IMO, it's very, very okay.
Not bad. Not great.
About as average as a Jurassic movie can be. I'd say roughly on par with Jurassic Park III.
The second half is better than the first, though, and features all the best action/set pieces.
That said, I genuinely do not understand the exposition or product placement complaints in the first act. Like, not even remotely. Does exposition and product placement exist in the first act? Sure, but it's no more worse or noticeable than what's in at least the last two Jurassic movies, or most sci-fi(ish) blockbusters in general. In fact, I wouldn't have given any of it a second thought if not for this thread. Hell, there's infinitely more (and worse) exposition in the last Mission: Impossible movie, and way more product placement in just about every modern-day-set blockbuster under the sun. Both are such insanely exaggerated complaints.
Now, I will say, this definitely felt like a first draft - one that could have used another few passes - and these are easily the thinnest characters in the entire franchise. None of them are particularly bad or annoying, IMO (well, maybe one is), but the attempts to give any of them depth/backstories are about as surface-level and on-the-nose as possible, with one early-ish scene, in particular, on the boat, falling incredibly flat.
Overall, though, I'd say it's worth seeing in the theater. You're not going to be wowed or anything, but you're not going to be not entertained either. It's... fine. But gets increasingly more fun.
