNT was the 1999 TV pilot). It's the best sound version of Doyle's novel filmed to date, and well worth a look for fans of the genre.
7 out of 10 stars.
Other than inexplicably transposing the "lost world" discovered by Maple White from South America to Mongolia in the mid-1930s, and adding the character of Amanda (White's daughter--a character roughly parallel to the one created by Bessie Love in the 1925 silent version), this movie is a fairly faithful, albeit gritty and adult, retelling of the boys' adventure story written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in 1912. Despite the introduction of adult character motivation, explicit violence, and a perhaps justifiable alteration of the ending, the majority of the action and dialogue, including a delightful exchange between Challenger and Summerlee that's lifted almost verbatim from Doyle's novel, suggests that the screenwriters were at least somewhat familiar with their source.
Patrick Bergin plays an effective, though whisker-less, Professor Challenger, Julien Casey is believable as the reporter, Ned Blaine, and Michael Sinelnikoff is well cast as Dr. Summerlee. David Nerman makes a surprisingly dastardly John Roxton, Jayne Heitmeyer is fine as a somewhat anachronistic Amanda White, and Gregoriane Minot Payeur is sympathetic as one of the local guides whose family has an unfortunately high mortality rate. The dinosaur scenes, while not quite up to the standards established by Jurassic Park, and not quite as prevalent as one might wish, are generally convincing, exciting, and gruesomely violent.
This movie is available on videotape (though currently at a prohibitive cost), and has been shown on Showtime and Cinemax (the version originally aired on TNT was the 1999 TV pilot). It's the best sound version of Doyle's novel filmed to date, and well worth a look for fans of the genre.
7 out of 10 stars.
Semi-Review?
BStrange2 February 1999
The other reviews are for a different movie.
hughjoe24 May 2006
Most reviews you read about this movie are actually about a different version of 'Lost World'. Usually the reviewers are talking about the pilot for the series 'Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World' that has the blonde with a perm in it. I understand the confusion, there were about 5 different versions of this made in the late '90's including Spielbergs 'Jurassic Park Lost world'. Even the TV Guide was confused, it listed 'The Lost World: with Patrick Bergin' but they actually broadcasted the one with the blonde with a perm that was the pilot for the TV series for TNT. Patrick Bergin's 'Lost World' was a very good version, personally I liked it the best out of all the 'Lost Worlds'.
Patrick Bergin goes to the Lost World
unbrokenmetal25 October 2008
The choleric, maniacal and bearded Challenger (as Doyle described him in the book) is, by a strange choice of casting, portrayed by a polite, serious Patrick Bergin after a shave here. However, this movie still is way better than the almost simultaneously produced kiddie version for Berlusconi's TV with John Rhys-Davies. It is the darkest among the many adaptations, more reminding me "King Kong" or an Indiana Jones adventure than "Lost World", but it is moving fast and surely entertaining. My main complaint: I didn't like the mad mercenary David Nerman made out of John Roxton. The creatures were not too exactly following today's palaeontological knowledge, but hey, they're movie monsters! Special FX aren't top of the crop, but obviously they didn't have the big budget for more. Michael Sinelnikoff as Summerlee returned a year later for the TV series with the same title (otherwise, this movie is not related to that production). Not a good movie, all in all, but not too bad either.
This is NOT that bad a movie
anonreviewer4 July 2004
No, it is not Apocalypse Now or Jurassic Park, or something like that. But it is worth watching.
I like to see cheap movies. Cheap movies take less money (obviously), and less money means that the movie can be more subversive, not that this movie is particularly subversive. I am just saying that if we want to build a better, a more rational society, then we need to start looking for entertainment that was created by the people at the bottom, because we are the people at the bottom (at least most of us are, by definition), and people at the bottom have interests that are mainly opposed to people at the top. Thus, movies made with lots of money propagate ideas that are friendly to people at the top (in general!). Movies made with little money can be a bit more expansive in what ideas they propagate (in general).
So therefore I am always open minded to movies made with little money. And this movie is one of those movies :-)
And it is not that bad. It is the same old story, told a little differently. It is nothing special. But it is entertaining. Give it a chance. The blonde woman playing Amanda is a tad on the hot side, BTW.....and not a half bad actress, either.
