1 Jurassic Park III
Most sequels never seem to live up to the original film, and "Jurassic Park III" is no exception. The film pretty much rips off from the first film, but they add some new dinosaurs to movie including the deadly Spinenosaurus; the Raptors start showing signs of intelligence. The film is about a boy and his brother wave boarding, one day, on the outskirts of a deserted island. Unfortunately, the boat crashes, and the boy is forced to fend for himself. However, it seems that the island that the boy is stranded on is actually another Jurassic Park that was secretely under development a few years ago. It's now up to the paleontoligist from the original film to go to this island and save this young man before it's too late. The movie fails to offer anything original to the series except for a few new dinosaurs. Overall, I still think fans of the series will still find some things good about this film but don't expect too much out of it.
2 A disgrace to the JP series...
I thought this film was just, whats the simple word? Horrible. I mean when I first walked into the movie theatre I was expecting to see a great film considering the first two were amazing though I was skeptical because #1. Steven Spielberg wasn't in the directors chair and #2. John Williams wasn't doing the music and last but certaintly not least, #3. The plot was corny and too simple. A 'married' couple(William H. Macy, Te'a Leoni) invite Dr. Alan Grant(Sam Neill) on an aerial tour of Isla Sorna for there wedding anniversary, at first he says 'No' but when they offer him money he can't refuse. So when they arrive to the island, he finds out the real reason why the couple brought him to the island, to look for there son Erik(Trevor Morgan) who had gone missing eight weeks before while parasailing with his moms boyfriend. It turns out that the 'married' couple actually got a divorce plus they can't give any money to Dr. Grant because they don't have any so basically it was all for nothing.
The reason why this film was in my opinion a total disgrace to the 'Jurassic Park' series is because:
#1. 'Jurassic Park ///' lacks the magic and originality that the first two 'JPs' had. It doesn't have that 'feel' of the first two at all but I guess you would expect that due to Spielberg not being in the directors chair. Now i'm not saying that Joe Johnson did a horrible job, he actually handled the directing better than I thought he would but i'm not saying he did a great job. He did an average job in my opinion.
#2. The film also lacks the sciency feel that the first two had, instead of focusing more on charector development and the science of the plot the third film focuses more on the action, I think that the director thought that if there was a ton of action then people would love it and not notice that it was missing everything else.
#3. The great things about the first two films is that you could never tell whether the dinosaurs were CGI or Animatronics because they were both used and blended in so well together. Well in this film thats not the case, you can easily tell when the dinosaurs are CGI or Ani or even a blend of the two, it kind of ruins the movie on its own.
#4. The look of the dinosaurs, I don't know what they were thinking when they made the Velociraptors. The raptors this time around loose there thrilling and scary appearences and instead look rediculous because of there purple,red and blue color scheme. Plus the film overplayed the 'Raptor Intelligence' a little too much that it soon gets rediculous and impossible to believe. Also, WHAT was wrong with the writers and crew when they decided to kill off the TRex five minutes in when it appeared and bring in the terribly portrayed Spinosaurus?! The way it killed the Rex would almost make you want to vomit seeing as how it would be impossible for the dinosaur to do. I don't know why Horner thinks that the Rex was a scavenger?!
#5. If you want a movie with a great climax then this film is not the one for you, I would instead recommend that you watch either 'Jurassic Park' or 'The Lost World:Jurassic Park' which in my opinion both have some of the most memorable climax's in movie history. Jurassic Park /// doesn't even have whats considered an ending, I can't even explain.
#6. The length of the film. Why is it that JP/// is only around 1 HR and 30 MIN when 'Jurassic Park' is 2 HR and 7 MIN and 'The Lost World' is even longer reaching at 2 HR and 9 MIN? If this film would have been longer than first of all, maybe there would have been a better climax, maybe it would explain more of InGens backstory like part /// was supposed to do and focus more on developing the charectors and inserting more science.
#7. Theres way too many plot holes left unanswered like the beginning for instance.
Now there are some good things in this film like...
Acting: The acting was very good except for Te'a Leoni, she overacted when it came to the 'being scared' scenes. When I first saw her she wasn't so bad but then when they got to the island her charector just went completly downhill, plus Te'a Leoni screamed too much than what she needed to, theres a scene that made me want to cover my ears. William H. Macy's acting was not near as good as his other films, I think his talent was put to waste in this film but his charector was likable at some times and his acting was averagly good. Sam Neill was the best in this film in my opinion though both him and his charector was wasted I thought his charector wasn't portrayed as good as it was in the first film but it was still good here though and once again Sam Neill's acting is superb. Alessandro Nivola was also good playing Alan's assistant at his dig site, his charector Billy Brennan tags along with Alan on the trip, I thought Alessandro did a pretty decent job and handeled the scenes pretty well. Trevor Morgan was also surpringly good considering he had acted in a Barney film in the past but once I saw one of his previous films 'The Patriot' I was less afraid do to his great performance in that film. Michael Jeter and the other actors did pretty good jobs in this film as well. One of the biggest highlights of the film was Laura Derns 3 minute cameo at the beggining and one minute cameo towards the end, she did a great job as Dr. Ellie Sattler in the first film and I was happy to see she was even slightly involved in this film even though the writers made it to where SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER Alan and Ellie are now split up and shes married to some other man which made me mad about the film even more than I already was.
Overall if you expect this to further the JP series then don't look here but if you just want mindless action filled scenes then I guess watch it. Even though I hated part /// I am still very much looking forward to the upcoming 'Jurassic Park IV' because Spielberg is actually choosing the script and everyone working on it look and seem to be very dedicated on making it be as good as the first two especially from the recent news it seems to me that there actually taking there time on the fourth instead of doing a hafe-fast job like on JP///.
3 great movie but we need dodgson back
The spiecal effects are great and Michael Jeter has a cool charector. However dump Mister Spino-Breath get Rex back in and Lewis Dodgson needs to return so a group of Velociraptors can spill his intestines. Know what I mean?
4 Unbelievable
It's simply unbelievable the way computer tech has advanced. JP3 is even better than the first 2. The dinosaurs are more real and scary than ever. The raptors have evolved in color and intelligence. The T-rex is badder, but the spinosaurus is meaner.
The spinosaurus is the newest dinosaur on the block, and although the size information and odds of a spino defeating a rex aren't quite accurate, it is one awesome dino! The pteranodons are great too, with an incredible chase seen in their giant bird cage.
JP3 is the best of the three movies, and I'm sure the fourth will be even better. Joe Johnston is a Spielberg clone.
5 Satisfying Sequel
Although this is the third film in the Jurassic Park series, it is still quite entertaining. I believe this movie stands on it's own, as a good action film. Yes, the awe and wonder of seeing the dinosaurs on film for the first time is gone, but JP3 has some good things going for it. First of all, this movie's running length is not overly-long (it's only 90 minutes). Second, although it is an action film, it manages not to take itself too seriously (and even has refreshingly humorous moments throughout the movie). And finally, the filmakers have added some new dinosaurs to the mix, in this film, in addition to making them look even more realistic (technology has greatly improved since the first flick 12 years ago, and it shows). The actual plot is not bad either, but people are ultimately more interested in the quality of the dinosaur action sequences, and they deliver quite a bite (no pun intended).
6 The dinosaurs of Jurassic are getting boring!
Sam Neill, Laura Dern and Michael Jeter return for the third Jurassic Park film.
Sam now gives seminars on dinosaurs, but swears he will never go bacvk to Jurassic park again. Well, he gets talked into being a guide for some inexperienced adventure seekers. When they begin to write a check for him in a large amount, then his decision is affirmative. So, okay, they will stay on a plane and fly over. Well, it doesn't exactly work that way and Sam finds himself stuck in dinosaur land again.
Not much to this third movie we haven't seen before. Boring storyline.
7 This is a very good movie.
I know this movie wasn't directed by Spielberg but it is still just as good as the two prior to it. This is because it has amazing special effects that surpass the first two by far and also because it has a very gripping story line. This film is also helped by the great music composed by Don Davis.
8 Jurassic Park 3
Adventure runs wild when renowned paleontologist Dr. Alan Grant agrees to accompany a wealthy adventurer and his wife on an aerial tour of Isla Sorna,InGen's former breeding ground for prehistoric creatures. But when they're terrifyingly stranded,Dr. Grant discovers that his hosts are not what they seem, and the island's native inhabitants are smarter,faster,fiercer and more brutal than he ever imagined in this heart-stomping thriller.
THE SPECIAL FEATURES ON THIS DVD ARE:
.The Making Of Jurassic Park 3
.Feature Commentary with Special Effects Team
.The New Dinosaurs Of Jurassic Park 3
.Tour of Stan Winston Studio
.A Visit To Ilm Witness 20 Different Stages In An Exclusive Rare Step-By-Step Look At The Computer Graphics Created By ILM
.Dinosaur Turntables:A Spectacular Three Dimensional Look at The 12 Dinosaurs Created For the Film
.Behind-The-Scenes
.Storyboards To Final Feature Comparison
.The Jurassic Park 3 Archives
.Theatrical Trailers
.Montana:Finding New Dinosaurs A Special Visit to Paleontologist Jack Horner's Dinosaur Dig With Never-Before-Seen Footage
DVD ROM CONTENT ARE:
.Jurassic Park 3 Dino Finder
.Danger Zone! Game Demos
9 First-rate action adventure.
Bringing the energy back to the series, this sequal also features the return of Sam Neill as a more embittered Dr Grant. The new storyline involves the rescuing of a crashed aircraft from Jurassic Park's 'Site B'. The characters are all strong and well-acted, there is barely a dull moment, and the dinosaurs are at their best. Worth noting is the giant Spinosaurus (watch out for the 'Jaws' tribute), which battles the T-Rex.
10 jarassic park 3
ok this one is the bomb sooooooooo totally better then the first to if this thing would let me do it but i cant i would rate it 50 stars because it has alot of action and a good story. my favorite part was when the t-rex and even the bigger dinosaur fought against each other. its a really good movie a may be shorter then the other two but its the best one of all the animals are smarter too. also this island is isla sorna where they land on site b. if i were you buy this one too! jarrassic park 3 is the best to far will have to see what the forth one is about.
11 the best story line
I belive that jurassic park 3 had the best story line of the three because the first on was all action with no theme and the second one was really bad and the third had a lot of action and a good story line and rate it 6 stars 10x better than the rest.
12 A Roaring good movie
This was my favorite of the Jurassic Park) series! A grand new adventure for D.R Grant as he again encounters an island of dinosaurs!!!!!!
13 Left overs used to make a poor dinner.
What I mean by the title is simple, after reading the books for the first time recently, which are extremely good, I've noticed a lot of left out material from the books that's not in the movies, and Jurassic Park 3 just tries to take those left over scenes and put them into a movie and hope for the best. However the screen-writer did a very poor job, but the director "Joe Johnston" did well with that lousy script, so don't blame him, blame the screen-writer.
If you want to get the full effect of Jurassic Park, read the books. This movie itself Isn't great, and the story is really poor, so poor that the director couldn't do anything about it.
The action is pretty good, you will get pretty much non-stop action once on the island, a few "Awe-ing" scenes, and fun to watch.
The plot is poor, A kid goes parasailing with a friend of his mother's, gets stranded on Isla Sorna and his divorced parents trick Dr. Grant and his partner Billy into going on a "Tour" of the island to save their son. The son has been there for two months by himself, yea...right, and is perfectly fine.
To sum up, the movie is a poor attempt to get the missing material from the two books onto a movie, and a very poor attempt. But is fun to watch, if you don't mind a lousy plot. **/*****
14 This Time It's not Just a Walk in the Park
After the disaster at Jurassic Park and on Isla Sorna,nature hasn't finished yet. From Joe Johnston and produced by Steven Speilberg comes the third thrilling adventure of Hammond's genetically engineered dinosaurs. The thrills continue when a divorced couple who claim be still married and rich ask Alan Grant to be their guide on Isla Sorna, the island that he hasn't been on, but he knows the danger of that island, from his Jurassic Park experience. He decides he will be their guide, but diaster arrives quickly when the spinesaurous shows up, a dinosaur bigger than T-rex,(T-rex is back too). The truth is revealed to Dr. Grant and his partner that they're really here to find their son, who had fallen to the island after parsailing. While trying to find him they encounter raptors,pteranodons,brachisaurs and Spinesaurous. Dr. Grant discovers the raptors are smarter then they ever were before,smarter than primates,dolphins and whales. It's another fight for survival. This film has the thrills of the first two JP films,it may not be directed by speilberg,but it's still another thrilling roaring ride and because of Jurassic Park III, Jurassic Park is now the thrilling trilogy, this another triumph,a thrill ride,brilliant, we saw the raptors in the first two movies and in this one their still rolling. If You liked JP and Lost World continue the adventure in this brilliant stomping,chomping exciting third film to Jurassic Park. We May Not get off this Island Alive.
