User Score
7.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 128 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 3 out of 128

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Aug 21, 2010
    9
    Not as good as the first one but does offer more dinosaurs, more action and some truly great moments. Still a brilliant film, but a few parts lessen the experience...
  2. Oct 7, 2010
    10
    This and the original are some of my favorite movies ever! It truly is much better than some sequels. In fact, for Spielberg, I liked this more than the Indiana Jones sequels.
  3. Feb 9, 2015
    10
    When I watched my favourite film of all time, Jurassic Park, I was amazed and bewildered that a film could be so perfect and the sequel was just as good, from the plot, characters and of course...the star attraction, the dinosaurs!
Metascore
59

Mixed or average reviews - based on 18 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 18
  2. Negative: 0 out of 18
  1. Where the original film was a cut-and-dried Pop-Art-flavored allegory pitting scientific hubris against the unpredictable, ungovernable forces of nature, the sequel is an all-stops-pulled, edge-of-your-seat adventure film whose messages are not so neatly packaged.
  2. The story (adapted by Spielberg and David Koepp from Michael Chrichton's "Lost World") isn't much better than "Jurassic Park." And the predictability factor is high.
  3. For the first half-hour, the movie is pretty crummy. Even Spielberg appears bored with the script's lame setup, its quick evocation of the first movie and its wan establishment of human villains and heroes. Like any 50-year-old adolescent, he can't wait for the dinosaurs. And when he gets to them, the movie ceases to bear any relationship to conceits of narrative and becomes a sheer adrenalin spike to the brain stem.