I have to disagree with point 1 and some of 3. Whenever the writer draws attention to the production, s/he distracts from the story. Unless you are writing to make the script yourself or know it's going straight to a director, you are writing for a reader. Readers don't want to read camera direction or transitions; it interrupts story flow. If the director is interested in how you see the movie, they will ask and you will collaborate.
Speaking as a screenwriter, while I can understand how someone can just enjoy this movie as mindless entertainment, I don't see how you can say Jurassic World revitalized the franchise. It added nothing and truthfully, if you took away all Jurassic Park symbolism (including the score), no one would be raving about this film; you'd basically have Carnosaur 4.
From a technical standpoint, the movie is great, but from a storytelling one, it's terrible. Jurassic Park 3 had a more cohesive plot and better developed characters than this movie. JW was missing the sense of both awe and dread that the first film had. It was entirely predictable and never once did I feel any of the main characters (except D'Ononfrio's one-note antagonist) were in peril. I'm still not sure who the protagonist was because I don't know who had the most to lose, or who was making the big decisions, or who arced by the end. There were too many plot holes and decisions that seemed more deus ex machina than anything else. And just once, if they really want us to get the feeling that anything can happen, I wish they'd kill or injure one of the kids. I'm tired of these movies having the precocious kid character who saves the day using his/her [fill-in-the-blank] skills while they truthfully should be the most vulnerable of everyone.