15 Spinosaurus? Puhh-leeease!
This movie was a worthy sequel to JP, the best FX movie I have EVER seen.
Alan, from the 1st film, along with his assistant guy, head to Isla Sorna, accompanying a rich couple.
But it turns out they're not there for a dinosaur-watching trip like Grant was told. They're there to find their missing son.
Along the way, the mercenaries they hired to protect them get eaten, you know.
But the sucky thing is, the 'big villains' from the originals, the Velociraptors kill ONE person, whereas in The Lost World they killed, what, fifty?
And now there's the SPINOSAURUS, WOOOOOOO! Scary, it's bigger than a T-Rex oh no! Pfft. The Spinosaurus was way smaller, and if it ever faced up against a Rex, he'd be dcapitated (or something similar) in seconds.
There's the additional insult of the Pteranodons. It's a crap sequence, with good effects, but oh so gay events.
The scenes with the SPinosaurus are still good, but, it loses something.
The acting is what you'd expect, meh, but still, I'm a JP fan, I can accept this for what it is. A sequel, just milking the JP formula for all it's worth.
16 Spinosaurus? Puhh-leeease!
This movie was a worthy sequel to JP, the best FX movie I have EVER seen.
Alan, from the 1st film, along with his assistant guy, head to Isla Sorna, accompanying a rich couple.
But it turns out they're not there for a dinosaur-watching trip like Grant was told. They're there to find their missing son.
Along the way, the mercenaries they hired to protect them get eaten, you know.
But the sucky thing is, the 'big villains' from the originals, the Velociraptors kill ONE person, whereas in The Lost World they killed, what, fifty?
And now there's the SPINOSAURUS, WOOOOOOO! Scary, it's bigger than a T-Rex oh no! Pfft. The Spinosaurus was way smaller, and if it ever faced up against a Rex, he'd be dcapitated (or something similar) in seconds.
There's the additional insult of the Pteranodons. It's a crap sequence, with good effects, but oh so gay events.
The scenes with the SPinosaurus are still good, but, it loses something.
The acting is what you'd expect, meh, but still, I'm a JP fan, I can accept this for what it is. A sequel, just milking the JP formula for all it's worth.
17 Don't Mess with Mother Nature
The film opens with a return to Isla Sorna. A man and a boy are soaring behind a boat; then something happens to their tow boat. An ominous beginning, like with the first "Jaws". Professor Grant says he will never return to Isla Sorna. But a wealthy businessman shows up with a blank check. And so we return again to a very scary story. Again, the best laid plan of man fails due to an unforeseen event. When will they ever learn?
The film quickly gets up to speed and action. The computer generated images are better than in the first "Jurassic Park". The chatter among the survivors is better too. Having a cadaver pop up for horror recalls "Indiana Jones". [Does this kill off people's appetite for snacks?] Why do these people travel to a dangerous place unarmed? Is this film meant as a warning against cloning and genetic modifications?
By half-time the film tells of the survivors journey to the coast to escape. This film assumes there would be no monsters in the sea. But guess what they find up in the air? Of course, they manage to find a boat to take them down river to the coast. A last attack by a monster is averted with a flare gun (again recalling "Jaws"). Then they are saved when the Marines land!
Tea Leoni shines like a star in this film. The fewer number of actors suggest a lower budget, compared to the original film. The conventions are followed in showing what happens to a man who steals. [But would that nest be uncovered? Not for alligators.] It seems unrealistic for a cell phone to be working after it passed through the digestion system.
18 A pathetic excuse for a Jurassic Park movie
And a pathetic excuse for a movie, period. This was obviously thrown together by the uninspired and talentless and put out just to make money. The special effects are under par and down right cartoony looking, the story is unengaging, the writing is sometimes absurd (example, "Alan Grant" telling people that if raptors hadn't died out, they and not humans would have become the dominant species on earth!!) and always weak, the scenes of humans meeting dinosaurs are poorly executed and ineffective...in fact, every scene is poorly executed and ineffective. The characters are boring and unlikable and I couldn't have cared less about any of them aside from Grant, who I wished wasn't in this piece of crap. The fact that they used pieces from the wonderful original score made it worse. This movie is awful. It was directed by the same man who directed Jumanji, and it shows. This is a pile of Spinosaurus dung that's disrespectful to the first movie and to anybody who loved it.
19 The Moose Hole - Another Walk in the Park
Has anyone heard the phrase, "Two's a party, three's a crowd"? Apparently not the mega-movie studio executives, who feel they can invite as many to the celebration as they want even if the end result is the movie-going public developing enochlophobia. The Hollywood obsession of maintaining a steady flow of profits through franchise pictures can be a mixed blessing to the public. On the one hand, series like The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter have gotten better in quality and enjoyment with each new film. But on the other hand, there are the few, most notably the Batman and Superman franchises (at least prior to their modern day revitalizations), that steadily decline in value as the number of films stack up. With The Lost World: Jurassic Park being officially labeled one of the worst sequels in recent memory, the third installment in the film series that had so much promise has a lot to overcome to ensure that this franchise doesn't disappoint.
The story centers once again on the island of Isla Sorna, also known as site B, where humans have landed as part of a rescue mission only to be in need of rescuing themselves from monstrous prehistoric creatures of all shape and size. Dr. Alan Grant, one of the few survivors from the tragic events that took place at InGen's Jurassic Park theme park in 1993, swore there would be no force on heaven or earth that would get him to return to that island, but times have changed. The once flourishing archeology business is now floundering as experts have become more interested in studying the living "theme-park attractions" created by InGen then the dusty bones of the past when it comes to the field of dinosaurs. Desperate for grant money to test his raptor intelligence theory, Grant agrees to join a "wealthy" couple in an aerial tour of Isla Sorna. But when their plane crash lands on the island and the group barely escape their first dinosaur encounter, the truth comes out. The two "adventurers" are actually a disengaged couple whose son, while on a thrill-seeking trip with a friend, was lost somewhere on the island. Now the group must face previously unknown dangers, ones undisclosed by InGen, as they make a desperate attempt to escape the island with their lives. The story for Jurassic Park III, as audacious as it tries to be by including crucial plot developments that should have been including in the last sequel, is once again strenuously predictable and presents a film that is nothing different then what audiences have seen in the last two films. Did Universal not get the message that public reaction to The Lost World was horrendous? You would think that with a sequel that received as much bad word of mouth as that film did, you would make a legitimate effort to win back audiences with at least a solid script, but that isn't the case at all here.
Taking a page from The Lost World's playbook, only one cast member from the original Jurassic Park film returns to the franchise joining a relatively undistinguished cast when one considers the demographic audience the studio is aiming for with this film. Sam Neill, who once again returns to the world of Jurassic Park in the role of Dr. Alan Grant, appears as though he is seriously contemplating where his acting career went wrong that he had to return to doing films like this. This isn't to say that his performance isn't up to par, in fact there seems to be little difference from the first film of how he portrays the character, but that he deserves better gigs then this. William H. Macy, who deserves so much more for his career then a starring role in a B-movie like this, works well with the material that is given to him and no one knowing the quality of the screenplay can ask for anything beyond that. Yes, the character is predictable, in the same light as the rest of the movie, but Macy gives him a charming, if not slightly bumbling, persona that makes the audience care about him. Unfortunately, this can not be said for the rest of the cast of characters. Jurassic Park III plays out in much the same way as Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection do when it comes to killing off characters, the audience simply doesn't care. The group is barely on the island less then ten minutes and two characters, ones we don't get any background on what-so-ever outside the fact that they are mercenaries, are killed right off the bat. The original two films, even the Lost World which, by all definition, was a disaster, gave each character a distinct personality and let the audience get a specific grasp on them so that when the killing started, we would know whether to root or fear for their safety.
Overall, Jurassic Park III, despite showing slight, if not trifling, improvements from the last installment, indicates the once vibrant franchise may be on its last leg and should go the way of the prehistoric beasts it was based on - to extinction. For those have no prior experience involved with the Jurassic Park franchise (what rock have you been hiding under?), JP3 can be an entertaining, if not enjoyable, B-movie experience with none of the usual burden of being the least bit memorable. On the other hand, if you happen to be one of those individuals who expects better from a highly-anticipated sequel then the same formulaic. Applause must be given to the filmmakers for at least attempting to relinquish to the requests of the franchise fanatics wanting difference and originality with the sequels. Sadly these improvements come too little too late. These simple changes to the series (namely new dinosaurs and more personality to the creatures) should have been made in The Lost World and by having them done here feels like a desperate attempt to breathe life back into this tired franchise. All in all, Jurassic Park III doesn't handle itself like a original feature but rather it comes off as a regurgitation of all the great elements of the first film and the worst aspects (and there were many) from the second, all blended together in a syrupy mess that works alright but can be easily forgotten. With the success that met this film upon its opening weekend, there's no doubt that another sequel is once again in the works over at Universal Studios. Let's just hope that they get the message this time around and actually venture on something original with the franchise.
20 BETTER THAN THE SECOND BUT NOT AS GOOD AS THE FIRST...
This film has outstanding special effects, excellent cinematography, a wonderful cast, and a thin script. While it is better than the second film in the Jurassic Park series, it comes nowhere near equaling the original Jurassic Park movie.
This film sees two of the original stars return, Sam Neill, as paleontologist Dr. Alan Grant, and Laura Dern, in a cameo reprising her original role. Add William Macy and Tea Leoni, as a divorced couple who kidnap Dr. Grant and take him to Isla Sorna, site of Jurassic Park II, on a search and rescue mission for their twelve year old son, who disappeared eight weeks earlier while parasailing over Isla Sorna with his mother's boyfriend.
After the initial breathtaking, opening scene of the boy and his mother's friend parasailing, the movie starts going south almost immediately, which is not to say that it is not enjoyable. It is, but not as enjoyable as it could have been, had it been filmed with an intelligent script.
The movie is only an hour and a half long. In the process of making it a succinct film, the actors race through the plot, leaving certain questions unanswered or certain issues unexplained, in the almost indecent haste to get the film over with.
The actions of some of the characters are often unbelievable. Clearly terrorized, the characters do not hesitate to run off by themselves. They also do not hesitate to make as much noise as possible. Obviously, they do this in order to put themselves into a situation where they will be injured, chased, or eaten by a dinosaur.
As I said, little thought appears to have been given to formulating an intelligent script. Still, if the viewer is willing to suspend all rational thought, one should get some enjoyment from viewing this moderately entertaining film
21 Fun. Just Fun.
This movie is simplistic fun, no more, no less. There are plot holes, obviously. But all in all, just decent fun. A movie doesn't always have to be a masterpiece to be entertaining, and Director Joe Johnston proves it.
Updating the previous films in the area of special FX, and providing much needed humor in a series rampant with death and bloodshed, JP III is a fast-paced, entertaining thriller-of-a-"B-Movie."
SUMMARY: A fatal boating accident. A kidnapping. Fraud. Three seemingly unrelated incidents. Yet beyond the surface, something is waiting. Scientist Alan Grant will find himself trapped in a world on the brink of chaos, amongst a group of men and women who hide a startling secret. The result will leave you breathless.
22 JPIII
This movie is just pure fun. Thats all it is! The series is going to be if not already classic. See these films! Theyre a blast!
23 Newer Dinos Means A Fresh Film
Being a lifelong Dinosaur fan, I had to check out JP///. The trailers were making the movie seem really big and fresh with bringing Spinosaurus in to replace Tyrannosaurus as the starring role as super-predator in the JP series. The film moves at a pretty fast rate which can be good and bad. The Dinosaurs in the film are more believable now that the CGI programmers had the ability to make the Dinos' skin wobble when they moved and to have other parts of their body be in sync with the rest of their body.
The characters really don't have much development in the film which is okay considering you came to see Dinosaurs. But there is just enough character development for the moviegoer to understand each character.
