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 1227 reviews in total 

189 out of 318 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:

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?

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?

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?

19 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

Sometimes the bad word of mouth is justified.

Author: dumb2ugly
5 June 2003

I heard reviews raging from bad to horrific concerning this film, and I still wanted to see it regardless of the extreme bad word of mouth. The word of mouth had kept me away from it for so long because I'm such a fan of the first two films, and I didn't want to ruin the experience of those films by watching this movie but I gave in out of sheer weakness. Now I know why the movie received all the bad feedback.

The movie is a complete mess from start to finish. The plot absolutely makes no sense what so ever, even going as far as to contradict itself in certain points of the film. The acting is tepid at best, with Sam Neil giving the best performance out of the group, which is not a big feat considering the fact that he's sleep walking through out the entire movie. Jeff Goldblum is not in this film, and it's painfully obvious because he at least brought an intelligent sense of reality and danger to the first two movies, and top of that he was interesting character to follow. The cast of characters in this film are so unbearable to watch that you as the viewer will want to be transported into the movie in order to kill each of them in a slasher movie kind of way. Interesting enough, The movie itself feels more like a slasher film that a Jurassic Park Flick because the dinosaurs look and act like murderous monsters that actual animals.

Speaking of Dinosaurs mind you, the big creatures are more like live action puppets than the real dinosaurs we saw in the first two movies. I don't know what happen but these dinosaurs can't be from Stan Winston, because he of all people should know how to make a monster but hey, he like every one involve with this cinematic piece of trash probably took the easy way out thinking that people were stupid enough not to notice. In reality, who were they kidding? Themselves actually, because the movie itself is now being touted as one of the worse films ever made, and it deserves that reputation.

It's a give that a sequel will never live up to the original, but The Lost World at the very least a worthy effort to The original. This film does not even deserve to ride on those movie's reputations which it shamefully does.

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

A disgrace to Michael Crichton's work.

Author: Dyonus from TX
27 January 2003

I am a big Crichton fan and I did NOT appreciate this movie. For starters, there was no novel for them to base it off of (even though they wouldn't have followed the novel very well.) Second, the writer obviously knew very little about the subject he wrote about seeing as the paleontologists talk in layman terms throughout the entire film, not giving it the scientific facts that add to its predecesor. Thirdly, and this one isn't all THAT big of deal, but the graphics and robot interaction was terrible. When they changed from one to the other, it wasn't very gradual or subtle. The skin looked way too plastic on the robot. This film should've been made by the original creators, then maybe it would've been better.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

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

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?

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