Reviews & Ratings for
Jurassic Park III More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 117:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

1170 reviews in total

---

136 out of 198 people found the following review useful:
Much Better Than Its Reputation; Short & Fun, 15 May 2006

Author: ccthemovieman-1 from United States

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.

---

96 out of 145 people found the following review useful:
Works on the basis that you don't expect something remotely as fascinating as the original, but still hunger for a shallow 90 minute thrill ride. *** (out of four), 12 August 2001

Author: Blake French (baffilmcritic@cs.com) from USA

JURASSIC PARK 3 / (2001) *** (out of four)

By Blake French:

"Jurassic Park 3" is not as good as the first but a whole lot better than the second. It's also the first film in the series that is not based on a novel by Michael Crichton. That's basically "JP3" in a nutshell. It's not necessarily a great movie, nor does it break any new grounds of adventure or take many risks, but it does take advantage of all the creative ideas. You will not hear anyone in the audience complain that the movie isn't inventive, because these writers, Peter Buchman, Alexander Payne, and Jim Taylor, really have an imagination.

The story takes place eight years after the incident at Jurassic Park. Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) still works as a paleontologist on dinosaur dig sites in Montana with his young assistant Billy (Alessandro Nivola). He's offered a good sum of money by a wealthy couple (William H. Macy and Tea Leoni) who want Grant to guild them on a flight over Isla Sorna-also owned by the dinosaur cooperation. Sam agrees, but once over the island, something goes wrong and he's once again stuck on the dinosaur infested territory fighting for his life.

"Jurassic Park 3" is complied with stunning brevity. The dialogue is concise and doesn't wonder. The character's relationships are instantly obvious. It's very clear that this film is shorter, cheaper, and more simple than its predecessors. That is not such a bad thing. The second Jurassic Park was terrible-an all star cast placed in situation and situation where they run from big monstrous creatures. Although "Jurassic Park 3" is more or less the same formula, it gets sassy and fresh. Eye-popping special effects involve everything from a bird-dinosaur attempting to feed a human to its babies to a massive battle between a Tyrannosaurus Rex and a new breed of lizard called Spinosaurus. Some of these scenes do not really work. Amazingly, many succeed.

I have various complaints about the movie. There are not enough violent encounters to keep the audiences interested throughout. Unlike the first two films, the dinos in "JP3" only eat a handful of characters and they occur in the opening half hour. You can probably guess the characters who meet a graphic demise; anyone who is billed in the film's credits that you have heard of will probably live. I also think the movie needs more thrills. It seems as if the producers are more interested in proving to the audience that these dinosaurs are really smart rather than focusing on lean, clean terror.

Regardless of the pictures many problems, during a summer movie season jam-packed with special effects extravaganzas that don't work ("The Mummy Returns," "Pearl Harbor," "Planet of the Apes," "The Fast and he Furious," and "Swordfirsh" to name a few) finally comes one that does. I recommend "Jurassic Park 3" on the basis that you don't expect something remotely as fascinating as the original, but still hunger for a shallow 90 minute thrill ride.

---

73 out of 112 people found the following review useful:
Fun!, 2 June 2003

Author: Boba_Fett1138 from Groningen, The Netherlands

I expected this to be a very bad movie. I mean Jurassic Park III ??? Comon! It has all been done before how can they possibly come up with a new movie with a believable story. But the movie turned out to be actually pretty good.

One of the reasons why this movie became successful for me was because of the different approach. "Jurassic Park" and "The Lost World" took itself very serious and tried to create a somewhat believable story, while Jurassic Park III had far more humor in it and it was obvious that the makers didn't tried to create a breathtaking movie with lot's of tension and a realistic story, but a fun entertaining non-sense movie instead.

The story is also better then I expected, at least it's original and it has some nice moments in it. It's a big plus that finally those dinosaur-birds (sorry, don't remember their name) appear in the movie. The raptors are also cooler then ever. They're not as scary as in the first and second movie, but at least they look better in this one. And that goes for all the dinosaurs. There are some more nice new dinosaurs in this one but I won't mention them all.

It's great to see Sam Neill return as Dr. Alan Grant and same goes for Laura Dern as Dr. Ellie Sattler (although here role is pretty small but yet important) Alessandro Nivola is a great addition to the cast as Billy Brennan. The other characters are more for the comedy elements which works pretty well.