My only gripes are with the film that it just seemed like the Dino action seemed to go downhill as the movie progressed. It starts off very well with the Spinosaurus attacking the plane and then eventually battling Tyrannosaurus (which I was hoping wouldn't show up until the final minutes of the film, giving it a climatic ending). After that, the Dinos seemed kinda sparse and the action shorter and shorter. The raptors also kinda got old. Like with T-rex, the filmmakers should have replaced the raptors with other Dinos. Maybe Baryonyxs? Also some science is forgotten in this film. But they had Jack Horner as their Dino supervisor, so it was a given some wrenches would be thrown in the mix. Also, the film seemed really short. With some newer dinos added to the screen that have never been seen before, I was hoping that they would have some pretty nifty Dinosaur battle sequences and Dinosaur-human encounters.
All in all, while JP/// was, somewhat, of a letdown for me, it still provided the goods for the most part.
24 Redeeming Qualities
Yes, this movie does have some plot holes, and it is not as good as the first movie in the series, but this movie is definitely better than "The Lost World." Somewhat formulaic at this point, but still a decent movie with a simpler and more plausible plot line than the previous movie.
A couple's son is parasailing off the back of a boat off Isla Sorna when something unseen happens to the people driving the boat. The boy's parents, Paul Kirby (William H. Macy) and Amanda Kirby (T?a Leoni), enlist Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) to help get the boy back. However, they have to trick Dr. Malcolm into returning to the island, because he, rightfully, thinks being on that island is a very bad idea.
As it turns out, landing a plane on the island was a very bad idea, and now the erstwhile rescuers are running for their lives. Along the way they find Erik Kirby (Trevor Morgan), and the only remaining task is to escape from the island.
Several new dinosaurs are introduced in this movie, including really cool pteranodons and a spinosaurus. The pteranodons act like giant birds, and are appropriately scary. The spinosaurus shows that the tyrannosaurus was not the king of the world. The encounters with the dinosaurs recall the thrills of the first movie in this series and are interesting and enjoyable.
There are a few plot holes in this movie, but fewer than in the previous movie. By keeping the plot simple and having fewer characters with a simpler motivation the movie avoids the incongruities of the previous movie. This movie was more creative and intriguing and favored adrenaline over depth, as in the first movie. The shorter length of the movie also minimizes opportunities to overly analyze the plot, keeping the focus on the action. A sequel not quite as good as the original, but superior to its predecessor.
25 Better than the 2nd, not as good as the first
Good movie. It was an improvment over the 2nd. It has a lot more dinosaurs, which makes it entertaining. If you like the first two, i recommend you to see this one.
MPAA: PG-13
Running Time: 93 minutes
Year released: 2001
26 Dinosaurs must've bored themselves into extinction
The cash keeps rolling in, and the dreck keeps rolling out. If you paid money to see this, and now you find yourself short a few bucks, you deserve it. This film has nothing to recommend it. So neither will I.
27 ive seen the film, but found it had flaws
I've seen the third film of the Jurassic park series. But ive noticed some troubles with it. Particularly the plot contrivances.
Most notably, the opening sequence where the crew on the boat are killed by we-know-not-what. I expected a scene near the end that would show the audience what killed the men. It never occurred. Unless we are to assume it was the fin-backed dinosaur.
The plot is as contrived as the first film, with the hangliding episode a means to get the people onto the island, so we can see their numbers depleted by voracious dinosaurs that one is amazed any sensible scientists would have created in the first place.
I found the adventurous couple annoying. I almost wanted that woman with the megaphone mouth to be eaten alive.
It was amazing given the noise they made and the great number of raptors that the whole crew wasnt wiped out.
The film made a feeble effort at providing a theme: man playing god; but since the film was only an excuse for an adventure where men are pitted against dinosaurs, for the tittaliation of the audience (like ancient rome, if nobody was killed and eaten the audience would want its money back)the theme of the dangers of playing god seems hypocritical.
On the plus side: the effects were very good, and we finally get to see some pterodactyls; the thrill is continuous and we have the pleasure of seeing men eaten alive. But is that fin-backed 'super predator' real?
28 Jurassic Park III on DVD
Jurassic Park 3 one of the big summer blockbusters out of 2001 next to "Tomb Raider".
This has been the third in the Trilogy of Jurassic Park, no other sequels have been made since the first hit from Michael Crichton and Steven Spielberg so it seems that they ride might over for JP fans. This film again uses the same elements of cgi animation and several of the same models of Dinosaurs from the other installments. However new
new dinosaurs are introduced and the writers changed the characters around in this one
to add a bit of tension and suspense that works throughtout the whole movie.
Dr. Grant (Sam Niel), who in the first movie acts as a moral, and
ethical scientist in the first movie, is a hypocrital,
contradicting scientist in this one.
At first, Dr. Grant, rejects any offers to study Dinosaurs saying that his previous experience in
Jurassic Park has annoyed from doing any other research.
However, when Mr. Brimley (William H. Macy) offers to
pay millions of dollars just to have Mr. Grant's presence and insight into the Dinosaurs of Lor Sorna,
Grant has no problem signing over himself to the project.
He definitely is more interested in the financial and egotistical benefits of the project, than the actual
scientist benefits of the project.
The cool thing about the Jurassic Park movies, is that
you don't have to watch every movie, to find out what's going on.
Since the stories are basically the same in every movie,
you can watch and be entertained by each movie, without
being concerned about the plot.
The plot in this case, is that once again more genetic
research in Dinosaurs has led to a creation of dinosaurs
on Lor Sorna in Costa Rica.
Then a group of scientists, interested in the Dinosaurs
wants to come down to Lor Sorna to "study" the dinosaurs.
The movie starts with a lecture being conducted by Dr. Grant (Sam Neil) who was in the first Jurassic Park.
Dr. Grant finds out that new research in genetic testing
has led to new dinosaurs being bred in Lor Sorna in
Costa Rica.
Grant eventually receives offers to study the dinosaurs
but rejects all of them, saying that he has enough of
dinosaurs (he almost died in the first movie).
However, a rich, entreprenual married couple is about to change that.
They eventually offer Dr. Grant millions of dollars to have his presence in a special trip that the couple plan to make to this new Jurassic Park.
However, all their plans are about to go amok, as the
group of scientists, run into a bunch of dinosaurs, more
deadly, more intelligent, and more scarier that
the first dinosaurs in Jurassic Park........
Jurassic Park 3 has probably the best special effects
I've seen in a dinosaur movie. Partially inspired
by movies like "King Kong" and "Godzilla" the special
effects team of Industrial Light and Magic and Stan
Winston, once again, bring this monstrous creatures
to life in all their glory.
JP3 also offers a ton of suspense and thrills.
There a bunch of new Dinosaurs in the movie.
The Spinosaurs, who can attack in both land and sea
is terrifying.
Also Director Joe Johnston, managed to add new life into the series by making the Dinosaurs smarter than ever.
The dinosaurs now "call" to one another, when they
see a prey they want to kill. The dinosaurs can now also use their brain to corner and attack, their prey in many new ways.
The scene in the lab, in which a dinosaurs corners their next victim is a great example of that.
However, despite this JP3 is a fantastic achievement by
ILM and Universal.
I was amazed by the features on the DVD version of Jurassic Park III:
*You get a special tour of ILM with Stan Winston
*Trailer of the movie
* Special interview with Paleontologist Jack Horner
and much more like many featurettes on the making of hte film
Highly recommend film.
29 Not Bad.
'Jurassic Park III' was not bad at all. It was much more entertaining than I would have imagined. Much better than Jurassic Park II. Watch for the scene where the new dinosaur tears up the T-Rex and kills the mighty T-Rex!! It is good fun.
30 B movie all the way.
What was Spieldberg thinking when he handed off the awesome Jurassic Park series to Joe Johnston. This film ultimately could've been better had Steven been back in the director seat. The effects were iffy. Whoever had the idea of replacing the T-Rex in the film should be kicked out of Hollywood. The Rex should have stayed. Another thing, are the Velociraptors getting Extreme Makeovers during each of the film releases, I mean, who's idea was the featheres. The acting was so so, on the exception of Neil, Leoni, and that little kid. Macy let me down on his performance. This film was a little bit of a thrill ride, but the film lacked the realism, the sense of danger, and the tenstion that the other two films had. I dred Jurassic Park IV even though Spieldberg is directing again. Hopefully he can dig himself out of the rut that Johnston put him in.
31 Great!
This is a great movie, it is full of action, and the dinasaurs are very realistic. The only reason I gave it 4 stars instead of 5, is because I gave Jurassic Park #1 5 stars, and no movie is better than Jurassic Park #1.
32 2nd Best out of the Jurassic Park Franchise
This was second best, Jurassic Park 1 was the best, that one really scared me. Jurassic Park 2 The Lost World was a joke. I couldn't stand watching it. It was so boring, and I hated the acting of Julian Moore. Jurassic Park 3 is a lot better. I think that it was good that they went to the extreme and made a Spinosaur vs. Tyranosaur scene. It was getting boring always seeing the Tyranosaur picking on people, but now they put on a vicious Predator. The Velociraptors were more detailed and better drawn. The plot was plain and simple, didn't care for it much. I liked the dinosaur effects mostly on this film, and on this film it is not boring with those long talking moments, but more on the action moments.
33 Who green-lighted this disaster???!!!
Much could've been said about the dire results of really weak sequels to excellent originals and unfortunately, this third "Jurassic Park" movie is one of the most glaring examples of the lessons that moviemakers never seem to learn. This third entry completely ruins the legacy of the original and even the somewhat cheesy "Lost World" was entire miles above this garbage!
Almost everything that could've gone wrong on a sequel goes disasterously wrong on JP3. The movie starts when the dinosaurs are back on their island in the Pacific Ocean a hundred miles west of Costa Rica and are thriving on that island and humanity is safe from them. However, a pair of skydiving parachuters are lost and stranded on the island and one loses his life but the other is alive and on the island in danger of being killed by the veloceraptors and a team of scientists are sent in to find and rescue the young boy before it's too late.
Everything from there just dissolves in lousy dialogue and weak acting by the entire cast. Even before then, the whole story plot wouldn't have a chance of going anywhere even if the acting were good because the writers who wrote the script really dropped the ball with this p&*s-poor excuse for a movie. Joe Johnston's directing, which tries to match what Stephen Spielberg does, completely falls flat on it's face and the directing is very weak and it sinks an already bad movie. He would however bounce back with "Hidalgo" three years later.
The acting by the entire cast is just awful. The characters in the first JP movie were really excellent and funny and showed a lot of personality, whether it's fun and thrill of seeing real-life dinosaurs on a tourist attraction, or terrorized when the carnivorous raptors rampage on the island endangering the lives of the tourists. On "Jurassic Park III", the characters come off as whiny and absolutely Styrofoam-like in personality, looking more like annoyed or drunk than terrified. Sam Neill who was awesome in the first one showed a lot of the feeling that he was simply ready to leave the set and I can't really blame him.
The plot is unbelievably formulaic and it already kills this movie before it even has a chance of going anywhere. In a lot of ways, I would say that this felt like a really large hodgepodge of deleted scenes from the previous two JP movies and the script almost felt like someone foolish numbskull just took it out of the trash can before the garbage men could take away which they should have.
The first two movies benifitted from the right length of two and a half hours and allowed enough time for the fun, action, and development in the characters to show. This third movie however runs at a ridiculously short 89 minutes and it felt more like as if I were about to start taking the first bite of popcorn upon the movie starting and then as I got a second batch of popcorn, WHAM! The movie was over and I was like "What the hell was that all about?". That's what this movie was like for me. I felt incredibly ripped off and wondered why they ever released this to theatres and not straight to video.
In all honesty, while I'm not trying to knock on the second movie, they should never have made a sequel to the 1993 original because it had a special and absolutely breathtakingly original style and they should've kept it that way. The 1997 sequel "Lost World" was alright in my opinion but felt a bit thrown together but this 2001 third entry destroys the power that the first movie showed and they totally ruined a great legacy with this cruel joke of a movie. I simply don't understand why this movie gets any favorable reviews.
The extras on here are on the ho-hum side for me but it's mostly because I don't even care anymore with such a lousy and disasterous movie and ultimately, There is nothing that a "Collector's Edition" could rescue this film from the junk pile! This movie is not only boring but also incredibly stupid! I don't know if there will be a fourth Jurassic Park movie but if it is, I fear that it will do more in turning this once great franchise into a big epic joke and drive it further into the realm of cinematic oblivion.
34 Garbage.
I enjoyed the first two Jurassic Park movies but Jurassic Park 3 was just flat out horrible, and in my opinion one of the worst movie I have see in quite sometime. The special effects were huge come down from the last two and there was no story, Just a series of scenes that were cut together and called a movie.
Get the first two movies, and stay away from part 3.
