Skip to main content

The Lost World Jurassic Park: Your Loss If You Don't Watch



It is a given that the sequel is seldom better than the first installment. In rare cases the second installment is superior but in the case of Jurassic Park the overwhelming criticism affirms that the original is the best. What astounds me is the disdain critics have for The Lost World: Jurassic Park. On sites like Rotten Tomatoes the reviewers retort as if they had expected to see film with the depth and complexity of Inception. The Lost World gets a lousy wrap because it is entirely different from It's predecessor. In Jurassic Park, the setting is a theme park with fences, enclosures, and paddocks to be trapped in with the hungry dinosaurs. In The Lost World the setting is the wild, empty plains, and patches of woodland. Steven Spielburg's sequel is not meant to duplicate the success of the original's brilliance. Nay, in contrast it is meant to deviate and depict the dinos and endangered humans in a different circumstance. In JP, the terror lies inside buildings or on the borders of the fence line. You fear that a carnivore could creep up on you while you are taking a stroll down the hall or perhaps while you have some dessert in the Vistor Center. In the Lost World, the fear lies in the brush, the unexpected but more realistic sense that prehistoric predators might be lurking nearby like a lion to devour you. This creates a different sensation of fear altogether. Trapped inside like in JP, you feel clausterphobic and caught in man made structures where you can be chomped on. On Site B you are lured into a false sense of security. The Carnivores are near the core of the island and you never know when a dinosaur will cross your path. You are blinded by the trees and foliage; God made structures that are no longer familiar thanks to our concrete dwellings. In JP, recognizing a raptor is nearby or the T-Rex is stomping about is easier because we are in our element, we can sense the tremors of the Rex's trek on asphalt and hear the echo of the raptor's snort in a kitchen. In the wild these senses are dulled because we hear crickets, birds, and are distracted by watching our own footing.

Site B is the natural setting in which dinosaurs would have roamed and thus it makes them seem more like the animals in Africa and less like "genetically-engineered-theme-park-monsters." I think the incident on Isla Nublar captivates us more because it contrasts the prehistoric with the modern world. You are seeing the dinosaurs cross into our time, and invading our creation. Isla Sorna feels more like the Arthur Conan Doyle epic and less like bringing dinosaurs back to life. The Lost World: Jurassic Park is darker, but not more disturbing. It retains an alien feel to anyone who hasn't be in the wild with predators. TLW contains It's own unique terror, but not the trauma of the first installment. The Lost World suffers only because it is compared to It's predecessor. It is incapable of replicating the sheer suspense of the raptors in the kitchen or T-Rex wrecking It's own paddock. JP is the rejection of the modern world by the prehistoric predators. TLW:JP is the acceptance of a lost world stuck in the Jurassic or Cretaceous by those same creatures.

Some critics have argued that it is the Lost Word attempts to surpass JP with It's suspense and thrills. There are Two Rexes this time, three raptors, and a stomping disaster in San Diego. Two Tyrannosaurs is actually just showing the natural pair bonding that would happen in the wild. More raptors is showing the pack theory Paleontologists have argued for decades and the San Diego Incident was just Spielberg having some fun and possibly realizing that the dinosaurs draw the most frightening feelings in us when they are juxtaposed next to stop lights and other iconography from our metropolitan world.

Of course there is the narrative of capitalism versus naturalism. Ian Malcom and his team are the naturalist animal rights group and the Hunters led by Roland are the capitalist industrialists who work for InGen. While I agree with reviewers that I'm tired of Hollywood preaching their ideologies and political agendas, I don't really think The Lost World really swayed anyone towards naturalism. In fact, you aren't inclined to protect creatures that try to make a meal out of you. I myself found Roland and his desire to hunt the greatest of predators more appealing than Nick's nauseating naturalistic nosiness. The only sympathy elicited towards the dinosaurs is found in the Baby T-Rex and frankly he isn't all that cute, I mean just ask Ludlow.

What baffles me further is the praise for Jurassic Park III over The Lost World. JPIII is by far less compelling than Ian's adventure on Isla Sorna. Alan Grant and his synical demeanor has not the wit or charm of Ian. Granted, JPIII does have the Pterodons which were suppose to be TLW. Still the addition of flying dinosaurs didn't make the third installment in the JP Series more special than the The Lost World. In fact, while the Velociraptors stole the show in JP, and came back with a vengeance in The Lost World, they were absolutely revolting in Jurassic Park III! The idea of having predators that put lions and bears to shame talk to each other and hop around like birds was a major mistake. Instead of shaking at the shriek of the raptor, you stand there wondering how you can negotiate your surrender in raptornese.

I don't dislike Jurassic Park III, It's actually quite a descent threequel and had great potential. However, I think it is quite unfair to pass over The Lost World and label it the disappointment when at It's release it broke records at the box office. The truth is nothing can surpass the first Jurassic Park. It has chemistry, charisma, and charm that neither sequel can replicate. It was made at the perfect time, with the perfect cast and the perfect special effects. But despite the praise I have for the first and best, I urge you to see The Lost World Jurassic Park. Give it chance and think of it in terms not of comparison to the original, but as an opposite. It isn't meant to be same film, it thrives when you open your mind and realize this is a different experience. It's not the concrete jungle that enslaves the dinosaurs, it is the jungle for which they were intended.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Israel’s Conquest of Canaan: The Nephilim and Giants

  Christianity Today asserts that the conquest of Canaan can be a “stumbling block” for believers. This probably is because of a foolish idea of comparing it to a modern conquest happening in our world. The truth is that God had Israel conquer Canaan because it was ruled by evil giants, “We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.” (Numbers 13:33). These are Anakim or Nephilim, the children of angels and human women, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God (angels) saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. The...

Dispensationalism

John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) was a man who did two things, he took 70th week of the Book of Daniel and stretched out to the End Times, and he was the father of  Dispensationalism , a belief system that God dispenses different peoples with separate blessings and covenants. According to Darb'ys doctrine of Dispensationalism, God dispenses different covenants. There are total of seven dispensations that divide the history of man: I. Dispensation of Innocence (prior to the Fall, "Do not east of the Fruit of Good and Eve, Eden), II. Dispensation of Conscience ( You must assuage guilt and sin with blood sacrifices.) III. Dispensation of Human Government (Multiply and Subdue the world, example the Tower of Babel Gen 11:1-9, and Genesis 1:28). IV. Dispensation of the Promise (Dwell in Canaan, Jerusalem) V. Dispensation of the Law ("Obey the Law of Moses and the Prophets"). VI. Dispensation of Grace (The Church, Jesus Christ has come...

Jesus’ Name in Aramaic

There has been a trend to render Jesus’ name Hebrew, יֵשׁוּעַ , Yeshua. The problem is neither Christ nor his apostles, nor the Jews in 30-33 A.D. spoke Hebrew, they spoke Aramaic. A ramaic is the oldest language on earth and was the language Jesus spoke. In fact, the oldest Old Testament is the Septuagint a Greco translation around 132 B.C.E. (165 Years Before Christ)that was translated from Aramaic. The Masoretic Text, The Hebrew Old Testament most Bibles use, dates from 7th to 10th Century A.D. (Medieval Times).  This translation does not cross reference with the words of Christ in the New Testament which are Aramaic and Koine Greek.  If the Aramaic was what Jesus spoke, then by what name would have been called? Jesus’ name in Aramaic is Isho or Eesho, spelled ܝܫܘܥ . That is the name of our Lord in Aramaic! He would have heard his name in this dialect, “Hail Isho or Eesho!” as well as the Greek, Ἰ ησο ῦ ς , Iesous.  Aramaic is disappearing, only a few peop...