Michael Ledo The film opens with a written statement claiming this is real hand held footage, so it is not that good. The print is small, they really didn't want anyone to read it. A group goes to Peru to look for animals. We have the classic "ground cam" running and screaming, the classical tent scene "what is that?" as well as the camera man whispering to the camera with me catching about every third word. Add a rubber head dinosaur, and a guy who acts like Steve Irwin, and you have a fairly bad film.One of the worst hand held camera films. Recommend Jill St. John in 1960 "Lost World" instead.No sex or nudity. Didn't catch much in swearing.

superman1 The success of a film like this depends as much on your expectations as the film. Being a monster born of the Blair Witch Project so long ago, 1999. you know it will have long stretches of nothing happening, and you will be lucky to see much of the monster, but should have realism beyond any 'fiction' film to compensate. And this one has the advantage the monsters were real, a long time ago....in a world where we live. In this film it would be inexcusable not to show the title monster. But I also had fairly high expectations, along with a willingness to go along for the ride.The best feature was the high realism throughout of the characters and what happened, allowing for believability and actual tension, as well as the inevitable tedium.Real tension and fear is created with sounds. So, given this documentary-type film's realism, anticipation of the dinosaurs in this was different than any Jurassic Park. It was increased, because it was more real. So I anticipated that when the first dino appeared the reality would go bye bye. And though it threatened to at first, I employed my motto I just made up now - forgiveness is its own reward - and the later encounters easily verged on utterly believable. Maybe my expectations included I really wanted to believe it. Plus the fact I kind of like Raptor Island and the recent dino movies of CGI dinos, for the fun of it, and even the mid-90's Carnosaurus trilogy. Yes, I wanted my belief to have the gravity of a real dinosaur, while my suspension of disbelief was lifted.Even better for me was that it took me a long time to figure out how it was done. Maybe my desire to believe got the better of me. Like this sub-genre of found footage should be: The maxim of maximum potential in most limitations. Was this CGI? It looked so solid. Was this a stroke of genius? But later, two lines lifted from Jurassic Park disappointed me and took me out of this movie. Until I realised the filmmaker was not just taking; he was adding. He knew what he doing I think, because of the new contexts, or outcomes, he put them in. So he gave a couple of nods to the original best, while looking at it - in the other direction.Unlike the other E film, or Ex film - Exists, a FFF about BigFoot - these creatures were done largely in the day, I'm thankful for. The filmmakers mostly took care to maximise them being believable. Likewise, the peoples' realism and fear was maintained, but also increased. Right til after the end and even beyond it. I for one would like to see the sequel!On a final note, though this film, like all the others, did not fulfil the holy grave, err grail, of a dino actually eating a person how it would be, that Jurassic Disney Park should have done first, it may have come the closest a couple of times.

markleachsa-1 This is a strangely watchable movie. It is found footage and follows the genre quite faithfully. But is has an element of tongue in cheek about it that brings a slight attraction.The hero, strangely enough, is the cameraman who is brought in as a last minute substitute on a very BBC-like documentary project. Strange because he is a complete nob; inappropriate, crass and somewhat stupid, but at the same time with the innocence of an everyman. And because of that he is strangely likable - probably because we all unfortunately have a friend like him somewhere in our circle.So when faced with a completely impossible situation in the jungle, he acts like most of us probably would - trying to shout quietly, leaving the camera light on in dangerous times, having a dangerously daft curiosity and other very believable stuff.It's not going to beat out Jurassic World for quality CGI and in-your-face-believable-graphics, and the jungle looks suspiciously like friendly English woodlands, but I could empathise, and that for me was enough for a couple of hours.

triggersplace-82096 The Lost World idea of finding dinosaurs in a remote part of the planet is not new. Peru as a location had the potential, but it was never to be. The idea of driving along a dirt road and labeling it remote for the purpose of the film is ludicrous.Had they spent a week in a canoe and then 2 weeks trekking to their destination using tribal Indians as guides I would have believed it. Wearing sleeveless tops in a malaria-infested rain forest at night, camping in tents and carrying a table and chair into the jungle just doesn't make sense. Their packs aren't big enough for a day trip let alone a multi-day hike. The nights are remarkably bug-free, I don't know any animal that would come around a camp with a lite fire in it. They find an albino python and don't know its albino? They can hear sounds of something big for 3 days every night but no tracks or scats are found and the scientists don't even seem interested. No discussion on what it could be? Was it a Tapir or Pecari, or Caiman? No picket at night to set up cameras and try and find out what it was. How did they navigate, as I didn't see a compass or GPS on anyone? How did the rain forest suddenly become wet sclerophyll? In the end, I just watched to see how many things I could spot that were wrong. . Oh, and the cameraman is an idiot. In all very disappointing.