35 Insulting
"Computer geeks playing with their toys" would be a good way to describe the plot of this film. In this age of rampant technology we're seeing more and more movies being made based upon the technology available. Plot is an afterthought - the focus is in finding ways to exploit new computer graphics.
The fact is, there was no reason for this film to be made. There is nothing in it that cannot be found in one of the first two films. I mean this literally, for in some cases actual "plot" lines were borrowed. The worst part about this film may be that its one redeeming quality - the effects - were actually poorer than the original which came out in '93.
The ridiculous unrealism that crept into "The Lost World" runs rampant in JP3, providing us with memorable scenes such as a cell phone's ring being heard through a giant dinosaur's body (he swallowed it), raptor's speaking to each other, Grant learning their language and communicating with them (why yes, I speak Raptonian...), and a kid who in a few weeks alone on the island has become a dinosaur and survival expert.
There is no reason whatsoever I can give to you to go see this film, especially if you've seen the first two. But, if JP4 comes out, maybe they'll give the raptors subtitles. I'd pay to see that.
36 Actually Terrifying & a LOT Better than JP-2:The Lost World
I did not see this movie when it came out. In fact, I SWORE off any more Jurassic Park movies after the abominably BAD Jurassic Park 2-The Lost World.
I caught this on ABC TV and was only going to give it a few minutes, but after the opening sequence I was thoroughly hooked. Yes, the plot and story did have plot holes the size of T-Rex, but you had to overlook those.(Case in point: raptors and other predators ONLY show up when the humans are near a facility that they can hide in, etc. If the pteradactyls are caged in a huge bird cage, what were they eating to survive?) But the movie makers made you feel how frightened and vulnerable you'd be by being marooned in a jungle full of big things who want to eat you. I just wish whiny, BIG MOUTHED Tea Leoni would have been eaten right away! I was on the edge of my seat the whole movie and figured I might be having some nightmares after seeing this one.
Like I said, it was MUCH better than the previous Jurassic Parks and I thought maybe Steven Spielberg had gotten back on track. Then I saw he DIDN'T direct JP-3 and that was why it was so good. Spielberg has gotten too rich and famous and so full of himself his quality has taken a nose-dive.
This one is definitely not for small kids due to all the humans being graphically eaten alive, but for a fast moving, scary movie, rent this one.
37 Tired...and sedating
Formulaic...insultingly so. Tea Leoni as Woman in Peril, Sam Niell as reluctant hero, Alessandro Nivola as cocky protege, William H Macy is written forgettably, and Trevor Morgan falls into place as resourceful, Spunky Kid in need of rescue. The dinosaurs are either properly villainous, or an appropriate source of harmless comic relief.
Suffice it to say: a tired rehashing of gimmicky plot twists (We're stuck on the island! Raptors are back! Raptors are smarter than we thought! So-and-so is stuck in a cage, with a raptor bearing down! There's no way they could escape this tyrannosaurus! Wait, here comes another dinosaur to distract it! They'll fight and we'll escape! )
I'll save you the suspense: they didn't skimp, they gave you a "digging through a 4-foot, steaming pile of fecal matter" scene, audible slurping and squishing sounds and all. Whoever decides to do a fourth installment should save some time and money and just write it as a romantic comedy with Sam Niell and Laura Dern's characters engaged in some wacky paleontological adventures, complete with comedic sexual tension and requisite end-of-movie wrap-up kiss. Jurassic Park III is not worth seeing.
38 Best of the Trio
"King Kong" was probably the only dinosaur film ever to incorporate a good pulp adventure story along with the thrill of dinosaurs on the loose. "Jurassic Park III" doesn't even come close in that sense, but, having said that, it does give more to its story than do its predecessors or any other dinosaur film. The story is familiar: rescuing someone who is lost amidst extreme danger. The added ingredient is the secondary story of watching two estranged people finding their way back to each other; the screenplay steering many of those moments with levity. William H. Macy is one of those actors who is always enjoyable no matter how good or bad the film may be in which he appears. The Macy-Leoni pairing has wonderful chemistry and Sam Neill is, as always, highly likeable as well as heroic in a believable way. The 90 minute length reflects the film's cut-to-the-chase (literally in a lot of moments) attitude. The previous two films were cumbersome. JP III has better animated dinosaurs and some classic moments. The trip down the river, in a small boat, is reminiscent of story lines of the Far East right out of the works of Joseph Conrad or of Jules Verne, etc. Jurassic Park III is a fun film, a thrill ride and should be taken as no more than that. The screenplay and the film makers do their jobs.
39 Ok, I Guess...
There are a large collection of movies which, when viewed by the public, demand a hard-core follow-up production. "Jurassic Park" was one of those films. As soon as it debuted, the generalized public cried out to the filmaking "powers that be" to make a sequel. Universal, in its never-ending attempt to please the public, did them one better (or worse, depending on your point of view): they produced two sequels, both which recieved widespread response. But unlike the first film, with its suspense-filled plot and perfect pacing, these films just didn't work as well...
"Jurassic Park 3" had a lot of promise, and it resulted in being a high-budget disaster, for the most part. True, the action-scenes are well coreographed and the climax in the boat is interesting; but a man cannot live by violence alone. The plot is missing (seriously). Amidst the running dinosaurs and screaming actors, I think I caught something about a missing boy or a rescue mission, but honestly now, NO emphasis is placed on this WHATSOEVER! It's as if Director Joe Johnston just needed some way to show several morons get swallowed up by a big lizard. Even the return of Alan Grant was poorly written, as Grant's character changed drastically from his original role. He has forgotten all his knowledge of dinosaur behavior, both study and experience-based. This fact is actually explained in the film, as Grant only studies Velociraptors now, and very little of that. Seems odd to me that an expert would forget all of his knowledge. dIrEKtEr jO (Director Joe) really didn't have any idea how to write a real movie, did he? Guess he needs to go back to Disney.
40 Like one really long deleted scene from part two. BORING!!!
BORING!!!!!!!!!! Ok,yeah...Same old thing again?!!!!and only an hour in a half long?!! what the heck is this?!!!They discover bigger and better dinosaurs,they create an island for them,then they go and visit the wonderful and not to mention carniverous dinosaurs,then the dinosaurs;being that they do eat meat; and they have never seen a human being before!Go and attack the poor insignificant humans who were to brainless to think things like this out before taking action. Boohoo...poor them...well, you know what? NOBODY CARES!!!! the point is that, the first one was awsome...the second and third ones...well,were monotonous.And, not to mention boring. It was like one really long deleted scene from part two. they took out the best character Jeff Goldblume as Ian Malcom!!! they were the best poeple!Its like making Micheal Chriton not be the author of the book that is by the way, based on the first movie.You just dont do that if you're going to make a sequel!Steven Spielburg bofore considering to make a part four make sure you have all the main/best characters in it. Otherwise dont even think think about it.
41 Simply Sad....
This movie was horrible... I wish they could have just stuck with the original story of Jurassic Park. I don't think anyone enjoyed the idea of a new island, I mean, where the hell did this come from?? Or maybe I just missed something in the other two.... been quite a while since I've seen them. The other day I started the Jurassic Park book... I insist you people get more into reading than watching movies, the original work was MUCH better. The acting in this movies sucked and the story was many times worse. JOHN HAMMOND ISN'T EVEN IN THE GOD DAMNED MOVIE! He was the one who started the whole thing, what the hell happened to him?? Another thing, there was no background to the movie, most of this stuff just came out of no where. You could call the Lost World a work of art compared to this movie. Can't believe Steven Spielburg didn't direct it, he brought life to the first two. I suggest everyone stick to the first movie, it was the only one with a real plot...
42 It's amazing what crap they'll make these days
This movie was horrible! It shouldn't be allowed to carry on the Jurassic Park name. I mean, The Lost World was pushing it. This one just sucked. Granted, seeing members of the original cast was cool, even if it was brief. Still, that can't save this movie. Reasons this was so bad: 1) The dinosaurs all looked fake, probably because this movie relied mostly on computer generated effects. 2) The little boy they were trying to save was so annoying, why they didn't just leave him on that island I'll never know. 3) There were hardly any deaths, which is what made the first two exciting. 4) It wasn't directed by Steven Spielberg, the guy who did the first two. 5) The plot was way jacked up: for instance, why would Grant EVER go back? The reason they gave in the movie so did not convince me. They made out like Grant would do anything for money which, he learned in the first film, was a bad idea. Anyway, the point is: this movie blew. Take my advice and skip this one. Oh, and I totally agree with the other reviewer who made the comment that those who like this movie are idiots.
43 One of the best movies
This movie was made so incredibly well that the dinosaurs looked like that they were not computer animated. It looked like they were real! Once the movie pulls you and your interest inside itself, it is impossible for you to pull yourself back out. To my opinoin, this was one of the best movies I have ever seen, defenitlly a movie you must see and a movie you must buy.
44 It was an okay film, but deserves no praise.
How do you top two blockbuster predecessors, both related to formidable dinosaurs, in its third sequel? The answer: you don't.
Although the plot was rather vague and ambiguous, the special effects, sound, cinematography were quite weak, as expected. I don't think anyone expected the same thrill they received when they saw the original Jurassic Park.
During most of the scenes, it felt as though the screen writers decided to make a movie about dinosaurs chasing people, trying to kill them. If there was an excuse to bring the dinosaurs close to people, such an action was always followed. This was strange.
Also, considering the quickness of the movie -- roughly 90 minutes -- it felt as though the movie was rushed. Thus, it fueled the belief, even more, that this movie had no plot and a hurried atmosphere. It was okay. This was certainly not a great film.
45 Better than "Lost World"
I have to admit, this third movie in the Jurassic Park triology is not the best of all three. It is a lot better than the second, and falls short (way short) of the first. However, what is good about this movie is the fact that the action starts up almost immediately and never stops. If you watch these type of movies for the action and chase sequences, this movie will not let you down. *** 1/2 stars for the action. ***** for Sound and Picture quality of DVD. ** stars for plot and acting.
46 1 star? OVER-RATING
I think it's self-explanitory. But for you idiots, this movie sucked
47 This is one of the best movies ever!!!
this is an AWESOME movie where the dr. goes to another dinosaur island to find some kid that got lost.
48 How to sell a movie with its name...
Spoilers warning :Jurassic Park, the first episode, was simply innovative, amazing, intelligent, and great. The Lost World was, let's say, bad. But this is different from the two first chapters. Let me explain. This is the (very simple and stupid) story of a young boy doing some kind of parachute with a friend of his parents over Isla Sorna (the island where the story of The Lost World happened). But with some amazing coincidences and unpredictable events (do you feel the sarcasm?), they crash on the island. Then, 8 weeks later (that's a long time to survive, on a near island) the parents pay Alan Grant to come with them save their son on the island. Don't you think the story is stupid? Don't you think this is gratuitous reason to go on an island and get eaten by dinosaurs...This is stupid to the extreme...seriously. But, not only they have a crap-head scenario, but they also have special effects that are really not as good as the first two's. I couldn't recognize the raptors, because teh dinosaur models are different and cheaper, and also, the dinosaurs are so fake sometimes, it's evident...the illusion isn't really there. There are new species of dinosaurs, but the only T-Rex you see lasts only one minute. But the most stupid point of the film, making it a possible winner at the Razzies fest, is the NEW intelligence of the dinosaurs...they communicate like humans (they don't speak, but it almost sounds like that sometimes), they look at each other, they trap humans...this is awfully stupid...and especially in the dinosaur fight, one of them kills the other by holding his head and breaking his neck...and why don't they eat the humans they kill? The acting isn't so good, William H Macy is real bad and fake, like Tea Leoni...some awful one-liners, too predictable to be true...really. The action is so brief, you can't enter into it, there is no stress, no suspense...and the movie has a running time of 85 minutes...plain bad. Overall, stupid story, bad acting, sucky scenario, lame action, no plot, no suspense, just a sell-out under the Jurassic Park title. 2/10
49 to short and acting was subpar
one of my favorite things about JP3 is it's DVD cover. I LOVE IT!!!
other than that, the movie has some good moments, good shots, and then there's JP3.
for one, i'm a huge fan of the T-Rex and to see it get KO'd in less than 1 minute was flat out a disgrace.
two, the acting is very off in this movie. in the original Jurassic Park, the acting was AWSOME and REAL. it felt real, and made you believe like you were actually there with them in the park, and like you were being chased by the T-Rex, yet here, it's like, "oh, here comes a dinosaur, run!"
acting was to dry, and then to top it off, to corny.
how do we begin this movie? by two parents on the brink of a divorce who let their kids who aren't even 18 yet, go on a vacation that includes parachuting near the island of Jurassic Park?
finally, this movie was to short! it runs at about 1 hour 23 minutes!?!? yet in the theater, it felt like 3 hours long. why? cause it wasn't that good.
