Return to the Lost World

Why do Berlusconi films use such poor quality film stock? This, its predecessor, the Sherlock Holmes films with Christopher Lee/Patrick MacNee, all present fuzzy images. Surely this is a false economy? How much difference in price is there between good quality stock and the rubbish stuff? Is it purely to match the stock footage(volcanoes) and avoid those Irwin Allen type mismatches? This film is worth watching if you want to be a completist, but the previous criticisms, hammy acting, ludicrous dinosaurs are all correct, but I can't agree that the two principals are second rate. Warner was an actor of promise before he went to Hollywood(see Gielgud's comments on Claude Rains{irony alert 1960 version}). There are also mistakes, piranhas in Africa, guns not firing, why do the workers wear their tin helmets all the time? Whatever happened to Nathania Stanford? Just these two films? Probably saw sense and got a life.

British producer Harry Alan Towers was always a man ready to deliver a halfway-decent movie on a tight budget. Not content with filming Conan Doyle's THE LOST WORLD in Africa, he also shot this entirely familiar sequel, in which all of the leads are reunited for a return trip to those dinosaur-infested lands.

Quality-wise, this isn't very good; it's a family-friendly affair, which means we're saddled with cute baby dinosaurs that look like toys, alongside larger creations that don't have much in the way of, well, movement. Towers himself co-wrote the script with his favoured director Timothy Bond handling the filming, and that this is merely adequate is fairly impressive in its own right.

The cast is the best thing about these two films: watching two second-tier actors, John Rhys-Davies and David Warner, constantly butting heads is a lot of fun, at least for this viewer. But the storyline is all over the place, involving a greedy Belgian villain and efforts to blow up an erupting volcano (!) that threatens to destroy the whole land. Location photography in Zimbabwe is a highlight.

Return to the Lost World was not as good as The Lost World. It starts off with the promise of being better than the previous film but it just doesn't measure up. But that doesn't mean it is not enjoyable. John Rhys-Davies and David Warner play their roles very well and the lead villain does over act, in a bad way. If you've seen the previous movie, I suggest watching this. It's filled with fun and adventure.

Once again the two bickering professors must join together to save the lost world. The five members of the first expedition return (see The Lost World, 1992, for a list of actors). A man seeking oil brings a drilling crew to the plateau. Instead of striking oil they tap an underground volcano which threatens all life in the Lost World. The oil crew clash with the native people and the scientific expedition. Although the situation looks hopeless.... (I'm not going to tell you the ending).

This was filmed back-to-back with the 1992 re-make of Conan Doyle's famous novel 'The Lost World'. And it shows.

The film starts promisingly enough, with a ruthless organization intending to exploit the lost world and Challenger et al returning to defend the prehistoric plateau, but then things go downhill. Everybody is stranded on the plateau and we're left with a feeble, boring, over-length rehash of the first film.

The dinosaurs (who are hardly ever seen) are just laughable. Are we expected to take that cuddly toy that's supposed to be an ankylosaur seriously? And the tyrannosaur seems rooted to the spot.

Do yourself a favor and get hold of the 1925 silent version of the Lost World. Unbelievably in this age of CGI and other advanced effects, the twenties version is the best and will remain so until somebody finally decides to do a decent re-make.