When Belgian scientist Bertram Hammonds arrives in the Lost World to drill for crude oil, Professors Challenger and Summerlee return to the Lost World plateau.When Belgian scientist Bertram Hammonds arrives in the Lost World to drill for crude oil, Professors Challenger and Summerlee return to the Lost World plateau.When Belgian scientist Bertram Hammonds arrives in the Lost World to drill for crude oil, Professors Challenger and Summerlee return to the Lost World plateau.
Géza Kovács
- Gomez
- (as Geza Kovacs)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaSummerlee expounds on his hypothesis that the Andes Mountains were formed by "plate techtonics". In 1912 Alfred Wegener published his first mention of his hypothetical 'continental drift'. The term 'plate techtonics' was first used around 1969.
- GoofsAlthough set in the wilds of Africa around 1912, the female native guide Malu has shaved legs and armpits.
- ConnectionsFollows The Lost World (1992)
- How long is Return to the Lost World?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Повернення до загубленого світу
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime1 hour 34 minutes
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was Return to the Lost World (1992) officially released in India in English?
Answer