So my conclusion: An entertaining movie that is good for a few laughs and a good movie with some nice scene's and better then ever special effects for the dinosaurs.

I'm actually looking forward to "Jurassic Park IV"!

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

---

43 out of 56 people found the following review useful:
Just about your basic adventure chase, 22 August 2005

Author: aerosparked from United States

To call this movie an extravagant piece of art would be a joke. The plot was extremely hollow, and a majority of the acting was less than stellar. However, I won't deny that I enjoyed the 90+ minutes I spent sitting through this film. There was everything to expect in the typical JP movie: victims with awfully good endurance, a jungle, and some scary dinosaurs.

Truthfully, it felt as if I were watching a different sequel to the original, not a second. The premise was pretty much the same: a survivor of the Jurassic Park incident is forced to return to the island, and when all communication is cut by unfortunate circumstances, it's time to run around like crazy, trying to find a way off the island while escaping vicious dinosaurs at the same time. This time, we get to watch Sam Neill squirm instead of Jeff Goldblum, and instead of doing research, they're looking for a twelve-year-old kid. Not exactly the smartest move, but all is forgiven and forgotten when the dinosaurs are unleashed once more.

If you're expecting something original and spectacular, then you're going to be disappointed. If you're like me, who only expects to see a fun-filled chase through the jungle for an hour or so, then sit back and relax.

---

40 out of 56 people found the following review useful:
Here we go again!, 13 July 2001

Author: Azek_ from Montreal, QC

I must admit this movie was a lot better than I thought it would. I don't know how true that theory on the velociraptors is, but they managed to make it look semi-plausible :) The movie is a little slow to start, but once it finally does, it delivers a good dose of dinosaur action. I found it to be very entertaining minus some elements in the storyline, which made very little sense to me... It might be because I refused to watch the second installment of the JP series, but then again... Allan Grant wasn't in that one so it mustn't be it! A tad long to start and quick in the ending, but action packed in between and if you're looking to be entertained and liked the first (or second?) JP, this movie is a sure bet.

---

58 out of 93 people found the following review useful:
Plot is too simple. Good special effects., 17 August 2006

Author: NoName1989 from Belgium

This movie is not very good. In fact, the only things that make this film watchable, are the cinematography and the special effects. The dinosaurs look really good.

But, like I said, the rest is not good at all. The acting is not spectacular (except for a few scenes) the dialogs are also not spectacular and sometimes even abominable.

The plot is just an excuse to see people being attacked by dinosaurs.

But, I must say, the majority of the action scenes are quite good and sometimes the film is very exciting.

If you like dinosaurs, and if you don't mind a stupid script, you will enjoy it.

---

48 out of 78 people found the following review useful:
Extremely underrated, 7 December 2003

Author: perfectbond

I can't believe the low average score for this film! Jurassic Park III had a spectacular sense of adventure. The dinosaurs were better than ever and the more than competent cast, led by the always excellent Sam Neil, did a terrific job of bringing the various characters to life. I thoroughly enjoyed this film. Strongly recommended, 8/10.

---

68 out of 119 people found the following review useful:
I loved it!, 24 March 2003

Author: OldMovieGal from Florida

I looked through about 20 of the comments on this movie & I was surprised to find how many people didn't like it. I, for one, really enjoyed it! I saw the first Jurassic Park movie when I was 10 & it reigned as my favorite movie for quite awhile. I liked the 2nd film as well but I thought it missed something (most likely due to not having Grant in the film).... I thought that this 3rd installment really brought it back home. The movie is extremely fast paced & holds your attention throughout the entire film. I really hope they make a 4th movie, I'll definitely be waiting in line for it!

---

29 out of 44 people found the following review useful:
A big enjoyable Summer popcorn movie..., 5 July 2001
Author: The Movie Goblin from London, England

JP3 seemed to appear in the Summer 2001 movie schedule with a lot less hype than its competitors, so I didn't know what to expect... but that's good, isn't it? I'd enjoyed the first Jurassic Park movie but, like a lot of people, thought the sequel was a bit poor (to say the least). Thankfully Part III is much, much better. It won't linger too long in the memory but as far as Summer Popcorn Movies go, this is great stuff.