JP 3 was to fast and quick and should have been slowed down like the original film and re-casting wound not have hurt either.
still, it's a Jurassic Park movie, so i had to get it. hey, i got it for $5.
50 2.8 out of 5
After four years, another JURASSIC PARK sequel was in the making. JURASSIC PARK III returns Sam Neill to the role of Alan Grant, a paleontologist who is tricked into serving as a tour guide above Site B (from THE LOST WORLD) by a husband and wife millionaire team - only to discover that the "millionares" aren't what they seem, and that the island has some hungry new inhabitants. While better than THE LOST WORLD, JURASSIC PARK III is still a weak film at best; Neill is good, and Joe Johnston's directing is fine; the new music by Don Davis is fitting, but can't come near John Williams' scores; the highlight of the film, of course, again, is the dinosaurs. This time around, they're even more real than in JURASSIC PARK or THE LOST WORLD! In fact, they may even be the most realistic special effects I've ever seen. Other than that, really all you can expect is bickering/annoying parents William H. Macy and Tea Leoni, and a sequel that will provide you with nothing more than average thrills.
51 Better than part 2
This is the 2nd best in the series besides Jurassic Park and Lost World Jurassic Park was terrible,but part 3 has Dr.Alan Grant and his reserach crew going back to Jurassic Park and trying to fight the dinosaurs and who will win.this one is a mildly bloody chapter that's scary,violent,and even entertaining only the plot is the same and the new dinosaurs were not as scary,though a major improvement over the 2nd one.
52 STOP THE INSANITY!
Please note that the only reason I gave this movie above one star is a terrific plane crash sequence that rivals the first two films as far as suspense goes. But aside from that...what a mess.
Well, it's very fitting that this movie was released the same year a movie like Gladiator was. Gladiator was the best picture, and this was a top money maker in 2001 - the year of mediocrity. Movies are becoming more and more of the same as every year passes. I write this review in 2003, when seemingly every movie out in theaters either has a number by its title (sequels) or you can go to a video store and rent an earlier version (remakes). JP III isn't the movie that started this trend, but it certainly stepped in line. It's not a movie that can claim to be the first to do this, but it certainly can be an example of when a movie is both a sequel and a remake. Everything you see in JP III has been seen in the first two films. Lost children, adults that trick the experts into going in the first place, the experts being right about nearly everything, except when they always predict their own death...that never happens.
The story is nearly identical to The Lost World...in fact, it happens on the same island The Lost World happened! This time, Ian Malcom is replaced by Alan Grant (Sam Neill), but he to is seemingly unable to shake the demons of his experiences of the first time he visited the Park. He says early on that he would never set foot on the islands inhabited by dinosaurs ever agian, until William H. Macy and Tea Leone come along with a checkbook, promising him to fund his dig for several years (didn't John hammond do the same thing eight years ago? Did he ever see that money?). They tell him that they want to explore the island, but really their son is lost on it.
I think the real flaw in this movie is that, while embracing some aspects of the first two, it ignores other, more important ones. For instance, despite the fact that it's the same island as The Lost World, the landscape has totally changed. And the big thing - that new Spinosaurus. No mention of how it got there, or why no one wouldn't have seen it in the previous installment. I understand that this was supposed to be a popcorn flick, no heavy thinking, but it even fails there. The characters are flat, and you don't feel sorry at all for Macy and Leoni (I can't even remember their character names). They can stand for minutes without a dinosaur showing up, then they show up and get outrun and outsmarted by bumbling idiots who don't listen to what Grant has to say. This was a movie designed to get money, which it did. Unfortunately, Speilberg (who produced this one after directing the other two) is considering doing JP IV. Is it me or does that make anyone else shudder?
53 Mumbo Jumbo
Besides the fact that this movie is incredibly short there are horrible plot holes. Why on Earth is there a new Dinosuar wouldn't we have heard about it in the previous movies? He kills T-rex right when we see them but if he was so superior He would have killed him a long time ago. All of the people get killed in the first few minutes. After that no one dies how is that suspenseful? The Veloceraptors talk too. This movie is very poorly written. It is as if the producers walked in and said "new dinosaur, veloceraptors talk, nobdy important dies; run with it"
54 JP III
The third installment to the JP franchise is full of action and shows the viewer what they truly want to see in a dinosaur movie. The way the Kirby's came together and(even though they had their problems and were divorced) were sacrificing everuthing to save their son is great. Seeing how the Kiby's end up being a family again was wonderful.
55 Good popcorn movie
I know that when I go to see a summer blockbuster movie, I cannot expect deep explorations of philosophical themes... it is just fun, and it eventually just comes down to how much do you like certain stereotypes and hate others. There is no difference whatsoever between this movie and others like The Rock, Armageddon, Batman, Spiderman, ID4 etc,etc,etc. They are all just made to entertain as many people as possible. So I don't really care if they made up a dinosaur for this movie (Spinosaur was actually a dinosaur... the one they made up a little bit for the movie was the Pteranodon, which was not like they showed it in the movie)... I just care enough to get into the movie. I liked its quick pace, I loved the character of Alan Grant, and I enjoyed seeing Tea Leoni hanging from a tree while two raptors try to reach her, as much as I enjoyed William H. Macy's clumsyness. I was so thankful that Ian Malcolm and his annoying daughter were not back almost as much as I was about the T-Rex staying in the island and eventually dying. The one big gap is not if the telephone could be heard from the belly of the dinosaur or if the military answer was too quick... the gap in this movie is simply that it is too short... It lacks one more act, a more entertaining conclusion and a couple of other deaths. What I enjoyed particularly was the crash scene until the T-Rex/Spinosaur fight, the image of the raptors running through the planes (they could have played more with these kind of images and frames) and, above all, the birdcage scene. It was fantastic, very well cut and that's the action I like to see... people running through strange enviroments and moving all around it (they start way up, a bridge, an aereal capture, parasailing, falling to the river, runnning between cliffs, etc). Well, these are the stereotypes I like to see in a blockbuster summer movie (not the world being collapsed by a rock that comes from outer space, nor Will Smith saying I make this look good or Bill Pullman: today we celebrate our independence day, puaghhh!): people being chased by huge digital or mechanical teeth, while falling, burning, exploding, etc. The stars up in the beginning od this review are not the same kind of other of my reviews. I liked this movie, I enjoyed it a lot... but in the end of the day, this is not a movie I'll be thinking much about in other terms than its own plot twists and roars.
Just enjoy it... if you like this kind of entertainment.
56 Makes the American Godzilla remake look like a masterpiece i
If you can remember the Godzilla remake by Roland Emmerich & Dean Devlin, then you must have had nightmares on how bad it was. The bad rip offs of much better movies and the extremely corny, sentimental dialogs only written to please slow adults and small children. This movie was so bad in fact that you don•À?t need Mike and the Bots from MST3K to make fun of it, the movie writes it•À?s own punch lines for you to say. Any movie with Matthew Broderick as an action hero should be an indication on how bad it is, and with a monster that looks more like a raptor than the Godzilla who all know and love, the recipe for failure is pretty big.
Which brings us to this film which is not only one of the worse sequels ever made but probably one of the worse films made period. Sam Neil is a great actor, but the film itself is so bad that it makes him look like a buffoon. The way they tried to make him into an Indiana Jones wannabe is not only sad but also flat out laughable. He comes more a cross more like Chevy Chase than Harrison Ford. The casts of supporting characters fares no better and in some respect fare much worse. William H Macy is probably one of the best actors around but you really can•À?t tell that by his performance here which is beyond annoying. Tea Leoni is flat out annoying as well as his wife, a woman whose scream could chip years old paint. I think the only actor who fares decent here is the late Michael Jeter, who is barely in the film at all. His performance is funny, and could have benefited the film a lot more if he was in it more.
The special effects are not as impressive as they were in the last two films, and the direction is very disjointed compared to what Spielberg was able to do with the first two movies. Spielberg was able to create tension and create action scenes that can blow your socks off. Joe Johnson, who steps in for Mr. Spielberg this time around not only abandons what his predecessor had done before but completely disregards any logic that the other movies had. The first two films where about science and the dangers of tampering with nature. This film is just a strait forward monster movie that does not even have a plot to go by. The characters here are nothing more than Dinosaur food and the setting itself does not even look like the island of the last movie. There are even certain things in this film that even contradicts some of the information that was giving in the last two films, and it tries to bring in a dinosaur that was not even created in those movies.
Its really sad to see Joe Johnson demean himself with a bad film like this, because he has done much better work in the past. The Rocketter is a prime example of a good comic book movie, and October Sky is a well-paced family drama that should have had more notice in the theater. With this movie, Joe looks like he just wanted to cash a pay check, and judging by the way every thing in the film was done, it looks like every one involved were doing the same thing. Which is sad in a sense because it•À?s the fans that pay for it in the long run.
57 Sloppy sloppy sloppy
You would think with all the people that worked on this film, someone would have been paying attention to what time of day and where this movie takes place.
It is esatblshed early on the at the Jurassic Park islands are off the coast of Costa Rica. Now if you look on a map, you will see that Costa Rica is roughly the same latitude in Chicago.\
Now then, halfway through the movie, Alan decides to call Ellie on the "satillite phone" in the middle of the night (while being attacked by the dinosaur I think they just made up for this movie, I mean "Spinosaur?" Give us some credit please). Ellie's toddler picks up the phone, in the United States as her husband works for the State Department, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY!
Now why didn't anyone on the production team look at a map? You might be wondering why I'm focusing on this little tidbit-- well I think this represents the quality of the movie. Say what you want about Steven Speilberg, but that man knows how to tell a story and his voice is keenly missed here. Sam Neill plays his part with gusto and the world-weariness and frustrataion one would expect, but without Jeff Goldblum to get on his nerves, it's like a mismatched pair. There is no development in Grant's character-- he's the same on and off the island. The film also pairs the slumming and wonderful William H. Macy and the chronically mediocre Tea Leoni as a couple looking for their lost son. Since you've seen movies before, you know that neither Grant nor the child is going to die. The suspense is gone.
58 SHORT, SWEET, AND ACTION-PACKED
JURASSIC PARK - 1, was larger than life; larger than anything else that had came out of Hollywood, larger than anything that Spielberg had done before. The concept was fresh, the dinosaurs were scary, the backdrop was unimaginably awesome, and the direction, impeccable. Justifiably, it turned out to be one of the best movies ever, with a huge cult following. It was only natural that it had to be followed up by a sequel, which turned out to be a great disappointment, alas! With the high expectations raised by the first part, in an attempt to live upto the high expectations, in THE LOST WORLD, Spielberg, it seems, tried a bit too hard, making a mess of the movie altogether, making it much too long, much too boring.
However, JURASSIC PARK - 3, is surprisingly much better than THE LOST WORLD, especially, since, it isn't directed by Spielberg. OK, so it has the same dinosaurs, and has them chasing around and killing the humans, who repeatedly happen to drop themselves by amongst the dinosaurs, for some strange reason or the other. Well, if THE LOST WORLD was solely about dinosaurs chasing around humans, with a very sorry ending giving out the message "don't mess with nature", this one however, has dinosaurs chasing around humans, but with the feel of a fast-paced action movie! In JURASSIC PARK - 3, the director doesn't try to complicate things by trying to bring the dinosaurs to the city and try to make a GODZILLA and a JURASSIC PARK at the same time, but concentrates wholly on the action taking place within the island itself. The movie is incredibly short, and is action-packed, with dinosaurs popping out from every corner of the screen, without a moment of respite; and before you know, the movie ends.
Unlike THE LOST WORLD, the straightforwardness of JURASSIC PARK - 3 is what makes it a highly viewable movie. There are however, certain things, which this movie could have carried on from THE LOST WORLD, like JEFF GOLDBLUM, and his sarcasms, reeking with pessimism. The movie is packed with action from the first scene to the last, without trying too hard to be intelligent. Since it doesn't try to achieve much, but only try to entertain, it is short, and makes the viewer want for more.
59 At Least it has a plot
I was a little disappointed by Jurassic park 3. It had the actiona dn adventure, but for some reason nothing can compare to the first one. There are some awesome new dinosaurs int his one
60 Okay, but...
I was so excited to see "Jurassic Park 3" when it was released in the theaters, but I was disappointed in this installment. The first two films had me on the edge of my seat. Granted, this one did too at moments, but I think the whole storyline just turned me off. The fact that a couple hired Sam Neill's character to find their son who had crashed on the now deserted island where the former Jurassic Park existed had me shaking my head in disbelief. I thought more could have been done to develop this storyline, but I think the special effects and the dinosaurs made up for that.
