Redwarmin This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Steineded How sad is this?

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

roy-hochstenbach Just watched the movie, and I got to say it's just terrible. First of all, the effects. A movie from the 40's has better ones. Also the dinosaurs really look like a robot/ cartoonish. It's not caused by the year, as Jurassic Park looks much better. The other problem that I like to add, is that this movie hasn't got a good story. Now how's that? Well, they cut out all the action, and made a movie with just these pieces. All the story material has been thrown away. It's like playing an entire movie in Fast Forward. So either they didn't had any money, or the kids of the director had the opportunity to make a movie, and got that result.

greggwh When you see the title of a movie adaptation of a novel that has the novelist's name in the title, don't assume that means a faithful adaptation, cases in point Bram Stoker's Dracula, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein etc. But perhaps the best example yet of that caveat is this movie, where while Challenger (in the movie beardless) and Summerlee (in the movie elderly) are scientists, that's about the only holdover from the book. Roxton is not a lord, not even British but American, and the screenwriters got the bright idea of turning him into a villain! Other commentators have pointed out that the title place is set in 1930s Mongolia rather than 1910s South America and that the dinosaurs aren't accurate (at least they aren't monitor lizards and caimans), but what they've neglected to mention is that this is not really an adventure but a disaster movie. Why? The plot follows the latter's standard procedure of knocking off the cast one by one in various gruesome, even sadistic ways (the first victim dies in part because of his own and the others' stupidity), but you'll likely guess who survives. Finally, the movie breaks with a plot element in the ending of every other Lost World adaptation that has ever been made, though considering what's happened up to that point, it's about the only logical plot development in this turkey. Beware!

anonreviewer No, it is not Apocalypse Now or Jurassic Park, or something like that. But it is worth watching. I like to see cheap movies. Cheap movies take less money (obviously), and less money means that the movie can be more subversive, not that this movie is particularly subversive. I am just saying that if we want to build a better, a more rational society, then we need to start looking for entertainment that was created by the people at the bottom, because we are the people at the bottom (at least most of us are, by definition), and people at the bottom have interests that are mainly opposed to people at the top. Thus, movies made with lots of money propagate ideas that are friendly to people at the top (in general!). Movies made with little money can be a bit more expansive in what ideas they propagate (in general).So therefore I am always open minded to movies made with little money. And this movie is one of those movies :-)And it is not that bad. It is the same old story, told a little differently. It is nothing special. But it is entertaining. Give it a chance. The blonde woman playing Amanda is a tad on the hot side, BTW.....and not a half bad actress, either.

Clark Holloway Not to be confused with the 1999 TV pilot movie of the same name (a mistake made by many of the reviewers on this site). Although made by the same production company, the 1999 version has a different cast (except for Michael Sinelnikoff, playing an endearing Dr. Summerlee in both versions), takes place in South America, introduces the bikini-clad jungle girl, Veronica, and the female adventurer, Marguerite Krux, sanitizes the violence, has cheaper effects, and lacks an ending (as may be expected in a TV pilot episode). In contrast, this 1998 version is a direct-to-video release that adheres more closely to the spirit of Doyle's novel, contains adult violence and gore, packs considerably more emotional wallop, and has a dynamic climax.Other than inexplicably transposing the "lost world" discovered by Maple White from South America to Mongolia in the mid-1930s, and adding the character of Amanda (White's daughter--a character roughly parallel to the one created by Bessie Love in the 1925 silent version), this movie is a fairly faithful, albeit gritty and adult, retelling of the boys' adventure story written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in 1912. Despite the introduction of adult character motivation, explicit violence, and a perhaps justifiable alteration of the ending, the majority of the action and dialogue, including a delightful exchange between Challenger and Summerlee that's lifted almost verbatim from Doyle's novel, suggests that the screenwriters were at least somewhat familiar with their source.Patrick Bergin plays an effective, though whisker-less, Professor Challenger, Julien Casey is believable as the reporter, Ned Blaine, and Michael Sinelnikoff is well cast as Dr. Summerlee. David Nerman makes a surprisingly dastardly John Roxton, Jayne Heitmeyer is fine as a somewhat anachronistic Amanda White, and Gregoriane Minot Payeur is sympathetic as one of the local guides whose family has an unfortunately high mortality rate. The dinosaur scenes, while not quite up to the standards established by Jurassic Park, and not quite as prevalent as one might wish, are generally convincing, exciting, and gruesomely violent.This movie is available on videotape (though currently at a prohibitive cost), and has been shown on Showtime and Cinemax (the version originally aired on TNT was the 1999 TV pilot). It's the best sound version of Doyle's novel filmed to date, and well worth a look for fans of the genre.7 out of 10 stars.