IMDb > Jurassic Park III (2001) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Jurassic Park III
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Jurassic Park III More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 123:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 1225 reviews in total 

182 out of 310 people found the following review useful:

Much Better Than Its Reputation; Short & Fun

Author: ccthemovieman-1 from United States
15 May 2006

First of all, this final episode in the Jurassic series did not deserve all the bad reviews it got when it was released. In fact, it was a lot more enjoyable than the stupid second JP. Did it equal the first? No, of course not. The original story was easily the best of the three, but I found this an enjoyable movie and far better than what I had been led to believe.

The filmmakers were smart in making this a short film. People had seen plenty of the dinosaurs by now so let's no overdo it...and they didn't with an film just under an hour-and-a-half (not including the final credits.).

That made this short-and-sweet. We saw some new reptiles, had a few scares, enjoyed the beautiful jungle scenery (filmed in Hawaii) and - bang - it's over. The characters were fine, nobody totally annoying as in the second film. The lulls featured a family getting back together and finding their missing teen. Nothing wrong with that.

A good story unfairly maligned and nice, short evening of entertainment.

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

Eminently Forgettable

Author: Rick Blaine from London
15 June 2005

Why did Sam Neill return to the beasts? Why did Spielberg? Schindler's List: The Return would make more sense. Sly Stallone has nothing on this bazillionaire.

And perhaps worst of all is the totally unimportant score of Williams. Williams can write the occasional catchy tune, especially if it's supposed to be in the spirit of that great soul and blues man John Philip Sousa, but ask him to write incidental or a love theme and you go turkey. In fact it's a good guess that Star Wars I and II foundered as bad as they did because the score enhanced this empty stilted feeling.

If one thing remains - even subliminally - after JP3 it's the totally spiritless and uninspired score. Why the rest of that crew - Sam what were you thinking - would return to the big bugs is beyond comprehension.

Rent Rocky XXXIV instead.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

Not as good as the previous JP's.

Author: Ashley Whitear Kam-Bo from Southampton, England
11 June 2003

Jurassic Park 3 was a shorter and less entertaining of the three. I thought this sequel might be good because JP2 was good but I was wrong! I have picked some notes while watching this movie. Usually Jurassic Park films are 2 hours long, this one is some 40 minutes less! and does not quite contain the same fun and horror it did on previous jp's. DR. Grant returns which is a suprise. It didn't have it's entertaining parts though i must admit. JP3 had amazing special effects, most probably the best out of the three. I have heard that Jurassic Park 4 will be released in 2004. Should I say this one will be a bad sequel as well?

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

Why not go all the way

Author: adam ferguson from Penrith
24 July 2001

I went to see JP3 last night to vet it before I take my 6 year old daughter. She is desperate to see it having seen JP and the Lost world and generally loving dinosaurs. I am a great movie fan so have my own opinions on the film but first I'll address the suitability of this movie for young viewers. The original film and Lost World are true 'family movies' containing elements for everyone - decent story, good acting, great (groundbreaking) effects and humour etc. There's nothing wrong with kids being scared periodically, being scared is part of the whole monster movie experience. All that said, JP3 is too 'full on' for one as young as 6 and I think I'll try to get her to wait for DVD, to tone down the whole experience. She saw the first two at home and wont be expecting the sheer sound and visuals of this movie at the cinema. I would advise other parents the same, at least with kids this young.

As for my opinion of the film - well, we've seen it all before. I've read many comments and agree with most. Its lame storyline is its down fall and this could've been so much better. In my opinion a far better film would have carried a 15 certificate at least. One they could have made for adults only, and really explored new territory and therefore could not be compared to the previous two. A huge audience loves scary films and monster movies so why not go for it with a proper modern day horror. Throw in a good conspiracy theory plot about INGEN and some realistic profanity and gut wrenching effects. In short give people what they really want. JP3 does niether for either age group.

For your children, I reccommend the BBC's series 'Walking with Dinosaurs' it's informative and has near the same quality of effects.

See for yourself.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 23 people found the following review useful:


Author: DrTsaks from Milwaukee, Wisconsin
15 July 2001

JP1 was pretty good, JP2 was decent, and JP3 continues the horrific trend, producing a large pile of t-rex fecies. This movie was incredibly boring, unrealisitc, and just all around terrible. There is no scientific angle to it whatsoever. It is just stupid people running from dinosaurs. The only good thing about it is that it is only 90 minutes long, and I am no longer scared of dinosaurs. In fact, I find them funny. If you have insomnia and are looking for something to put you to sleep, I highly recomend this movie. 3/10

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Far-fetched and ridiculous.

Author: Filipe Neto from Portugal
5 September 2015

Its the third film of the "Jurassic Park" saga and tells the return of Alan Grant to Isla Sorna, of the second film, and that Alan never have thought to visit again in his life. He eventually returns, convinced by a couple who hides her true intent with that trip: to rescue a child who was lost on the island.

