Same strengths and weaknesses as the first one

Rating: 7/10 (24 February 1999)

In retrospect, Spielberg's adaptation of JURASSIC PARK not only made sense in financial terms, but also artistic. I didn't read THE LOST WORLD, but most of Crichton's novels, while they're well-plotted, are straitjackets, told in a clinical fashion, as if he's trying to tell you how much better he is than you. And the characters are usually one-dimensional at best, with the exception of a few here and there. Where the film versions of RISING SUN, DISCLOSURE, and CONGO kept most of the book, and therefore were held back by it, the film version of JURASSIC PARK threw out the book and just kept the dinosaurs, which made it more entertaining, so we could forget about the fact that the characters were one-dimensional and the plot is right out of a (bad) 1950's sci-fi movie.
This sequel is, in most senses, a carbon copy of the original. It has the same strengths (the dinosaurs, Jeff Goldblum) and weaknesses (lack of character development, watered-down story). The primary difference is this is more of a straight-ahead action movie than the original, and Spielberg is in control there. Also, Julianne Moore and Pete Postlethwaite do a lot with a little.