I like to see cheap movies. Cheap movies take less money (obviously), and less money means that the movie can be more subversive, not that this movie is particularly subversive. I am just saying that if we want to build a better, a more rational society, then we need to start looking for entertainment that was created by the people at the bottom, because we are the people at the bottom (at least most of us are, by definition), and people at the bottom have interests that are mainly opposed to people at the top. Thus, movies made with lots of money propagate ideas that are friendly to people at the top (in general!). Movies made with little money can be a bit more expansive in what ideas they propagate (in general).
So therefore I am always open minded to movies made with little money. And this movie is one of those movies :-)
And it is not that bad. It is the same old story, told a little differently. It is nothing special. But it is entertaining. Give it a chance. The blonde woman playing Amanda is a tad on the hot side, BTW.....and not a half bad actress, either.
One of my childhood favorites. I'm still looking forward on watching it again.
vip_ebriega20 February 2007
My Take: Decent, violent and rarely-seen adaptation.
I do have the book by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, but I haven't read it yet. I was only familiar with the characters in Doyle's tale when I watched this movie many years ago, when I was a kid. I really loved it as a kid, because I loved Dinosaurs that much back then. I watched this movie a lot of times. There were a lot of reruns of this movie back then. Sure, it was not "Jurassic Park", but I still loved it.
I know many of you are confused due to the numerous remakes of Arthur Conan Doyle's classic story in the 90's, that you mistake this movie from something else. As for me, I only know two "Lost World" movies. This and Steven Spielberg's hit sequel to "Jurassic Park". Both are good films. Even though the film delivers a lot of flaws and errors in paleontology or in the novel, I'm still looking forward on watching it again. I've forgotten a lot about it when I last watched it as a kid. So I'm looking forward for another rerun, or better yet, a video copy of my own.
TV movie rating: *** out of 5.
I do have the book by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, but I haven't read it yet. I was only familiar with the characters in Doyle's tale when I watched this movie many years ago, when I was a kid. I really loved it as a kid, because I loved Dinosaurs that much back then. I watched this movie a lot of times. There were a lot of reruns of this movie back then. Sure, it was not "Jurassic Park", but I still loved it.
I know many of you are confused due to the numerous remakes of Arthur Conan Doyle's classic story in the 90's, that you mistake this movie from something else. As for me, I only know two "Lost World" movies. This and Steven Spielberg's hit sequel to "Jurassic Park". Both are good films. Even though the film delivers a lot of flaws and errors in paleontology or in the novel, I'm still looking forward on watching it again. I've forgotten a lot about it when I last watched it as a kid. So I'm looking forward for another rerun, or better yet, a video copy of my own.
TV movie rating: *** out of 5.
Everything in this film has been done better in other movies, I rate it "4" of 10 because the female actors are beautiful.
TxMike28 May 2001
I wouldn't normally watch a film like this, but it was on during the 5th day of the PGA golf tournament, and I had to watch something during the lulls between action. The acting is amateurish, maybe high-school drama level. The special effects are "cheesy". The T-Rex didn't look very real. The story is trite. Other than that, it was a pretty entertaining flick.
Abysmal
simoney-girard-942-7042905 January 2011
I knew this film was Canadian before I looked at the box. Stilted acting, really bad cameramen, terrible cut-away shots that just looked amateur, green screen usage that was just pure college-work and ridiculous over-emphasis on the 'savages' that capture the unconvincing female lead which, had I been totally sober, may have caused me to rip out my own eyes.
As it was, I was eating rum & raisin ice cream and so managed not to self-harm, and could only put the shambolic Hammer Horror wannabes that comprised the overly-long and not at all scary 'sacrifice' scene down to the producer and director both being off sick at the time and some gaffer being called in to shoot that scene on his mum's camera, having done a good job of it at his redneck cousin's wedding. Come to think of it, that scene probably WAS his redneck cousin's wedding.
Some of the things that upset me and caused my ulcers to pulse are listed below. I had to stop delineating them after a while because there were just so many, many terrible things about this film that it made me start to cry at my desk and rock to and fro, hugging myself. It's a wonder I managed to finish this review at all.
