T-Rex on the loose!

"Lost World", to me at least, holds up a lot better under the scrutiny of the critic's eye, with the exception of the Raptor segment near the end. There are continuity problems and things that make you go, "Huh?" but they're not as blatant as they were in "Jurassic Park". And that, right there, is the main reason why I like "Lost World" more.

Onto other factors, the dinosaurs, while not looking quite as good as in the original, still look very cool. There are subtle changes to the way they look, especially the T-Rexes. But the changes are for the better, I think, since the island is supposed to be more rugged. As seems to be the staple of every JP sequel, there are new dinos. In Lost World, it's the Stegosaurus, Pachycephalosaurus, Parasaurolophus, plus some Compies, and a cameo of the Pterodactyls.

"Lost World", like "Jurassic Park", was based on Crichton's book, although it doesn't follow it very closely. There's a vague similarity between the movie and the book, as well as a scene or two from the first book that made their way into the second movie. All in all, it's not as good an adaptation as the first, but it's still a pretty good story.

Once again, I think the acting is good. I liked all the characters I was supposed to like and disliked the ones I was supposed to dislike. The only character I could have really done without was Malcolm's daughter. She just got on my nerves. "Lost World" turned me on to Vince Vaughn, who I think is a really good actor, as well as Richard Schiff, who's not exactly well known, but very recognizable cause he's been in tons of movies.

The main problem I have, which I think may have been why a lot of people didn't like it, was the ending. The whole T-Rex in San Diego sequence just felt tacked on. Personally, I think that seeing that InGen captured the Rex as they left the island would've been a good ending, and then the San Diego part could've been the opening for JP3. But then again, that's just my insane thoughts on it.