This was also the first in the "Jurassic Park" series that was not directed by Steven Spielberg and it definitely showed. Don't get me wrong, the director of this film did a good job, but that spark that Spielberg brings to his films was missing.
"Jurassic Park 3" was a pretty good movie and I would suggest it to those who are fans of the series, but at the same time, don't get your hopes up too high because they may (or may not) come crashing down.
61 fun and fun
Entertaining with cool special effects. Funny. Better than Lost World. Score: 97/100 A+
62 AMAZING DVD package of extra features like subtitles
As a fussy DVD collector who loves subtitles this movie would have to be the one of the best in my collection. The special features documenatries and featurettes are amazingly subtitled (even the commenatry track is subtitled!). The only DVD I can think of in my collection of 100 which has such accuracy would have to be Hannibal, the sequel to Silence Of The Lambs.
Now on the film. It does lack the grand spectacle of the first 2 in the series. It has potential definitely : the awe-AMAZING scenery of green rain forests and the island at the start was BREATHTAKING. However I envisioned iy to have different and new dinosaur roaring in a MAJESTIC scale never seen and unprecedented in the other films. This didn't eventuate and the dinosaur did lack definition and variety, and was done on a insular scale.
Alessandro Nivola is a actor of raw potential, up there amongst the class of Matthew McConaughey. I wish him the best of luck in his aspiring career. He is also very athletic and fit in this film. Sam Neil is fantastic too. William H Macy is a revelation , so as Tea Loni. So all in all you have an ensemble cast that I cared and cheered for to all get of the island safely. The kid was great too, a bit unrealistic how he survived for 8 weeks though.
Get this DVD , for it's value packed extra features!
63 They should be ashamed of themselves......
From start to finish, this movie was plagued with production problems. There was an actors/writers strike on the horizon so Universal raced this movie through production....Joe Johnson proved to be unable to really finish this movie in a manner that was satisfying. They never had a finished script so a lot of this movie looks like it was made up as they went along. They upped the visual effects and showed more dinosaurs, but the actors really have no clue what to do in this movie. Everything they do seems to get them into more trouple and they end up meeting more dinosaurs who proceed to kill the people off one by one. You can see who is going to get it before it happenes. Unlike the first two movies, where everyone worked hard to make the movies the best they can be, this film was rushed through production and it shows everywhere. Visual effects, production design, cut and paste editing, a bombastic music score, and a very predictable ending. This movie is not worthty to be called Jurassic Park.
64 So much room for improvement...
"Jurassic Park 3" is probably the most disappointed with a film I've ever been. It had so much going for it, and delivered so little. The film's biggest problem is the silly plot. The first film was believable, the second film was fun, this one's got energy, but we've been there, done that. But back to the plot: Alan Grant (Sam Neill) is lured back to the island the same way he was lured the first time: with money. That Grant could possibly be so greedy and stupid is the film's most unbelievable part. Most everyone (the characters) in this movie deserves to be eaten by dinosaurs, but only a few are. In a way, I'm glad Spielberg didn't direct this one. This would have seriously hurt his career. It's not a terrible film, but it's not good. I'd say only hardcore fans might like this one. But that's only a guess.
65 Nice comeback
Ready for some forget-about-the-real-world-for-awhile fun? This film may have been the third release in the J-Park trilogy, but it is clearly the 2nd best of the series. No sequel will ever outdo the novelty of the original, but this episode injects enough "oomph" into the storyline to keep you on the edge of your seat. For starters:
1. Sam Neill returns in the lead role...
2. Introduction of a predator bigger and badder than T-Rex (who knew?!)...
3. Intro of a flying dinosaur species (In the minds of even casual dinosaur enthusiasts, the dino-bird is a "must have" element which was grossly absent from the earlier movies)...
4. Continued character development of Velociraptors is extremely well done. The complexity of the raptor's personality is human-like by the end of the show...
5. The movie didn't try to outdo itself as was done in the Lost World by bringing dinosaurs to the mainland. (Jurassic Park will never be Godzilla.) Generally speaking, the plot lived within its means.
So why only 4 stars? Of all things, HUMAN character development and motivation is a little hard to keep up with. You just kind of get the sense that the writers couldn't come up with a really good idea to get everyone on the island in the first place, so they had to pick something kind of outlandish. As a result, they had to spend the rest of the movie scrambling to explain and resolve that outlandishness into something believable. Close, but no cigar.
That said, it's a good fantasy/action movie, defintely one that is worth popping corn for. You'll be better off seeing the first two J-Park videos first, so that you can understand the historical references in this film. Enjoy!
66 I love Jurassic Park & ALL its sequels...
I dont know why people didnt like this movie.. because I did. It had Romance, Action, Drama... tons of good stuff!! and NEW Dinos like the birds (unlike the other movies we the charaters NEVER got fac-to-fac with) We saw alot more of the Raptors, and even learned some things about them.
This movie is just as good as the first. BUT basically all the first movies of Sequels are the best.
That is all!!! I love Jurassic Park
67 The pit stop of the series.
Very bad third entry in the series manages to not only contradict what was set forth with the first two movies, but manages to destroy the series as a whole with a pointless story that not only insults the viewer but manages to kill a few brain sells a long the way. The cast in general is so annoying that you want the dinosaurs to kill them, and the script itself is nothing more than a thin out line for show and tell. The special effects are a few steps behind the last film, and the Spinosauris is able to change shape during different parts of the film.
This movie is so bad, that I don't even consider it a Jurassic Park film, and anyone who even dares say that it's even better than the first or the second (which despite it's flaws manages to entertain in a way this movie only dreams of doing) should be a shame of themselves.
68 Much, much better than Lost World
Okay, well, I loved the original movie but hey, how can ANYONE actually like that horrible, boring sequel Lost World? ... When I saw this coming I thought oh no. But guess what? It's 100 times better than Lost World. So is it really a 5 star movie? Maybe not, but I'm gonna give it that JUST because it is SOOOOOOO much better than that lousy sequel Lost World.
This one makes up in spades for the problems with Lost World and I was very pleasantly surprised. The story is not all over the map here, it's not that long so it's not obviously padded out in long boring go nowhere scenes like in Lost World. And the story and characters are all much more believable here. This cannot compare to the original film, but THIS should've been the sequel, not that awful Lost World. This one has cool dinosaurs all over the place not a bunch of boring talking scenes over and over like Lost World. The music and direction is just as good as the first one also. And Tea Leone is a dish to look at.
This is a perfect rainy Saturday afternoon popcorn muncher and because it is short, it's much better packed with essentials and the story and pace is so much better than ... Lost World. ... I would never buy any trilogy set for this because that means it would include the second film Lost World, ... Jurassic Park III has been on cable constantly for months and it's always fun to put on and watch bits and pieces.
Okay, so it's not nearly as good as the original, and it is by no means any sort of landmark or great film, but comparitively speaking, and that's where this review is coming from, COMPARED TO THE LOST WORLD, this movie absolutely RULES! If/when they ever do a fourth Jurassic movie, I can only hope it is nothing like the Lost World. ... This third one I'll watch over and again just like the first because they are both fun and entertaining. ... This third one is involving and entertaining from start to finish as long as you don't expect something as good as the first movie.
... This one is much closer to the spirit of the original movie, much much much more than that first and totally forgettable sequel Lost World. Ugh! This third one is short and sweet and fun. Kudos to all for getting it right again unlike that horrible Lost World. Did I say ugh? UGH! Buy the first and this...
69 Don't Look for a Plot---it is just action
This movie's plot...this movie is exciting. This movie doesn't have a plot, or at least not a good one. A "rich" family's son is lost around the island where the dinosaurs from JP I and/or JP II roam (while trying to see the dinosaurs on one of the islands). The parents pay Allen Grant to help them get their son back, and of course things go wrong. Well, that is about it for the plot...but if you like action, you still might like this movie.
I usually hate movies without plots, but this one is an exception. I simply enjoyed the animated dinosaurs (very realistic in appearance) and the action that ensued from a huge (species is made up) dinosaur. If you watch the movie, don't think, otherwise you won't like it.
This is a good movie for after finals week--when you just want to lounge and not think anymore.
70 Jurassic ...
What a [let down]. This movie not only destroys what was set up before with Jurassic Park and The Lost World but does not even retains the same quality. There is nothing in this pitiful sequel that is up to snuff with the other movies in the series, and the actors themselves look like they are acting at gun point. This has a more strait to video feel than the first two, and judging by the lack of talent involve, it should have gone to video instead of the big screen.
I hope they don't make Jurassic Park 4.
71 Real lousy sequel to two much better films.
I've been a fan of the Jurassic Park series since the original, and while The second movie (The Lost World) was not as fine a film, it still retain the some of the magic of its predecessor. This film unfortunately not only a major let down in every sense of the word but a major letdown to the fans in general. There is really no plot to speak off what so ever in this lousy follow up but another excuse to bring people back in contact with the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs themselves look more like C.G.I cartoons than real animals, and when you have acting as bad as the special effects themselves, you know that the movie is in trouble. It's pretty sad when a sequel to two fine films does not live up to the standards of what it's predecessors set forth, but when the movie is this bad, then it should be considered a crime.
Sam Neill should be a shame of himself for selling the fans out.
Grade: F-
72 Jurassic Park 3 is a sequel with some sharp teeth...
Eight weeks after he accidentally crashed on Isla Sorna, the Kirbys still have hope that their son has managed to survive. That's why they basically trick Dr. Alan Grant into an almost hopeless rescue mission. If you can get past this hard-to-believe premise, then you can enjoy "Jurassic Park 3" for what it is: a very expensive B-movie.
Despite being the only installment of the trilogy that's not directed by Steven Spielberg, "Jurassic Park 3" carries on the franchise proudly, and most important, effectively. For starters, it's an enormous pleasure to see Sam Neill (who had refused to return for the first sequel) back in the lead role. I have nothing against Jeff Goldblum, but with the possible exception of "The Fly", he just can't sustain a whole movie by himself. Sam Neill's character, on the other hand, is the right choice to go against a deadly pack of super-intelligent Velociraptors, the always lethal T-Rex and a new foe: one nasty Spinosaurus. Also, the flying Pteranodon, absent from the first two movies, finally has a chance to measure itself against the humans. With all these new dinosaurs, the over-the-top special effects, and enough action to go around and not get tiresome for 90 minutes, "Jurassic Park 3" almost surpasses (in my opinion) "The Lost World".
In the extras department, the movie really focuses on the special effects, mainly concerning the creation of the dinosaurs. Nothing new if you have seen the other two movies, but the dinosaur information and the excellent commentary by the SFX crew (including guru Stan Winston) will make it worth your while. The video and sound quality are top of the line, but that's almost a usual treat coming from Universal Studios releases.
Now, don't go looking for something too smart here. "Jurassic Park 3" is all about the fun, and the less cerebral you are, the better. I mean, sure, the plot is holey and some sequences are a bit corny (it's hard not to laugh when young Eric appears in his jungle camouflage outfit, or when Dr. Grant uses the world's weirdest harmonica to "charm" the raptors), but with an effective mix of action, humor and eye candy, "Jurassic Park 3" is just enough to prove that sequels aren't necessarily bad, as long as you keep it exciting.
73 A disgrace to Jurassic Park and the Lost World.
You know what? Despite the flaws the Lost World may have had, it•À?s still a much better movie than this disgrace to filmmaking. Nothing, and I mean nothing in this movie works as well as the first two Jurassic Park film. The acting is down right laughable, and the story itself is nothing but a cruel joke. The movie really has nothing to do with Jurassic Park at all, because the plot lines address in those films is not even mention in this movie. The special effects are even not up to par, and judging by the way this movie was shot in the first place, it•À?s clear that the people in charge of this train wreck did not even care if this movie was any good at all.
I can safely say that not only did this movie disappointed the fans in record numbers, but makes them fear on how bad the next movie will be.
74 Not as bad as you've heard...
Although "the Lost World" raked in mad dough at the box office, people walked out of the theater disgruntled and dissatisfied. I can't say I'm one of the many people who hated it, but even when taking into consideration the fact that it's a sub-par sequel to one of my favorite movies, it lacked the wonder and intense edge-of-your-seat excitement the first one had. "Jurassic Park III" came out four years later and did pretty respectable in theaters, which proves that filmgoers still care and aren't fed up with the franchise. I went to see it and was pretty suprised at how much I liked it.
