Return to the Lost World

Return To the Lost World was filmed back-to-back with the 1992 version of The Lost World.

In this sequel, the same five people, lead by Challenger return to the plateau where a group has started drilling for oil which is threatening to destroy the land. Gomez has something to do with this. They manage to defeat the drillers and the plateau is saved, much to the delight of the natives.

Like in The Lost World, what few dinosaurs we see are made of rubber and these include a T-Rex and Ankylosaurus.

John Ryhs-Davies and David Warner reprise their roles as Challenger and Summerlee and three of the other actors are also back.

Despite reading several bad reviews of this and those cheap looking rubber dinosaurs, I enjoyed Return to the Lost World.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.

This sequel to "The Lost World" has Summerlee and Challenger returning to the Lost World to thwart some rascally oil prospectors. Rather more spectacular than the first film (it includes a brief nude shot of the delectable Nathania Stanford) it has the same rather likeable qualities.

It plays like a Victorian adventure story, brave, honest Englishmen against cowardly, devious continental Europeans (In this case Belgian and Portuguese). The lead villain over acts badly but Rhys-Davies and Walker are good in the lead roles.

There is rather more action and plot than the first film and generally it holds the interest.

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.

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.

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.