4/10
Disaster not adventure
7 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
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!
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed