The Lost World is a worthy sequel to the awesome Jurassic Park. Spielberg is back at the director's chair- though not many knew at the time he'd never helm a Jurassic film again- and the script is sound. Many criticize the last segment when it becomes a sort of King Kong with Dinosaurs aka a T-Rex loose in the city but I didn't mind it. The effects are great, acting is good though no one really cares about the characters as long as there are dinos chewing people and the direction is sound. The Lost World may not be as good as Jurassic Park but it's a good sequel.

21 minutes in and we've had one dry exposition scene after the next. And repositioning quirky character actor Jeff Goldblum as lead (?) was a bad choice. This is the nadir of the series. Say what you will about JPIII but at least it got to the action quickly. And had better writers than the charmless hack David Koepp.

I'll beat the drum all day for The Lost World. For three clear reasons.1. Spielberg. The Lost World isn't prime Spielberg, but medium-level Spielberg is still far and away superior to other directors trying to copy him, as in JP III and Jurassic World. For instance, he comes up with a set piece that doesn't even involve dinosaurs - Sarah Harding on the cracking glass - that has more suspense than anything in either of the other sequels. 2. Plot actually progresses - and provides a good ending for the saga. JP III and Jurassic World just regurgitate the original movie. The Lost World properly continues the story of Ian Malcolm, John Hammond, InGen, the dinos and so on, and then comes up with a worthwhile ending where Hammond has learned to respect nature and makes a paradise for the dinosaurs instead of exploiting them. That's the best ending the saga can have. 3. It's Jurassic Park through a dark mirror. The 1993 original is all bright colours and a sense of wonder amidst the scares. The Lost World is dark, dirty, ominous, and is basically a two-hour rage against the inhumanity of capitalism. Jeff Goldblum's now-sombre, foreboding Ian Malcolm says it all.

There are moments, as brief as they may be, of genuine entertainment in 'The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)'. Flashes of the creative brilliance behind the lens occasionally seep onto the screen, and it is in these sequences that the picture finds its footing as an incredibly inconsistent, at times confusingly so, follow-up to one of cinema's greatest achievements. It does manage to make its own mark on the genre and even deconstruct the formula that would go on to form the basis of every entry in the franchise - including itself, despite its best efforts - while also never even remotely reaching the heights of its predecessor. In-between its select moments of true suspense, frustratingly frenzied action and generally enjoyable moments centred around dinosaur danger is an uneven and, at times, dull film full of bizarre plot-points and an unnecessary third-act that straight-up shatters all credibility (or perhaps even good-will) built up before it. It's all done with the right intentions, though. This, along with its continued technical prowess, actually makes the final result all the more disappointing. Perhaps if it didn't follow such a masterpiece, it wouldn't have been such a let-down. 6/10