The story is slight but it's enough. Kid gets stranded on Dino Island. Parents journey to island, with Sam Neill in tow, to rescue kid. And basically that's it. But hey, who wants convoluted character arcs and labyrinthine subplots in a movie with dinosaurs in it? You want running and screaming and velociraptors running amok, right?

Jurassic Park 3 delivers.

The cast, led by the ever dependable Sam Neill, spend most of their time running and jumping and looking pensive -- their acting muscles aren't exactly taxed -- but it's fun to watch these great actors (especially William H. Macy) on a big rollercoaster ride, getting the hell knocked out of them.

Joe Johnston takes over the megaphone duties for this sequel and he does a damn fine job. The action sequences are thrilling and a nice line of tongue-in-cheek humour is woven throughout. And the visual FX are so well integrated in this movie that you really do forget you're watching something that isn't real. Hats off to ILM!

My only complaint is the running time. As the end titles rolled I looked at my watch and saw that it hadn't even been on for 90 minutes! Too short! I wanted more! I suppose it makes the film more of a sharp adrenalin boost. There's no time to get bored. Top stuff.

---

13 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
Enough plot holes to fit a herd of T-Rex's through..., 6 September 2001
Author: kurt-38 from Rochester, NY

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Jurassic Park III is perhaps the best example of why excellent actors (Sam Neill and William H. Macy have both turned in stellar work in other movies) cannot revive a dead script no matter how much they try, and they do. But there are too many plot holes, outright acts of lunacy, and utter impossibilities for them to overcome.

***SPOILERS***

1) A plane crash usually causes a great deal of injury. Let's see...the plane's wings get torn off, the plane hits a tree, the dinos attack the plane. Does anyone get killed? Well, no, the pilot gets eaten, but the plane crash seems to affect utterly no one.

2) Everyone's favorite carnivore, the T-Rex, has only a cameo in this movie. (I guess the T-Rex must have a better agent than the raptors.) In his place is Spinosaurus, aka "The one with the fin." Spinosaurus wasn't on InGen's lists, we learn in this movie. So how the heck did it get here? The timeline in the JP movies could be anywhere from 10 years to fifteen, there's simply no way a new life form could evolve in that short amount of time. This was a plot development that went nowhere. I was waiting to hear that InGen was developing 'military' dinosaurs for third-world military use; that there was some sort of black-ops project, SOMETHING interesting to explain why Mr. Fin took the Head Baddie spot away from the T-Rex. I would've settled for a geneticist at InGen designing it on his own, 'under the table'. (After all, if *I* knew how to make dinosaurs, I'd probably whip up a few super-carnivores myself.) A possible subplot (perhaps have some Third World baddies who contracted with InGen for their very own Spinosaur and are now trying to get it, for example, at the same time Our Heroes are looking for their boy) could've been made here. How did the Spinosaur get there? Was it a 'black-ops' dinosaur deliberately designed by InGen to eat soldiers? Was it a 'private' project gone horribly wrong? Was it working for a pizza delivery service? We don't know, it just gets dropped.

3) The aforementioned Spinosaur apparently came equipped with its own copy of the script and cloaking technology that the Air Force would envy -- he manages to get from here to there without being seen or heard by the humans (difficult indeed for a creature 70 lbs + and God only knows how many tons) and tracks them down very efficiently. Even when he's eaten the annoying cell phone.

4) The raptors have gone from a Lord-of-the-Flies mentality to a rather high moral stance. When the humans give them back the raptor eggs, they simply take them and after hearing Sam Neill attempt to speak with his handy-dandy raptor-voicing-chamber, they let them live. Apparently the raptors have been flipping through old copies of 'The Rights of Man'. Um, no. What was scary about the raptors from the get-go was their human-level intelligence combined with their complete LACK of human-style morality. Plus, some continuity issues here -- if they couldn't talk in the first two movies, how is it they've developed a whole language of their own now.

5) The kid is awfully well nourished for someone who's been spending eight weeks on an island surrounded by killer T-rex's (and Mr. Fin, of course), raptors, and untold small predators. He arms himself with 10-to-15 year old gas-grenades which work fine, apparently. I'm sorry, that kid would've been eaten within a few hours in reality.

---

---

Page 1 of 117:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

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