Rating: 
Summary: Recycled plot of Jurassic Park
Review: I've read all of Crichton books and Lost World was the worst by far! There were no fresh insights, or characters -- everything had the recycled feel to it. Skip this book (and the movie which turns into a Godzilla flick at the end) and reread Jurassic Park
Rating: 
Summary: Well...it IS better than the movie.
Review: I don't want to write much here so here it goes. This book wasenjoyable to read but not nearly as good as the 1st book. It's almostashame that the 1st movie became so damn commercial because the book is simply great. The Lost World was definately written to be a movie. Unfortunately the movie was seemingly not even remotely based on the book. This is a book you read because you love dino's and like pure action w/o much fuss over characters/personalites/plot. All are very simplistic indeed, but the book is worth reading. Very enjoyble when taken for what it is. Now, let me make this very clear in ending: THE MOVIE IS TERRIBLE. THE BOOK, WHILE NOT CLOSE TO AS GOOD AS THE 1ST, IS SO MUCH BETTER THAT IT IS NOT EVEN FUNNY. If you've read other reviews saying that the movie is better, then those reviews are not from avid novel readers. Horrible movie, good book.
Rating:
Summary: MOVIE SCRIPT MISTAKENLY PUBLISHED AS NOVEL
Review: I started not to bother offering my opinion but I couldn't let such claptrap go unanswered. Itexudes "cinema" on every page - The story is flimsy (a farce really) and the action is so predictable that I guessed the end of each chapter midway through. One can detect the scenes written with the (new) movie in mind. Compared to the first book, all is lacks is credible science, mystery, believable characters, and a plot. Once again, the author is at his worst with character development - you just can't feel close to any of these cartoon action figures. Here's hope for a better job next time.
Rating: 
Summary: Brilliant sequel!
Review: When I saw The film Jurrasic Park for the first time I thought it was great. When I saw the novell with the same name in the shop I assumed that it was just some crap thrown together after the film to make more money. I bought it anyway, I needed something to read. It took me 48h to read it. It was brilliant! So when I saw the Sequel the Lost World in the shop a while ago, I didn't think that it was crap and bought it right away. The first book was written to get you into the right mood. The second book is one step further, combinig action, drama and humor in a way that only Michael Crichton and John Grisham can do. My tip for you BUY IT! You won't regret i
Rating:
Summary: Major Letdown
Review: The Lost World is written like a screenplay, and a rather weak one at that. There are some very serious continuity errors between Jurassic Park and The Lost World. Such as: Ian Malcome died! and what about the raptors that escaped to the mainland? Michael you are much better than this. Why did you take the Hollywood way out instead of thrilling us with your own imagination. I recommend that you go and see the movie and don't bother to read the book. That way you will only be disapointed a little and not a lot
Rating:
Summary: Better than the movie!
Review: 12 Raptors 2 T-Rexes and thier baby's a few Carnotaruses a bunch of compys and 10 people all on one island your bound to get action
Rating: 
Summary: This book was okay, a hellish amount better than the movie.
Review: The introduction of this book was a good one, and it gave thisbook a beliveable, scientific feel which is what this type of bookneeds.
I myself a professional writer, I have only attempted one book that was anything close too this type of adventure, and I can tell you, it's hellish to research! The book, after the first few chapters, went downhill, first, slowly, then, very fast. Without making a multi-page report on the book, let me tell you this: Malcom is now a professor who keeps mum about his experience due to a legal deal with Ingen (they paid his medical bills in exchange for a gag order after the incident at the last park in '89.) While at a Santa Fe convention, explaining the facts of extinction, he is approched by a man named Levine. Levine, who is a snob, convinces malcolm to come with him on a research expedition to Isla Sorna, where he suspects there to be a lost world (hence the title. Lost World, in complexity theory jargon, means a place, usu. isolated, that does not change when everything else does, staying primordial when everything else is destroyed. Any to sum up: Levine is a rich kid who hires a guy named Doc Thorne to build him some extra durable science labs on wheels, trailers, and some jeeps. Doc makes sure Eddie, a young mechanical genuis, to come with him to "assist." But before all of that occurs, Levine, who, due to a speeding ticket has to teach a class for community service, has two young assistants who deliver things for him, who go down to the radio shack to get a gadget or two. Why? Because there's an evil guy named Dodgeson (from Jurrasic Park) who want to learn Levine's secrets al la industrial espionage. The two kids are kelly and arby, and show Micheal Crichton make a pathetic attempt at creating juvenile characters. These two kids are so one-demensional and textbook that they were one of the main reasons that the book came out so shotty. Anyway, the kids sneak on to the island along with everybody else, including Sarah Harding, a field biologist babe who really doesn't have a point. Things go haywire, a trio gets eaten. Same old, same old. Read the rest for yourself, me hands are getting tired. ANYWAY, this book was MUCH better than the movie. The movie went way too fast.
There was no dialogue.
It was scientifically wrong up the yinyang.
Crichton's weakness is totaly disbelievable characters. Crichton's strength is great scene discription, great action execution. These two factors even themselves out, so, Crichton's secret to success is his plots. This book didn't have a very good one.
Rating:
Summary: What dinos?
Review: Jurassic Park the book was not about dinosaurs, it was about the
chaos theory, which would have been fine if it weren't for the show
of dinos it put on. They were extreamly effective as a tool, however
the assumption it being about dinosaurs, and especially that
everyone who likes dinosaurs likes Jurassic Park gets, well, a bit
more than annoying. Jurassic Park the movie was not about
dinosaurs either, but making lots and lots of money, as was Lost
World, both the movie and the book. Chricton has completely
disgraced himself as a writer. He has absolutly no respect for his
work if he can write a book like this. I know it has already been
stated (a lot) but this book is written for a movie- and the movie
does not even follow the book at all, something I read in a review,
for I have not seen the movie, and it was rated just as bad as the
book. -as I skimmed through the reviews I read one 10 rated that
said "If you write for the kings, you eat with the peasants, if you
write for the peasants, you eat with the kings." Amazingly true, he
certainly does write for the peasants, and sadly eats with the kings.
Rating:
Summary: Obviously written with filmmaking in mind.
Review: This is perhaps one of the most boring books I have ever read."Lost World" reads as though he was contacted by Speilbergand asked to whip something up on which to base the sequel to the movie. Pages of Malcoms boring theories are followed by lame, predictable action sequences. I sure am glad I checked this out from the library and did not purchase it. Don't waste your time.
Rating:
Summary: The Turn of the Screw Part Two
Review: At the begininning of "The Turn of the Screw", Henry James states that in a novel, the presence of children is a turn in the screw of fear.
Mr. Crichton has learnt the lesson.
Both Jurassic Park and The Lost World are mainly based on the adventures of a couple of children, just like James' novel.
The book is quite good, anyway
|
