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

Reviews & Ratings for
Jurassic Park III More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 125:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 1247 reviews in total 

205 out of 340 people found the following review useful:

Much Better Than Its Reputation; Short & Fun

8/10
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?

26 out of 35 people found the following review useful:

Jurassic Porn

4/10
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?

22 out of 28 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?

26 out of 36 people found the following review useful:

Were the filmmakers high when they made this terrible film?

1/10
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 27 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?

21 out of 27 people found the following review useful:

JP3 Lacks Originality

1/10
Author: awfmail
25 September 2003



Jurassic Park III is an example of an excuse to make a Jurassic Park film for money without any thought or care in the development of the plot.The original Jurassic Park had originality, it had a LOT of interesting SCIENCE fiction elements incorporated into it. The next JP film needs more SCIENCE in it to support its fictional elements; this was the genious of the original JP, and it is what gave the film credibility. Michael Crichton is a genious, but the writers of JP3 could not write their way out of a paper bag. Some of those lines made me flinch they were so bad (i.e., "I dare them [pterodayctls] to nest in Enid, Oklahoma"). The worst part of JP3: William Macy. Macy deserves an academy award for the most number of stupid faces made by an actor in 90 minutes. As Malcom would say about Jurassic Park III: "They packaged it, slapped a [Universal] seal on it, and now they want to sell it, they want to sell it!" I was a HUGE fan of the original JP films, and I watched the original JP mutiple times. I would like to see a JP4 with a REAL plot on a HIGHER intellectual level.

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 27 people found the following review useful:

"Two's company, three's a crowd." J.P. 3 doesn't compare to the first two.

1/10
Author: Jacki-chan
28 July 2001

Jurassic park. The name alone strikes images of people, running and screaming--bleeding and sweating--from huge, ugly, fast, vicious DINOSAURS. Oh, joy. Now, don't get me wrong, I liked the first two movies alright, but I mean, come ON, people! It's like the old saying, "Two's company, three's a crowd." In my opinion, this has gone overboard. There are some good aspects, but the bad tend to overthrow the good, in this case. For example, the graphics were 'a little bit of alright', but they didn't show enough dinosaurs besides the T-rex and the Raptors, so what's the point? Or, that some parts were great, and made you jump out of your seat, but there was NO PLOT! "There they are. Run. Must get off island. There they are again. Run." Doesn't quite cut it in my book! And while the first two had the same underlying plot, they weren't nearly as predictable as this one. I don't understand how people can perfer a movie like this VS....Oh, let's say a masterpiece like "Final Fanatsy." People REALLY need to wake up, 'cause at this point, it's just sad

Was the above review useful to you?

22 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

If you ever want your childhood crushed then just watch this movie

1/10
Author: Connor Gunn from Canada
27 May 2010

I am just going to quote Devindra on the /filmcast and what he said about this movie "Seeing Jurassic Park 3 made me realize how dreams could be shattered"

This just sums up the whole movie. People exaggerate how bad the Phantom Menace is but this movie is impossible to exaggerate how horrible it was. The original Jurassic Park was pure gold, the second was not a good sequel but an OK movie but this movie will rape your childhood up the ass till you cry.

Please no matter how interested you are in returning to Jurassic park...DON'T. This film does not even take place in Jurassic Park and the only thing really connecting it to the original is Sam Neal and that is it.

Was the above review useful to you?

22 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

Oh my god what a load of crap!

1/10
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?

22 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

Makes the American Godzilla remake look like a masterpiece in comparison.

1/10
Author: mikenickky
22 July 2003



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't need Mike and the Bots from MST3K to make fun of it, the movie writes it'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'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's the fans that pay for it in the long run.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 125:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

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