Although campy at times, it recaptures the spirit of the first one. It moves along with a brisk pace and the action rarely let up. Sure, it's a little predictable, but it has some genuinely great things going for it such as the T-Rex/Spinosaurus rumble, the Pteranadon sequence and the visually amazing landscapes. Bringing Sam Neill back was also a good idea. It was an almost nostalgic experience to see him interact with dinosaurs again.
I think Joe Johnston was an ideal choice to direct the third movie in the trilogy. Some people say that perhaps Spielberg would have been a better person to helm the project, but I disagree; while watching "the Lost World," you sense that Spielberg didn't really have the heart anymore for this type of film after making "Schindler's List" 3 years earlier. He wanted Johnston to direct it and, to be honest, I don't think he could have made a better choice. He brings a certain energy to the film, which is to be expected since he's been wanting to do a JP movie for years. He didn't flip this movie around and turn it into a solid masterpiece, but he did his job flawlessly by giving us a 90 minute roller coaster ride of summer fun.
A movie like "Jurassic Park III" isn't going to delve beneath the surface of the human psyche and give us all the answers to the questions of the universe. It's simply a fun movie. Don't be a prude and pick it apart. Don't revel at the things that don't work in the movie; revel at the things that DO work and get set for an hour and a half of excitement.
75 Not a walk in the park
What made Jurassic Park 1 a big hit was its brilliant presentation of the author's ideas on genetic engineering, chaos theory, fascination for dinosaurs and use of CG generated scenes that amazed Jurassic Park fans around the world.
Sadly the Jurassic Park 3 lacked all of the above. The storyline was cheesy at best. Dr. Grant accompanying a couple on a flyby over Isla Sorna which later turns out to be a rescue mission for their lost son. Improved graphics, new dinosaurs and more action. But that's basically it.
But the movie is still fun to watch. It's fast paced with lot of great action scenes. Suspense wasn't lacking and the special effects as usual were top notch. It's a fun roller coaster ride with all the thrills and stuff. But then that's basically just it: a roller coster ride.
76 You must be kidding me?
This was horrible. Every thing in this miserable film is a one mistake after an another. From the acting to the film score, it's all just plain awful. I'm a big fan of the series, and I'm willing to forgive certain things but this is unforgivable, and it should not be tolerated. The way to teach these people from making another Bad Sequel is to not pay to see the next one, because if this is the way they are going to treat the fans of this series then there is no need to help them to make money off of it.
77 Too dumb form words
It is always fun to see dinosaurs eat people. I like the chase scenes and the "stay in the car" scenes. Even the consumption of a satellite phone can be fun. But you can only dumb things down so much before losing any plausibility. In a mediocre movie you root for the creature to eat the dumb person that walks up to it and says, "Aren't you just the cutest thing?" In this one the characters are not worth eating. The story line and execution are so incredible that it does not matter that there are transparent to the viewer form the start. They should have went ahead and made it campy.
Basic story is paleontologist would not set foot on island of ancient creatures. Mysterious couple with lots of cash just wants him to point out the highlights from the air (yeah sure).
One item in the plus is Sam Neil has more than one expression.
78 And some of you can gripe about The Lost World?!
I hate this movie with a passion. The only reason I bought it was to fill my trilogy box. If I made a list of the most disapointing movies of all time, Jurassic Park 3 would be NUMBER 1! Now I cannot say it is the worst movie of all time, being a Mystery Science Theater 3000 fan, but to me Jurassic Park has a very, very special place inside of me. The Lost World was also a big disapointment, but nothing compared to the likes of Jurassic Park 3. I wanted to hurt Joe Johnston. He hurt me. And I want him to know it! The recipe for JP3 is, first you get a big role of film. [] mix it with bad dialoge, take it out, let it bake for 3 minutes, then throw away the script, get good actors, and make them look bad, let it sit in the garbage for three days, add the [bad] director, and there you have it. Jurassic Park 3, see it, hate it, buy the DVD. As much as I like Speilberg, I think this was more of a get-money scheme!
79 The best "Jurassic Park" movie!
I got this DVD for Christmas, and I liked it. I think it's by far better than any of the other Jurassic Park movies. The raptors are better than ever. They are always good, but, in this movie they were the best. The plot could have been better and longer. But, this movie sure is worth your money!
80 Jurassic Park III is no Dinosaur.
Usually when a film series hits the third sequel, it has all ready run out of steam and becomes a parody of itself. JURASSIC PARK III does not run into that problem and it even surpasses the second film on all accounts. The big factor is that a new dinosaur has dethroned T-Rex as the new king predator(Spinosaurus), and that the Raptors are given even more intelligence(compared to that of Dolphins to the point of having communicative skills) than what was shown in the original movie. The only complaint is that T-Rex loses to Spinosaurus early on in the film. One would think that the filmakers would set up a confrontation between the two early on, then have a showdown near the end. Also, we find out that Ellie and Dr. Grant from the first JURASSIC PARK (Laura Dern and Sam Neill) are no longer married, but still have a loving, respected, and professional relationship. With that aside, the film pace moves briskly as characters are killed off by the dinosaurs early on such as Cooper (John Diehl-Miami Vice, DC Cab) and Udesky (Micheal Jeter - The Green Mile). The very reliable and likable Sam Neill reprises his role as Dr. Grant again (a role he is so perfect for), and is joined by another reliable and likable actor, William H. Macy (Fargo, Mystery Men), and Tea Leoni. Also, in the mix, a pre-teen character played by Trevor Morgan who plays the son of Macy and Leoni. The character is very refreshing because the filmakers make him smart, self reliant, and caring, instead of a rehash of smart alecky, mean-spirited, young teens we see in so many films these days. Overall, a great piece of entertainment with CGI that is so breathtaking and seamless, that one would think that dinosaurs still exist today.
81 I liked the movie
This was a good movie to me. This is an example when you have to see for yourself instead of relying on critics to "advice" you.
82 You've got to be kidding me!!
I can't even begin to explain how disappointed I am of the third installment in the Jurassic Park series. Everything about JP3 is so disappointing. This may sound like this is coming from someone who had high hopes for JP3 but actually NO, I had low expectations for it but to my shock & dismay, this movie missed meeting those by a mile. Bloody Hell, I had better expectations with Rocky & Bullwinkle back in 2000 and at least a few of them were met even though that was [...] can fodder.
The entire plot is so ridiculous. The thing begins with someone who gets lost on an island after a skydiving accident, one dies, and it all just simply goes downhill after that. Sam Niell who did such a great job on the playing Dr. Alan Grant in the 1993 original Jurassic Park movie, does such a clumsy job on playing the character, almost as if he were forced into the acting studio against his will. I couldn't have thought of a much worse acting crew either. I can't blame him for the hollow character acting. The others fell completely through the trampoline with absolutely absurd character playing, and absolutely pointless plots, no sense of chemistry, and little, if any sense of writing was put into the plot. Where there was chemistry in the characters in the first movie, there is none of that in the same ppl in this third installment, and instead are those that seem to have the brains of a raisin.
There are some occasional good moments with the plane crash scene being well filmed and a sense of intensity of them trying to get out in time but overall, even that doesn't put any merits into the film. Neither does the awesome, stunning views of the misty valleys, rainforests, and the mountains, even though they're great too look at. In fact, the landscape felt like the most interesting thing in the movie besides T. Rex.
Overall in fact, Jurassic Park III feels more like a scrapped version of the first in the JP trilogy as at least in the Lost World, there was some ground being broken as T. Rex got onto the mainland, but here, it's all confined to the small island of Isle Sorna with the same old, same old, script that felt more like it was taken out of the recycle bin and made into a movie without depth put into it. There is nothing groundbreaking nor anything that got me into a state of excitement or thrills. The ending was just plain laughable with a sense of the lack a climax and unfinished filming. When I left the theatre in bitter disappointment, I felt like I had flushed [$$$], and 90 minutes of my life down the toilet!
I have no idea of what they were thinking when they made this film but what I can say is if it was the same person who write the original one in 1993, Jurassic Park III is his first complete misfire. This addition to the trilogy was a total disappointment. I'm not pleased!
83 How about 0 stars???
Oh my god! This can't be happening! This is by far one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. Let's look at why:
1. The story- unbelievably pathetic. Sure, I understand why 2 worried parents go on the island to find their lost annoying son, but the way they all get out of the mess is so STUPID it made me wanna scream! I mean, a CELL PHONE!!?? How can a cell phone possibly get any reception on a deserted island full of dinosaurs?? Oh save the phone, it's our only hope! gag!!!
2. The characters- Sam Niell looked through the entire movie as if he wanted nothing to do with it, and I can't blame him! After an amazing performance by all of his costars and him in the original, he's now teamed up with a group of the dumbest, whiniest people on the planet. They were all just SO STUPID! Not to mention the horrible acting! I mean, it did have a couple of decent big names, like Tea Leoni and William H. Macy, but even they didn't seem to look as if they were trying
3. The Dinosaurs- the whole thing was amazing in the first, and still cool in the second, but by this time everything just got really old, and the writers trying to come up with something new like "thinking dinasaurs" was like something they pulled out of their [rear-ends] after a 5 minute meeting.
4. The Ending- Oh my god! The end of this movie is like an angry Jack in the Box, it comes out of nowhere and slaps you right in the face saying "get out of here! We're done trying to entertain you!"
Who wrote this movie??? I'd like to get a piece of that guy!...The last 2 Jurassic parks were at least 2 hours long, this one had a running time of about 1:30 min, blatently showing us there really was no script at all in this rushjob paycheck of a movie.
84 Jurassic Park III - Getting Jurassic
When "Jurassic Park" was released in 1993 it became very, very popular all around the world. It made over $900m worldwide and was a top video seller. Yet people still couldn't get enough of the Jurassic Park franchise. In 1997 when the sequal "Jurassic Park: The Lost World was released it became the biggest opening weekend of all time, making over $70m in 1997. But unfortunately it didn't make as much money as the original, in fact it made more than $300m less! The reason for this could be that if you've seen it once, you've seen it a thousand times.
The first two films were original and had a very well thought out genre. When JP3 (Jurassic Park III) was released I went to go see it. Not alot of people were in the cinema! It seemed like no one was interested. But I was loyal and decided to see it. The beginning was not so great and it didn't give me the FEEL that the first and second film gave me, if you know what I mean.
The first two were exciting, scary and adventurous. Its true that Steven Spielberg did not direct this film, but was only the executive producer. I strongly feel that if Steven Spielberg instead of Joe Johnston directed the film it would of been a much more successful film. The film made over $180m domestically and over $350 worldwide. I know that Jurassic Park 4 will be released in 2005 by director Steven Spielberg and I'm sure it will surpass the original by the work of Steven Spielberg because he is the only one that can bring the JP genre back to the top of the charts.
JP3 starts off a little dingy but gets a little better during the plane crash and while they're stranded on the island. The new spinasaur dinosaur that they have designed is also a huge improvement. The filosoraptors have also been dramatically improved. I wonder why Same Niel was not included in the 2nd film and why Jeff Goldblum wasn't included in the 3rd film.
It is clear that JP4 will be much more successful with both actors in it. Maybe also add Sarah Michelle Gellar, she's got the moves, acting ability and look. The two children from the orginal film should also hopefully star in Jurassic Park 4. I cannot guarantee that you as an individual will enjoy this film. It still has lots of action and fun, but was unfortunately much shorter than the previous two films. In my opinion I suggest that you rent or buy this film over any new releases if you are a Jurassic Park fan!
85 Jurasic Park... Again???
The dinosaur theme is over...
I'm all for "cash cows" but come on...
86 Good, But the Earlier Films of the Series are Better
"Jurassic Park III" is a good continuation of the Jurassic Park Series. The film centers around a divorced couple played by William H. Macy and Tea Leoni. Their son has been lost on Ilsa Sorna, In Gen's site B. Their son was involved in a parasailing accident and landed on the island. Sam Neill reprises his role as palentologist Dr. Alan Grant. He believes that he will merely be serving as a guide for the couple while the fly over the island, but Macy and Leoni have other ideas. They portray themselves as rich adventurers while convincing Dr. Grant that they will make a large (and phony) donation to his archaeological society for his services.
However, unknown to Dr. Grant, the couple plans to actually land on Ilsa Sorna. This is where the action and adventure begins. Almost immediately, the group encounters a huge dinosaur, the spinosaurus, who makes the T-Rex from the earlier films look like a mouse. In fact, spinosaurus enjoys eating the T-Rex for dinner. The group tries desperately to avoid the menacing dinosaurs, find the couple's son, and somehow escape from the island. The dinosaur scenes are eye-popping, especially the flying pteranodons. The airplane crash sequences are well-done, too.
