- the concept of the park being opened and functional for years, even though it's a bit unbelievable in light of the events in the previous movies.
- the technology in the park
- the idea of genetically engineering a t-raptor/velocirex
- trained velociraptors with body cameras
- the modern aesthetic of the park
- the dinosaurs actually killed someone other than an adult male
- the two main characters are likeable enough
- although it made me sad, i liked how the apex predator was killing for sport
there were other things i liked that i can't recollect, which brings me to my first dislike.
- the movie is easily forgettable. when i first saw jurassic park, i watched it every day for a week and it consumed my life for at least a month. hours after watching jurassic world, it was't even on my mind.
- the characterization is weak and the dialogue, at times, is distractingly bad.
- some of the attempts at humor felt forced and fell flat, like a romcom, compared to ian malcom's brand of romance.
- when claire let the t-rex out of its enclosure, it didn't attack her. doesn't seem like the same t-rex from the first movie that was always looking for a tasty treat. i'd eat claire....i mean if i was a dinosaur.
- vincent d'onofrio had the potential to make a great villain, but it was lost on bad writing. and his manner of death was really disappointing
- not enough people died. supposedly, the death count was around 20+, but i can only recall about 5. there were hundreds of people in the park.
- it should've been a lot more violent like the first movie. i don't even like gore, but dinosaurs are running amok and it's an 'all you can eat' buffet. too much implied violence, like a little kid whose parents are covering their eyes during the bad
- too much cgi and not enough puppets or animatronics