Fake blood spurting out of a dinosaurs'neck as it flew in the sky Vampire bats chewing off an arm that, once severed, looked like a piece of purple rubber Terrible accents - passing off Inuit as Mongolians while filming in Yellowknife - awful awful casting and dreadful filmography. Unconvincing acting - Favourite Dodgy camera-work Poor Green Screen technology Bad editing The production of this entire film is just bad, bad, bad. The actors were SO one-dimensional that a blank piece of paper would look full of charisma next to them. For example, woman spends 15 minutes squealing about being tied to a scaffold (some people pay for that privilege, lady) and then when she finally gets 'rescued', is asked: 'Are you okay?'. 'Yes, just get me down', she says, sounding like a mother returning from the school run and asking for a cup of tea.
I've seen better budget films done at the London School of Arts and Media by 19-year-olds. I've had more fun watching films of my cat walking round the flat with a Christmas hat on his head, taken on my mobile while drunk.
This is typical - Canadian film-makers trying to do a big budget film on a coca-cola budget.
Had to switch it off after 1/2 an hour which was far too long a time. I will never, ever ever be able to reclaim those lost 30 minutes of my life. Even my Haagen Daaz started to taste stale. Birds started to fall dead from the sky near my flat. The Christmas tree shed all its needled. Flooding happened in Cambodia as a direct result.
In the end, my DVD player started to make a horrible noise after 30 mins and caused the DVD to pixellate, which was the best part of the whole diabolical spectacle.
As it was, I was eating rum & raisin ice cream and so managed not to self-harm, and could only put the shambolic Hammer Horror wannabes that comprised the overly-long and not at all scary 'sacrifice' scene down to the producer and director both being off sick at the time and some gaffer being called in to shoot that scene on his mum's camera, having done a good job of it at his redneck cousin's wedding. Come to think of it, that scene probably WAS his redneck cousin's wedding.
Some of the things that upset me and caused my ulcers to pulse are listed below. I had to stop delineating them after a while because there were just so many, many terrible things about this film that it made me start to cry at my desk and rock to and fro, hugging myself. It's a wonder I managed to finish this review at all.
Fake blood spurting out of a dinosaurs'neck as it flew in the sky Vampire bats chewing off an arm that, once severed, looked like a piece of purple rubber Terrible accents - passing off Inuit as Mongolians while filming in Yellowknife - awful awful casting and dreadful filmography. Unconvincing acting - Favourite Dodgy camera-work Poor Green Screen technology Bad editing The production of this entire film is just bad, bad, bad. The actors were SO one-dimensional that a blank piece of paper would look full of charisma next to them. For example, woman spends 15 minutes squealing about being tied to a scaffold (some people pay for that privilege, lady) and then when she finally gets 'rescued', is asked: 'Are you okay?'. 'Yes, just get me down', she says, sounding like a mother returning from the school run and asking for a cup of tea.
I've seen better budget films done at the London School of Arts and Media by 19-year-olds. I've had more fun watching films of my cat walking round the flat with a Christmas hat on his head, taken on my mobile while drunk.
This is typical - Canadian film-makers trying to do a big budget film on a coca-cola budget.
Had to switch it off after 1/2 an hour which was far too long a time. I will never, ever ever be able to reclaim those lost 30 minutes of my life. Even my Haagen Daaz started to taste stale. Birds started to fall dead from the sky near my flat. The Christmas tree shed all its needled. Flooding happened in Cambodia as a direct result.
In the end, my DVD player started to make a horrible noise after 30 mins and caused the DVD to pixellate, which was the best part of the whole diabolical spectacle.
This is a really bad movie, but it might be worth watching once.
Matthew9721714 April 2004
I myself have seen the movie 5 times, and I would probably buy it if I had the chance, but not because I thought it was a good movie, it would be because of the fact that there were two things I enjoyed: the unpredictability of the story, and how Malone deals with the T-Rex in the ending. But the dinosaurs were extremely inaccurate, in the fact that they gave the Apatosaurus (Brontosaurus) the tail of an Ankylosaurus, and they gave T-Rex LONG ARMS AND THREE FINGERS! But the head did look kind of cool, and I do like the brief shot of the Rex at the end of the credits. All in all, if you are even remotely interested in the movie at this point, You might try watching the movie once. There is some okay acting in the movie, and the raptors SUCK. And on a final note, the science is okay, except for the Paleontology.
Were the Writers of the Script Actually Paid?
rjsguitar25 June 2020
This movie was nonsense. There are so many suspend belief and logic moments that I just started to laugh. How in the world did the actors put up with this script?
Where they trying tell a story or just put something on film? Just bad. Make sure you don't watch too soon after eating.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
