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 126:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 1256 reviews in total 

208 out of 343 people found the following review useful:

Much Better Than Its Reputation; Short & Fun

8/10
Author: ccthemovieman-1 from United States
15 May 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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?

29 out of 40 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?

23 out of 30 people found the following review useful:

Far-fetched and ridiculous.

2/10
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?

23 out of 30 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?

23 out of 30 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?

17 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

below average movie

3/10
Author: jonas (Jones@opusmind.dk) from Copenhagen, Denmark
14 July 2001

Before watching the movie, I expected some new and cool graphics. That never happened. The graphics is the same as always and in fact, some parts in the movie is surprisingly disappointing, because of the poor animations. The acting in the movie is acceptable and good, but the story is VERY boring! It's very predictable all the way and there's no real "WOW" scenes. All in all a "below average movie", which won't be remembered for very long. I gave it 3.

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 23 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 disgrace to Michael Crichton's work.

3/10
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?

21 out of 27 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.

4/10
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?

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?


Page 1 of 126:[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