I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

The ubiquitous Harry Alan Towers was a man devoted to turning a profit on ultra-low budget B-movies and THE LOST WORLD is his attempt at the classic Conan Doyle novel. Incredibly, it's a film which seems even more dated than the first adaptation, a silent, black and white movie made in 1925. My guess is that plastic looking toy dinosaurs just don't age very well on film.The first half an hour is actually pretty good. The recreation of Victorian London is passable and Towers managed to get a couple of decent character actors in the cast. First up is John Rhys-Davies as Professor Challenger; along with Brian Blessed and Bob Hoskins, he's one of the few actors who you can actually see on the written page playing the role. He turns out to be delightful and one of the highlights this production has to offer. Opposite him is the reliable David Warner as Professor Summerlee, a nemesis who becomes a friend during the course of the movie. Aside from Rhys-Davies and Warner, the cast is adequate at best. The square-jawed Eric McCormack seems bland as reporter Malone, turned American here. There are women and cute kids along for the ride. The only interesting actor is Innocent Choda, a genuinely hulking black actor stuck in a bit part as a native guide.Once the action moves to Africa, nothing much develops. There's some nonsense about an evil skeleton-painted tribe and a few dodgy dinosaurs lurking in the bushes, but that's all the content we get. Eventually the characters head home, where the ill-advised toy plastic dinosaur makes an appearance. Other than the silly models, there are a few 'flying dinosaur' effects, but the less said about them the better. The script, by Towers himself, offers no sense of excitement or danger, we're instead stuck in a pedestrian zone of family adventure, safe all the while. A sequel, RETURN TO THE LOST WORLD, was shot back-to-back with this. It remains to be seen whether it's any better.

I love Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original book and the 1925 silent film classic. I even have a soft spot for the 1960 Irwin Allen film; despite the lackluster effects, it had colorful cinematography and an appealing cast.The 1992 adaptation does not compare favorably to what came before in almost every single way. The first film of "The Lost World" is 90 years old and yet it still has impressive visuals; the magnificent stop-motion showed us full-body shots of the dinosaurs in full motion. Due to budget restrictions, the 1960 film ended up using lizards with various added appendages to pass off as dinosaurs. As low as that was, the effects in the 1992 film are atrocious in their own right: we never see full-body shots of the dinosaurs. What we *do* see are low-budget puppet heads with very minimal articulation in movement. These are perhaps suitable for a kid's dinosaur exhibit at a museum, but do not work as the only effect employed to make us believe these animals are real. In 1992, CGI was in its infancy and "Jurassic Park" hadn't even come out yet. Still, some stop-motion or at the very least men in suits would have been preferred over such limited footage.The whole movie feels cheap despite Zimbabwe providing the "lost world" location. It only very loosely adapts the book, resulting in minimal dinosaur encounters and too much time spent dealing with "rival African tribes" which I am almost certain are there because the effects budget was too low. The original film successfully convinces us it is set on a plateau, isolated from the rest of the world. This just feels like it's set in some place in Africa that you could probably easily drive to.The best thing that can be said is the cast. For the most part, I liked everyone in the film. I give high marks especially to John Rhys-Davies as Professor Challenger, and David Warner as his rival Professor Summerlee. They perfectly capture how I feel Challenger and Summerlee should be portrayed, and are probably the biggest reason to see the film.

This version of The Lost World is not as good as the 1925 or 1960 versions, but it is still quite enjoyable.What few dinosaurs appear look rather rubbery. Give me stop-motion any day. The theme music to this movie is excellent, as is the acting with great performances from David Warner (Titanic, The Omen) and John Rhys-Davies (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade).I rather enjoyed this movie, despite the cheap looking dinosaurs.Rating: 3 stars out of 5.

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.