Almost as good as the original!

Rating: 9/10 (30 September 2003)

While this movie was not quite the same brilliant combination of effects, cast, characters and magic Spielberg delivered in the first production, I still found this sequel just as enjoyable as the first.
The cast members are just as professional, and while they did not have the same original cast (a mistake most sequels make), Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) does return. That was fine by me. He as my favorite character from the first movie, anyway. Joined by
Julianne Moore as Dr. Sarah Harding and Vanessa Lee Chester who brilliantly portrayed Malcolm's daughter, Kelly, they attempt to recreate the magic of "Jurassic Park."
While they did not quite succeed in accomplishing the totality of the first, they did present the world with an excellent finished product which I found extremely fun to watch and highly entertaining.
Plot: John Hammond is at it again, but this time, he is on the side of the environmentalist. InGen has been taken out of his control and he must stop his nephew from exploiting the dinosaurs kept as breeding stock for a possible second attempt at Jurassic Park's opening.
Hammond already has a team on the island to observe and ensure that his nephew does not interfere with the island's inhabitants; ie: the dinosaurs created by Hammond and the InGen team of genetic scientists. During the course of his conversation with Dr. Malcolm, whose reputation is now ruined because of the controversy behind his tales of the disastrous trek to Isla Nebular, Hammond discloses that the new team is not on Isla Nebular, but on a secret island developed as "Site B," called Isla Sorna which is 87 miles south of the original site.
Naturally, Malcolm refuses to go (who wouldn't!) and is on his way out when Hammond reveals that Malcolm's girlfriend, Dr. Sarah Harding, is already on the island as part of the research team.
"This is no longer a research mission. It's a rescue mission, and it's leaving right NOW!" Dr. Ian Malcolm.
The dinosaurs were done just as wonderfully in this fine sequel, as in the original; the dialogue was just as witty and clever; the characters were just as believable and well developed; and you honestly did not have to be witness to the first movie to fully enjoy this one. The only things that were lacking, for me, were (1) the wonderful cinematography; those excellent landscapes which were prevalent in the first. This one felt more deliberate; less spontaneous, than its predecessor.
That was due to (2) one badly-developed, poorly portrayed character, and unfortunately, he was one of the leading characters in the script. Arliss Howard as Peter Ludlow, John Hammond's egocentric nephew. I am unsure as to whether his acting quality was trite and stiff, or his character was written that way, but whatever it was, it did disrupt the quality of the movie, in my opinion. These two things combined, lowers my opinion of the movie, but only in comparison to the original, and only a little bit.
This is still a very good sequel which stands alone without depending on the first plot to carry it.
It earns an 8.6/10 from...
the Fiend :.