I was a little disappointed in the ending. It seemed to me that the producers of the film were just trying to hurry and finish the movie, so it was a little abrupt. Overall, I thought this was a good movie. The dinosaurs are bigger and scarier in this movie, and the action scenes are top notch. I still enjoyed the original Jurassic Park and The Lost World a little more, though, because they were longer (JP III was only 90 minutes), and the endings were not as rushed. I do recommend this movie. It flows well with the earlier films of the series.
87 where's speilberg?
An attempt to continue one of the most original film-series of all time.with an iffy beginning, the movie never gets much better. however there are some great special effects (of course) and some quite admorable actors. but in all its a science project that had no spine, a bad mix of storylines, a lack of the jurassic park engineer in steven speilberg, and coaded with some named actors that had no material to work with all in a sour broth of humanitairian ideals. it goes off-track from the series and being a lover of the first film, i was utterly disapointed with its 3rd counterpart. 3 out of 5 which was generous.
88 BETTER THAN THE FIRST AND THE SECOND !
This is a really hillarious movie.The combination of animatronics and CGI made the those dinosaurs like real and surround sound was terrificly mixed.DVD features were also adequate and gives the viewer and indepth view of how they actually done it.But the movie was a little bit shorter than you expect-a mere 81 min-.
89 Dinosaurus Magnifico!
The main reason I like the Jurassic Park movies is because I like dinosaurs. I don't expect much from the story line/plot because the whole purpose of the movies is to show how dangerous dinosaurs would be if they were alive today. So, leave your critical thoughts about plot/story line and watch this movie to see dinosaurs run, fight, chase people, eat people, try to out-think people, etc. Several new dinosaurs are introduced--one of which is bigger and "badder" than t-rex. An interesting addition is a prop that saves everyones' lives in a direct confrontation with a group of raptors. As the people run from one dinosaur feeding frenzy to another, one can't help but admire the single-minded ferocity of the dinosaurs even as one thinks how silly that some people just scream and scream and never do anything constructive when faced with death. The interest in this film is wondering which dinosaur is going to jump the group next, and the film doesn't disappoint as one dinosaur after another attempts to destroy the group of people invading the dinosaurs' habitat. If you wonder why anyone would return to such a dangerous locale, the film does provide strong motivation for these people to be on the island. If you like to see dinosaurs in action and don't mind everyone except the main characters getting eaten, then you will enjoy this dinosaur-celebrating movie.
90 The curse of sequels
We are yet on another trip to Jurassic Park. This time, a couple is searching for a boy that is lost on the island. Allan Grant (Sam Neill) is hired as a dinosaur expert. On the island, there are new dinosaurs. Why can't they stop making Jurassic Park movies?
91 this movie is cool
this movie is awsome because it has cool new dinosaurs and also the sound effects are cool.
92 "No force on Earth or Heaven could get me on that island..."
Except for maybe another fat paycheck, right? That's about all I can figure for why a fine actor like Sam Neill returned to this fast-dying franchise for another go-around. Now the 'Jurassic Park' movies in general require you to take on an enormous amount of disbelief, but even knowing this, this is an ugly, and pretty bad movie. The original 'Jurassic Park' was a bona fide popcorn classic that I saw upwards of five or six times in the theater. When the sequel 'The Lost World - Jurassic Park Part II' rolled around it was already starting to feel like the thrills were cheap and the cheese was being laid on a little thick, especially the ridiculous final quarter when it went stateside. However, when I saw the trailer for this one, I was admittedly somewhat looking forward to it.
Now I and every other film buff should know by now that when a franchise is going on for a third chance, that you can't expect much from it, especially a thriller like this, that is, in some sense of the phrase, a natural disaster movie. I mean how many times can these humans go back to this island, watch their friends get mauled and eaten, just BARELY escape themselves, and still, STILL have an inkling to go back. Of course, you can't really blame Dr. Grant in this one, because he was kind of forced into the situation here, and William H. Macy and Tea Leoni just wanted their son back, but all the rest of 'em, good God, what're they thinking?
You can always tell who's going to become dinosaur food in these movies, because there's always a few characters thrown into the mix that don't seem to have any purpose at all, or that are as weakly-developed as you can possibly imagine, but in this one, it seemed everyone was expendable really. I mean, I didn't care about any of them, except for Dr. Grant, and I almost wished he would die just to put him out of his misery. Even the special effects in this one, handled once again by ILM, are weak and so obviously phony that the thrills are more laughable than anything. To break it down for you, there was just too much cheese in this movie for me to stomach. I'd say it definitely supports dairy.
I give 'Jurassic Park III' two stars for Sam Neill's performance, and for the sequence in the bird's nest, where the pterodactyls were pecking at the kid. Pretty sad, huh? One good thing I can say is that the movie was only about 89 minutes long compared to the two hours-plus that the others were. The producers and screen writers must know that the material is getting stale. I hope they don't make any more of these movies.
93 WHAT HAPPENED?!!
Okay, I admit that the very first "Jurassic Park" film was thrilling and exciting at the same time. "Jurrasic Park 2: The Lost World" was even better, and the special FX were TIGHT
at some scenes.(check out the scene where the guy gets ripped in half by the T-rex's).
Both movies were creative and action-packed, with a storyline that almost seemed convincing as if dinosaurs actually could be ressurected! Now, the 3rd-installment to the series starts to go downhill from the first two.
For one, the story got a bit weak here which made it seem kinda dull and boring. (a kid who get's stranded on an island? Been done already.)Second, there's barely as much action as part 1 & 2, making this one possibly the shortest in the whole series?? MAYBE.
I myself personally, enjoyed "Lost World" the most. (although the first is VERY good). But when they were going to continue with "Jurassic Park III" I was honestly excited for it's release. (not as much as "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" though, which was also a failure.)
However, when I finally had the chance to see the film in theatres, MAN WAS I DISSAPOINTED. Sorry to say, but the plot to this sequel has got to be the weakest out of the
JP-trilogy. They could have made it longer too. Take my advice and skip this one. See "The Lost World" and/or "Jurassic Park" (the original) which is twice as better than this disgrace to the saga.
94 Special Effects were wonderful, story a little far-fetched.
The special effects in this movie were excellent considering Spielberg opted out on this one. The first movie made you think that it could really happen. The second was still believable to an extent. The third movie's storyline had a lot of holes in it. It was really hard for me to believe that even an extremely intelligent pre-teen boy would be able to survive on an island of dinosaurs for several weeks on his own. However, the movie did offer some pretty good action scenes and the special effects were pretty cool.
95 Following the same pattern as the Jaws movies.
The comparisons are right there. Every Jaws film was worse than the other, and The Jurassic Park series is going through the same pattern. Here is an example:
1 A) The Original Jaws: Landmark Film That set the bar in suspends, and sheer thrills. Directed By Steven Spielberg.
B) The Original Jurassic Park: Landmark Film That revolutionizes special effects, and combined them superbly with suspends, thrills, and heart. Also Directed By Steven Spielberg.
2 A) Jaws 2: A sequel That does not equal the original but manages to keep up the suspends and thrills. This was directed by Jeannot Szwarc, who does not have the flare of Steven Spielberg but manages to keep up the pace set forth by the original.
B) The Lost World, Jurassic Park: A sequel that does not equal the original but manages to surpass it in the special effects department. Steven Spielberg directed this, and this is the first time he directed a sequel to one of his original movies. Although It does not come close to the magic of the original, it does retain the superb combination of Suspends, thrills, and heart.
3 A) Jaws 3 (also known as Jaws 3D): A bad cash in that is more of a gimmick that an actual movie. The gimmick in question is the rendering of 3D images over bad shark effects that tries to cover up the fact that the story is preposterous, and the acting is outrageously bad. This was Directed by Joe Alves, who proves with out a doubt that anyone with a camera can be a director, but talent is giving to a few.
B) Jurassic Park 3: A bad cash In that is more of a gimmick that an actual movie. The gimmicks in question are the discovery of a new dinosaur called the Spinosauris that was hiding from the other films of the series and the evolution of talking raptors. All this and a very short running was clear attempt to cover up the fact that there was really no story to be told, and the fact that acting is so glaringly bad gives a real indication of actors just trying to collect a check. Not even The special effects are up to expectation, and that shocking because it came from the same man who did the others movies in the series. This was directed By Joe Johnson Who previous outings includes Honey I Shrunk the kids and Jumangi were mediocre at best. (Word Of advice, Never Give over a franchise To a man name Joe)
I don't know about Jurassic Park 4 but if the pattern holds we will all see another Jaws The Revenge. If that happens then The Jurassic Park series is truly dead.
96 A very goo conclusion to an amazing series.
Jurassic Park 3 is a fine conclusion to one of my favorite series. Sam Neil is back as Alan Grant in this action packed adventure. This may not have the best story, it isn't mind twising genetics but is very well done. The visuals are jaw dropping and the acting is great. This is bette than the lost World although not better than the original.
Grade A
~Dan~
97 Surprisingly the second best of the three
I was disappointed the first time I saw this picture. But that was at a drive in, where the picture quality was not great. Plus the plot was paper thin: Airplane crashes into dinosaur island, people try to get off dinosaur island.
But after getting it on video, I changed my mind a bit. Yes, the plot is still just a vehicle for showing off the special effects. And they brought in some of the actors from the original, who must have been it strictly for the paycheck, as a way to keep the audience interested. And I'm sure Steven Spielberg's role as producer consisted of a few long-distance phone book.
But I have to admit, it did hook me. And I even like it better than the Part II. The reason is that I didn't care for many of the characters in Part II. Out of all the people to bring over from Part 1, Malcom was one of the least I was interested in. so while they were in it for the paycheck, I at least had a bit of care left from Part 1.
But center stage has to be kept for the effects themselves. You not only get a lot more minutes than the first film, but there has been an improvement in the quality. When we see the pteradactyl coming out of the fog for the first time, it's truly creepy. And it's also a film that keeps the kids interested.
98 ...
Jurassic Park, it is one of the greatest sci-fi/thriller ever. This one isn't the best of the three(it's probably the second best in my opinion. It is much different from the other two though. the storyline is totally different from the other two. The special effects are wonderful! The story isn't as complex as the others. i would reccomend this.
99 What Were They Thinking?
JURRASICK PARK III is a movie that I remember asking myself - did Sam Neil (Merlin, Bicentennial Man, Event Horizon) read the script before doing this? Yes it's got state-of the-art CG (Computer Graphics) dinosaurs and incredible integration of live-action, animation and animatronics but it didn't have the most important element, a story. Sam does an incredible acting performance as the `Dinosaur Man', but even he can't save this one. And now I know why Spielberg just produced this one.
The premise is very simple, two, not-to-intelligent people hang glide near the Isle's of Prehistoric land and one happens to be a very resilient child played by Trevor Morgan (The 6th Sense, The Patriot, The Rookie). Of course the two divorced parents played by Tia Leoni (The Family Man, Deep Impact, Hollywood Ending) and William H. Macy (Pleasantville, Boogie Nights, Air Force One) convince Sam Neil and young and impulsive scientist played by Alessandro Nivola (Inventing The Abbots, Love's Labor Lost, Carolina) to come along and the rest is completely predictable. The new twist is that the Raptors now communicate with each other and plan and plot. All they needed were suits and ties and they would lawyers. There were several eat-away characters (people that you don't know as talent that end up being Dinosaur lunch) that didn't stand out except the limited comic relief of the talent of Michael Jeter (The Green Mile, Patch Adams, Mouse Hunt ).
This one was directed by Joe Johnston (The Rocketeer, October Sky, Jumanji ) and it seems he went for the predictable sure camera style in giving us the threat of danger and it seemed the performances might have been pushed and more formula then natural and developed.
Technically the film is sharp and interesting to look at, but it reality it is a slow moving and typically cheats with camera moves and jump scares in very obvious places. Overall the young crowd will like the dinosaur attacks and actions but the adults, like me might yawn a little. (9-9-02)
100 Ah well. At least we still have the first 2.
The end of the Lost World (a sequel 5 years after the original, most of us forget), a majestic mix of new and already seen dinosaurs move around in their natural habitat, leaving the story successfully finished with most of the loose ends tied up. We've had lots of monsters, lots of good lines, time to go home.
But no. Hollywood won't let an idea die if there's money in it, and the first Jurassic
