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 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
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 124:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 1236 reviews in total 

199 out of 332 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 32 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?

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 27 people found the following review useful:

talking raptors??!!!

1/10
Author: (jean emmanuel frojo) from Montreal, Canada
25 July 2001

What was the point of doing another movie. You could also say what was the point of me seeing that movie, at least it was a cheapie night.

The plot itself is really ridiculous and the acting about the same, except maybe for Sam Neill who is not bad in his character. It would have made a nice tv movie but that's about it. There is no really original or exciting moments in the film, and not a lot a scary parts. The only time i jumped is when one of the character stepped on a staircase and almost fell.

The special fx are ok but nothing ground breaking. And what is this... talking raptors??!! Next thing we'll see is a movie about talking apes.... (oops!)

The movie may be fine for kids or teenagers( i'm sure McDonalds will sell a lot of happy meals), but if you want a minimum of a good time, avoid this one, go see shrek for a second time.

Was the above review useful to you?

22 out of 28 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:

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?

22 out of 28 people found the following review useful:

One long TV pilot for a bad family series.

1/10
Author: marvreturns from Battle Creek
6 June 2003

This is one terrible, terrible movie, every thing that can go wrong in a motion picture of this size goes wrong with a savage gusto that can be attributed to the fact that no one working on this film wanted to make a quality film. The actors themselves look like they don't want to be in this film, and the direction of the film look too disjointed to be taken seriously. The screen play feels like it was written by a five year old and judging by the ending of this fluff piece, it looks like the five year old just gave up and went to sleep.

The real sad part about all of this is the fact that it's a sequel to two much better movies (Jurassic Park and The Lost World) that had a lot of quality to them. Judging by the way this was handle, it looks like Steven Spielberg is finally getting too big for his own head and not to mention too lazy to care if the movies he's making are even good or not.

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

They should have trashed the park after Lost World!

3/10
Author: c_p_c from U.S.A.
5 October 2002

Jurassic Park was great, The Lost World was decent, but his one bites the dust. This movie, although fun at some points, is an overall disgrace to the Jurassic Park film series. It tries to out do its original in an hour and a half and fails miserably. This movie is just one chase scene after another, but without the fun and creativity that was seen in the first and carried over a bit into the second.

This movie was a cheap exploitation of a great film. Hopefully, unless film makers can actually try to put the essence seen in the first back into these films, we will stop at three.

JP3 rates as a 3/10.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

A 5.9 for this abomination?! Lower the rating people!

1/10
Author: Filvies144 from United States
26 February 2015

This movie is awful. It ruins everything from the original.

First of all, this movie is nothing like the first. It takes away all the original characters and put in these terrible new characters. What the heck, people?! And the writing is lazy. Plus, the special effects were cheesy. The dinosaurs didn't look real at all. So this horrible writer/director/producer took away all the magic from the first one. Its really dumb and it should've never been made. Why did they have to make sequels to Jurassic park?! I haven't seen Lost world, but this movie proves its bad. I hope Jurassic world is better than this. The trailer for it looks good. But seriously, this was toxic. It should be lowered from a 5.9/10 to a 1.5/10 just like Justin Bieber: Never say never.

As of 2/26/15 this movie has 7564 10/10s and 3383 1/10s. Why did it get that many stupid 10/10s?! It has less 1/10s than Guardians of the Galaxy, (which has 4462 1/10s!)which was funny and good. This movie should have little or no 10/10s and it should also have as many 1/10s as Justin Bieber never say never, (which is over 59,000!) and if it ever happens, I'd laugh my butt off.

Story: 1/10, its so weak and generic Special effects 4/10, no longer looks stunning, instead generic Characters 2/10, Panicking parents, annoying kid, scientist, enough said

1/10 So disgraceful to the first one. Even Godzilla(2014)was better

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Why???

1/10
Author: eikochan from Southern California
23 July 2001

To sum it up, I actually wanted more characters to get eaten. They were poorly directed and annoying. The dinosaurs - sure, they looked pretty real, but the scare factor the trailers seemed to entice weren't even there. Why do they keep adding to an old franchise? Pretty soon, even the food supplies on Isla Sorna are going to get old and then what are the stranded people going to eat?

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 124:[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