Spotlight- the Lost World: Jurassic Park

Alright, let's get these two over with.

Steven Spielberg returns to direct this loose adaptation of Michael Crichton's sequel to "Jurassic Park" (and by loose, I mean the plot's been entirely re-written from the basic idea.) Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), fresh from barely surviving his first encounter, continues his business of reminding the world that Jurassic Park was a bad idea, but isn't well received as nobody believes his claims. He is interrupted, though, when Hammond (Richard Attenborrough) beckons him to InGen's Site B, where the dinosaurs were first created. InGen is in the process of changing ownership, and the island is about to be cleared for another "Jurassic Park", so Hammond wants Malcolm and a small team of experts to survey the island before the man takes over. Malcolm initially refuses... until it's revealed that his girlfriend (Julianne Moore) went on an early reconnaissance. So, the race is on to see who can claim the dinosaurs first, as well as their lives.

Let's get something out of the way first: the late 90's were a really bad time for film. With the success of "Jurassic Park", movies became little more than CGI-filled roller coasters with little-to-no attention to character or plot. You may remember modern-day 'classics' from this age such as "Lost in Space", "Armageddon", and Roland Emmerich's "Godzilla".

If you didn't, nobody blames you.

Since every movie was planning on being bigger and better than the last one without any original ideas, (two volcano movies and two asteroid apocalypse movies came out in one year alone) there was naturally pressure for Spielberg to do the same. So, in what must have been a desperate measure, he and Micheal Crichton teamed up once again to bring us back to the islands of the dinosaurs, with a few new twists along the way. Unfortunately, these twists didn't aid the movie so much as bring it down to the homogeneous blend of dumb action movies of the time. But is it really awful? It isn't on par with the first, for sure, but I can say I never really saw it as a bad film.

Let's take a look at what it gets right: it serves well as an action movie. Many movies at this time were relying too much on the computer effects without any outside experience that they ended up looking incredibly fake with little tension. Here, they brought the animatronics from the first film (as well as some new faces) and used the same animation techniques. The results were some truly iconic scenes that, while unnecessary in some cases, became staples in dinosaur fiction. We may all remember the main characters hiding in the bus as the adult T. rex circled it slowly, or the raptors stalking the mercenaries in the tall grass. Many may point out that they don't look quite as vividly realistic as the first film's, but we can clearly see them doing much more with what they have. There are also some pretty memorable characters here, including standout Roland Tembo (Pete Postlethwaite), an InGen hunter bent on taking down none other than Rexy herself. It's a mixed bag here, but I found that I ended up somewhat liking this new cast.

There is one problem, though, and, unfortunately, it's a big one. The plot doesn't match the theme it's trying to convey. The story's a pretty shallow message about animal rights activism and how these beasts belong in the wild and not in the hands of corrupt corporate executives. I'm not the first one to point this out, but the so-called "villains" in this movie are right: the dinosaurs didn't naturally evolve there (Nature selected them for extinction, eh, Malcolm?) and the people who created them are simply seeking their property. Not only that, but the guys we're supposed to be rooting for are constantly and consistently putting everyone else's lives in danger. This varies between loosing the five-ton captive animals in the camp to taking the ammunition out of the merc's guns in the middle of a carnivore attack. There are some movies whose morals can be taken to mean something wrong, but when it's botched this badly, your film has a serious problem.

Is it a mess? Yes. While it doesn't have many problems, the ones it has are pretty noticeable. Some of the performances don't hold up, and there are plenty of stupid mistakes made by otherwise appeasable characters. Still, I can't say it's a complete waste of time. As I said earlier, there is still some tense action, and it all at least tries to hold the same tone and spirit of the first film. Those alone make the first watch enjoyable. All I can really say is to check it out for yourself and see what you like about it and, possibly, what's worth buying.

By the way, what dinosaur is able to set a four-ton jeep on fire and send it careening into the tree tops?

All rights owned 1999 by Universal Pictures, No infringement intended.