How can this film have a good note, I do not understand

Rating: 1/10 (20 April 2019)

I remembered from my childhood that of the three Jurassic Park movies that existed at the time, this one was the only bad one. In my memory I had three scenes in mind - all of them were action scenes.
Having re-watched it now - perhaps 15 years or so after having seen it for the first time - I think this happened because the plot to this one is so incredibly weak. In french there is a word, "décousu", which means "un-sowed", like it wasn't properly sown together, and it was just a bunch of ideas jumbled up into fast-paced action scenes made to impress the public. But the actors are terrible, the plot is weak, and everything is so predictable, that you wonder how anyone could have been payed to write it. I feel like anyone could have easily drafter the plot line to this film on their kitchen table, thinking "Hm, what could happen after the first film?".
I think this film has a good "grade" on here in part due to the film being made by Spielberg, and most people wouldn't give a bad note to a big celebrity like him. Maybe, also, it's because they tried to like it very hard, only because the fist one was so good. Maybe they are trying to fool themselves only not to wonder "why did I lose two hours of my life". Or, finally, maybe it's because people who put in a good note like films with Vince Vaughn. When I saw he was in this movie I thought "this is going to be a bad movie, because every movie with Vince Vaughn is a bad movie". So it was, and therefore, maybe the positive feedback on here only come from die hard Vince Vaughn fans, who enjoy his brand of over-acted badly put together cheap action films.
I wouldn't watch this film again unless I were well payed to do so. Everything about it is bad from beginning to end. Plot holes, cheap effects, and bad script writing never stops, from beginning to end.