Return to the Lost World

This sequel to the 1992 version of "The Lost World" came out just a month after the release of the first film in Canada. The cast is essentially the same, and the filming was again in Zimbabwe, Africa.

The plot for this partial sci-fi thriller is based on crime. Edward Malone and Jenny Nielson learn that an oil-drilling operation has gone to the area of the lost world. The operators have killed the native chief, Palala, and enslaved tribesmen and the tribe has sent word for help. So they convince a feuding Challenger and Summerlee to return to help the locals.

Between dinosaur attacks, clashes with the European oil drillers, and the threat of a volcano, the good guys are able to win the day. This is even much tamer than the first film, and while young children may yet enjoy it, the older kids would probably be bored and wander off. Parents and grandparents might take advantage of the time for a nap.

RETURN TO THE LOST WORLD features the return of the entire cast from the first film. Yes! This includes Nathania Stanford as Malu -My goodness! How can anyone be this beautiful?! She's hot enough to walk on the sun without even burning her feet!

Anyway, picking up where part one left off, a familiar villain is back, joined by a noxious pig who wants to drill in the dino mesa for oil. This leads to disaster and tragedy. Can Challenger and company save the day?

Unlike in the first film, the dinosaurs only pop in occasionally to remind us that they exist. RETURN is also a bit less family-friendly than its predecessor. The addition of more eeevil characters brings more violence into the story. There's even some brief -Malu!- partial nudity! It also has a heavier moral / ecological message to it.

An enjoyable enough follow-up...

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.

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.