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 1230 reviews in total 

194 out of 323 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?

22 out of 25 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?

22 out of 26 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?

21 out of 26 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 26 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 26 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 25 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?

20 out of 25 people found the following review useful:


Author: veemee78 from colorado
16 July 2006

JPIII is very good at what it tries to do. That is, update the formula used in its prequels to create even more lifelike dinosaurs. Unfortunately, it didn't try to do much of anything else, leaving us with yet another big, dumb, summer action flick... hardly the caliber of the previous films.

Basically, the story goes like this: a rich kid is taken to Costa Rica by his parents to do some para-sailing... and, for some reason, he decides that an island famed for its man-eating dinosaurs would be the best place to do it. Surprise, surprise: Something Goes Wrong, and the kid is stranded on the island. Who do his parents go to for help? Dr. Grant, the paleontologist who happened to get himself involved with dinosaurs before. Rather than telling him the truth upfront, they con him into coming by giving him a big fake check and swearing that they will not touch down on the island. Dr. Grant agrees hesitantly to this condition. But when they get to the island, they touch down anyway, making their plane a prime target for a dinosaur attack. Something Goes Wrong again, and this time, Grant and the kid's parents are stuck as well.

The plot pretty much ends right there, and that's only the first thirty minutes of the movie. The rest of the movie involves people running from and/or getting eaten by dinosaurs. Like I said, it's a big, dumb, action flick. If you're looking for something that even remotely has an air of the old Michael Crichton magic, look to the first two films. Jurassic Park III is the beginning of what will become a reiteration of the Jaws fiasco... endless sequels until one of them sucks so bad, it finds its home in the infamous Bottom 100 list.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Absolutely horrendous...

Author: pete-545 from United States
19 August 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

OK, the second one was bad enough, this takes the cake. Raptors, yes we get fierce creatures of old. Now I'll go a long with the whole preposterous fantasy of bringing dinosaurs to life once again. Whatever it's a movie. This takes nature and tells everyone that it's a horrible place to exist in. Perhaps Michael Crichton had a bad experience camping or at the zoo.

First dinosaurs are mindless killers. Next they're obsessive compulsives with a penchant for human flesh. The people in the movie are approximately the size of baby bunny would be to me. I've seen the island, there's plenty of food. Why are they going to huge lengths to eat these FIVE people? OK so one guys stole some eggs. So the raptors are in search their lost young. Isn't that nice. But these apparently ferocious creatures are scared off by smoke canisters?

And hey when do 14 year olds become commando and crocodile dundee all rolled up into one? A 14 yr old that can survive in a jungle WITH dinosaurs for 8 weeks. Not going to happen. This movie fails in every way imaginable. Indestructible satellite phones (I can barely get my cell phone to work), para military crap everywhere and a narrow way out at the last possible second every single time. Falling 50 feet from atop a crane into water... that's not going to hurt? Oh I forgot, William H Macy is Arnold Schwarzenegger. There's nothing plausible in this movie whatsoever save one thing. it's under 90 minutes.

It's no wonder it stayed wrapped in it's plastic until today. Stay away from this movie. You have been warned.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Dinosaur ca ca 1/2* out of 4

Author: johnnybravo19852000 ( from America
24 July 2004

There is an old saying that a sucker is born every minute and after wasting $5.00 on this garbage proves me a statistic.

Our only returning character from the first is Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neil)who hasn't returned to the island and has no immediate plans to. He and Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern, who blink and you'll miss her) have broken up for reasons unexplained.

As an attempt to structure some kind of story, a couple meets up with Grant to ask for help in rescuing their son who apparently disappeared on the island and in return they promise a big reward. Now lets think about this for a minute. You've stumbled on to someone you've never met before in your life and you have no idea of their finances. Since Grant agrees to risk his life, wouldn't it be wise to collect some of the money upfront as an insurance policy? But with a plot that gets dumber along the way, why bother.

Now the obvious happens. The plane crashes on the island leaving the dumb folks stranded and virtually no way to call for help. A dinosaur attacks them and normally this would be exciting but hey, we already saw this in 1 & 2.

Now for the real fun. The missing boys mom, (Tea Leoni) barely escapes death from a dinosaur but soon after wards is screaming her sons name out at the top of her lungs giving the invite for every dino alive to come and have her for lunch. But there is still 45 minutes left of this slop so of course, nothing happens.

Eventually, Grant finds their son Erik who is really the only interesting character in the movie. He's fairly bright and considering how stupid his parents are, you figure he must have been adopted.

One (and I mean only one) exciting scene are the flying lizards that the group encounters. This sequence works well until one guy is grabbed by a lizard causing him to plunge into the river but only to survive with only a minor bruise. (Some may feel I'm giving something away, but in a movie where everything is so utterly predictable, I doubt I've spoiled it for everyone)

One of the many reasons that the 1st Jurassic Park worked so well is that it was like nothing we had seen before. Wonder kind Steven Spielberg didn't rely on cartoon animation to give us the eye popping effects. Every character was interesting and virtually all the situations were believable. Although the second was missing some of the thrills of discovery, Spielberg made it work.

At only 85 minutes long, Jurassic Park 3 follows the many sequels that shouldn't have been made but it did what it was intended to do; grab a worldwide gross of $365 million and offer nothing in return.

Note: Famous movie critic Roger Ebert gave the horrendous Jaws 4 a no star rating but gave Jurassic Park 3 a thumbs up. I think his other thumb was where the sun doesn't shine when he reviewed it.

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