Rating: 
Summary: PRETTY DISAPPOINTING
Review: I actually thought Jurrasic Park was somewhat over hyped/over-rated, but this movie was a lot worse. I was really disappointed when I left the movie theatre.....it was a waste of 7 bucks. Why? Because we had already seen the great special effects with dinosaurs in Jurrasic Park but this movie misused those special effects. This movie was just a big money maker that fed off the success of Jurrasic Park. Not worth your time or money.
Rating: 
Summary: Greatest movie out there, but should be on DVD already.
Review: Greatest movie out there, but should be on DVD already
Rating: 
Summary: Cheesy Not as Good As The Original
Review: I'm suprised that Spielberg didn't make Jurassic Park 2 more scarier than the original. There was no plot. The acting was bad. If you want a scary, entertaining movie, get the first one.
Rating:
Summary: Jurassic Plot
Review: I hate to say this, but the sequel to one of the best films I've ever seen is nothing more than a bland cash-in. There are great special effects and some good characters (the send-up of paleontologist Robert Bakker was amusing) but they don't stop this being nothing more than entertainment. As an evening's viewing it's good, but watch it again and you'll probably be bored senseless. And why are there so few new kinds of dinosaurs? Ray Harryhausen et al never resorted to showing the same things over and over. The only realy good thing I can say about this film is that its made to look the height of sophistication by that execremental Godzilla film.
Rating:
Summary: NOT AS GOOD AS THE BOOK BUT STILL GOOD
Review: REALLY GOOD BUT THE BOOK WAS A LOT BETTER. THE SPECIAL EFFECTS WERE GOOD. ALTHOUGH IT DIFFERS SO MUCH FROM THE NOVEL I STILL GIVE IT ***** STARS.
Rating: 
Summary: It was O.K.
Review: It was good and I liked the T-Rex and Raptors
Rating:
Summary: AMAZING EFFECTS ARE NOT EVERYTHING!!!
Review: What about acting? This joke of a movie has only one thing going for it and that's the spectacular computer effects. If you have an IQ of more than one digit then you'd better avoid this one at all cost and just watch the first JURASIC PARK. The acting-if you can call it acting-is atrocious(especially the young girl playing Goldblum's daughter). The story is a joke. If I could give it a turkey I surely would.
Rating:
Summary: Lackluster yes... But better than the awful original.
Review: This movie was so-so at best. It actually had action and some suspense unlike the overrated original. There were way more dinosaurs and the T-rex was a lot more active this time. It was okay.
Rating:
Summary: One of Spielberg's lower efforts
Review: Steven Spielberg, who directed excellent films of different genres such as Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T., and Schindler's List, has directed his first bad movie in The Lost World. It felt even worse than 1941. While it's not really Spielberg's fault, the acting from Vince Vaughn and Julianne Moore were rather bland, and he could have tried to improve on that. The real problem was the screenplay from the usually good David Koepp. Instead of having a steady plot, he just focused on a huge body count. And given the horrendous script, there wasn't much Spielberg could do. I've read the book before, and the movie is almost completely different from it. There were a couple things I thought were good about the movie version. Jeff Goldblum, Richard Schiff, and Pete Postlethwaite all gave fine performances with what little they were given. The special effects were also good, but we only saw a couple of new dinosaurs. I was surprised to suddenly realize that the compys species was never show in the first film. I'm glad that Spielberg, the world's greatest director, redeemed himself and a lot more, with the powerful Amistad and the unforgettable classic Saving Private Ryan.
Rating:
Summary: REDG
Review: HKFGRSGKJGJ LHIKHJGHJ
| 