Its the only film in this franchise that has not been directed by Steven Spielberg, one noted and notable absence throughout the film, which reveals itself, scene after scene, increasingly far-fetched and unbelievable, to the point of becoming absolutely ridiculous and we almost wish all end up devoured by dinosaurs. The director, Joe Johnston, proved that he only serves to direct comedies (is the director of "Jumanji" and "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids"). The script is a shame and looks more like a parody of Spielberg's movies than something that we should take seriously. The characters are totally improbable, and who saw the first movies will never believe that a child can survive with such dangerous animals more than two or three days. The only positive note is the performance of Sam Neill, lending talent to a film that should have been lost in the bowels of the dinosaurs he portrays before coming to our homes.

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Were the filmmakers high when they made this terrible film?

Author: samsamsontim from United States
20 July 2015

Awful follow up to the first two Steven Spielberg dinosaur epics finds Sam Neill anchoring a brainless, exploitative and almost unwatchable monster movie that lacks the intelligence, fun and brains that made the first two Spielberg films memorable. The special effects look like a major down grade from the last two films and the dinosaurs look more like mechanical puppets. Sam Neill is a very good actor but not even he could mask the contempt he has on his face for staring in this film. Sam did not look like he wanted to be there and his performance reflexes that in spades. The story makes no sense and the actions by the characters are so far out there that you are screaming in disbelieve on how stupid they are. William H Macy is a great actor and even he looks miserable being in this film. Macy in his credit is actually somewhat funny but not much else. Tea Leoni, who can be a very decent actor is just horrid here and Alessandro Nivola gives a useless performance and he's a good indie actor.

I don't know what made the filmmakers here to go low rent but its the worst sequel in the series.

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Oh my god what a load of crap!

Author: pirozistehnizzl from Sweden
6 September 2007

This movie has just one to many mistakes, they clearly did this movie with only one thing in mind to make money and fast! I can't believe that a director can suck that much. I mean the effect where okay but the plot and casting sucked, not that they are bad actors but they just did not fit in this movie. I will keep this short and leave it by saying if i could i would call up the director and say what where you thinking, are you that bad or did you just sell your soul?

I give this movie 2/10

The 2 points are for the special effects but what good does that make when your sitting there irritated by all the unnecessary mistakes?

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Jurassic Porn

Author: Eric Jorgenson
26 July 2005

This movie reminded me a lot like a basic porn movie. It was short when compared to the first two Jurassic Park movies; only 90 minutes long like most sex flicks. There was basically no plot, no character development, and no Jeff Goldblum. It really reminded me of a porno, because the characters would talk alittle bit, and then get chased by dinosaurs for a long extended period of time. Now, if you just replace the aspect of getting chased by dinosaurs with some hot guy/girl, girl/girl, guy/guy, guy/gerbil, or dino/dino sex action; then you basically have the same movie. This movie is terrible compared to the first JP, and bad when measured up to the sequel. Now JP2 was no masterpiece either, but I will take very cheesy T-Rex smashing through San Diego any day, before hearing that damn cell phone go off again. Am so glad that JP4 is currently titled "The Extinction", because after this installment this franchise needs a nice big fat Hailey's comet to smash right into it leaving every dinosaur/character dead expect Jeff Goldblum. Goldblum is the man!!!! Anyway, you will get some entertainment value from the dinosaurs, but don't except much. Just turn off your brain, and enjoy a semi fun ride which includes getting chase by dinosaurs, getting chased by flying dinosaurs, getting chased by more dinosaurs, and yea thats about it. I should have probably have given this movie at least a five, for its effort; but the ending was so stupid and abrupt that I had to dock it a point. Its worth one viewing, and one viewing only.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

Has it's heart in the right place but it's with a doubt the weakest entry in the series.

Author: midnighttheater from NYkid
8 July 2015

It's hard to really put this movie down cause despite it's problems and there is many, it has it's heart in the right place. The aim I guess that the people behind the scenes were aiming for was a family movie with a bit of suspends and while there is a family movie to be had here, it also tries to be a Jurassic Park film and unfortunately it fails as both to a degree.

It fails as a family movie cause the script is not strong enough to support the story. Despite the venom thrown at William H Macy and especially Tea Leoni, both are very appealing actors and they do work hard to make it all work but the script just handicap their efforts to make it possible. It fails as a Jurassic Park film cause it lacks the tension, suspense and the story points that made the first two films in the series ( Jurassic Park And The Lost World) so well made and memorable. Not to mention the fact that they felt like fully formed movies with a beginning, middle and end. Jurassic Park 3 just feels like a Saturday morning serial. Not bad but nothing like the other films in the series. There is one scene in the film that almost manages to bring a little tension which is the bird cage scene but even that ends up flat compared to any of the scenes in the other films of the series. The other major problem is the fact that While Sam Neill works his ass off to make this film watchable, the script does the most disservice to the character of Alan Grant, whose happy ending from the original Jurassic Park was not only ruined thanks to this movie but has his character dumb down in order to fall for the dumb stuff that happens in this film. Despite all of this, Sam Neill is working overtime to make you care. Too bad the script did not.

As I said before, it has a lot of heart thanks to it's actors but thanks to a bad script, Jurassic Park 3 is with out a doubt the weakest entry in the series.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 123:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history