Jurassic Park III (2001) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
1,093 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
Underrated pure fun popcorn Action film!
ivo-cobra87 May 2016
Jurassic Park III (2001) is a pure, fun, popcorn, Action Film and the third entry of the Jurassic Park trilogy. It is an awesome underrated Action flick a million ways better than the new movie Jurassic World (2015)!!!!!!!!

The third entry of Jurassic park Trilogy is very underrated solid action flick. I will take third Jurassic Park III movie over Jurassic World! Just like a pure, fun, popcorn, Action Film, I will take this one. They brought Sam Neill back as Dr. Alan Grant back. The film was a rescue mission, it was fast paced and it was short than the second flick. I still love The Lost World: Jurassic Park equal as the first flick Jurassic Park, but this flick grow on me and I love it and I have changed my mind. I love this flick I love it to death. I will rather watch this flick than forgettable Jurassic World! I love this flick to death and it is my third favorite film in the Jurassic park trilogy. As the first time I saw this film, I wasn't fan about it, but I keep watching it and I liked it, this movie grow on me. The film was fast paced, it went really fast around, it was an action film, it wasn't an epic adventure like was the first movie Jurassic Park (1993) it was actually an action flick an a rescue mission.

Plot: Adventure runs wild when renowned palentologist Dr. Alan Grant agrees to accompany a wealthy adventurer and his wife on an aerial tour of Isla Sorna, InGen's former breeding ground for prehistoric creatures. But when they're terrifyingly stranded, Dr. Grant discovers that his hosts are not what they seem, and the island's native inhabitants are smarter, faster, fiercer and more brutal than he ever imagined in this heart-stomping thriller.

The film was directed by Joe Johnston who also directed The Rocketeer, I haven't seen that flick in ages yet, The Pagemaster, Jumanji and Captain America: The First Avenger that I am fan of that film. After the success of Spielberg's Jurassic Park, Joe Johnston expressed interest in directing a sequel. Spielberg instead gave Joe Johnston permission to direct the third film in the series, if there were to be one. I don't think the director did a terrible job, I think that this movie more lacked on a script writers, so is not Joe Johnston fault for directing this film for using more CGI in the film.

I love Sam Neil as Dr. Alan Grant and I love that he goes on an Island Isla Sorna, where man is up against dangerous predators in the ultimate battle for survival. This movie takes no prisoners and pulls no punches. It takes the idea of the original, puts an interesting twist into the plot, injects it with good FX, good acting and a decent budget, and you have something far superior to the original.

I like all- new dinosaurs and the special effects CGI, more practical effects are in there, they did not bothered me or that it was directed from someone else and not Steven Spielberg himself. I like the CGI in this film.

A wealthy couple with Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neil) land on a island Isla Sorna and all the mercenaries are killed off, I like that in the film that the mercenaries are killed off.

This film is very quickly paced, is not boring film and it is not a dull movie, it does not drag a long, is very interesting to me and it is a good action film. Jurassic park III is MILES way better to me than Jurassic World, I will rather watch this film than the new one. The first time I reviewed this film I hated it, but now I loved it a lot.

I am fine with the FX of the Spinosaurus, I like Spinosaurus, I thought it was pretty cool.

Btw the kid in this movie wasn't annoying and I think he really did a good job, he was smart and recourses, he was useful in this movie, he survived that length of time by himself & saved Alan against Spinosaurus, so yea I like that and I like this film. I don't think it was terrible or forgettable at all.

I really did not like that Laura Dern can't return with her character in a cameo scene, but still I liked that they made her a happy married woman with the kid and I still like that Alan and Ellie are still in contact together, that is decent in the film.

Also Michael Jeter from Drop Zone (1994) as a mercenary is in here, John Diehl from Miami Vice is in it and Bruce A. Young from The Sentinel and Basic Instinct (1992) is in it, as a third mercenary.

Overall: The ranting for this film I am giving is an 8.5/10 I love this film and In my opinion is the last good Jurassic film, a very hated and underrated.

Jurassic Park III is a 2001 American adventure science fiction film. It is the third installment in the Jurassic Park film series. The film stars Sam Neill, William H. Macy, Téa Leoni, Alessandro Nivola, Trevor Morgan, and Michael Jeter. It is the first film in the series not to have been directed by Steven Spielberg, nor based on a book by Michael Crichton (though numerous scenes in the film were ultimately taken from Crichton's novels Jurassic Park and The Lost World).

8.5/10 Grade: B+ Studio: Universal Pictures Starring: Sam Neill, William H. Macy, Téa Leoni, Alessandro Nivola, Trevor Morgan, Michael Jeter, John Diehl, Bruce A. Young, Taylor Nichols, Laura Dern Director: Joe Johnston Producers: Kathleen Kennedy, Larry Franco Screenplay: Peter Buchman, Alexander Payne, Jim Taylor Rated: PG-13 Running Time: 1 Hr. 32 Mins. Budget: $93.000.000 Box Office: $368,780,809
88 out of 123 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Always slightly under rated compared to the squel
KoolCatReviews6 April 2020
I have always felt this movie was better than the second although not as good as the original. This movie is defiantly more in-touch with the original than the second. The characters are likeable and the plot works. The ending though feels rushed, almost like they ran out of budget. Having Sam Neil back in the driving seat improves the film vastly. A Sunday viewing classic worthy to have been the sequel.
27 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Weak
zamlazercorn3 January 2019
The weakest movie of the trilogy. This was embarrasing...
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not as good as the previous JP's.
mosquito198511 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?
48 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
No Frills, No thrills.
perfumesara16 January 2003
No frills entry in the Jurassic franchise follows Alan Grant as he attempts to save a child who crash landed on site b (The island of the Lost World.) Sam Neill must have really needed the money to accept the fact that there was not even a hint of plot to even drive this film anywhere meaningful other than a quick fix for action freaks who don't like to think too much. The movie does not even connect itself to the other two films, and manages to contradict a lot that was set up before. Worth a look if you are a fan but prepare to be disappointed. It's not up to caliber with the others in the series.
18 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Dumb But Entertaining
mitchell595411 January 2019
Jurassic Park 3 is considered the low point in the franchise. It's certainly the worst film in terms of quality and it is, by far, the lowest grossing film of the bunch. Most people hate this movie and I can see why. I can't defend it as a good movie. The Lost World I will defend as being underrated, but this one I can't. However, I still enjoy it as a fun timewaster. It's a guilty pleasure for sure. Perhaps it's because of fond nostalgia? This was the first Jurassic park movie I saw in the theatre. I bought the toys to this. Back then I remember this being my favorite Jurassic Park movie. Of course, at that time all I cared about was dinosaur action.

The plot is super simple. A kid named Eric goes parasailing with a friend near Site B from The Lost World which is still inhabited by dinosaurs. They end up getting stranded there and Eric's parents Paul (William H. Macy) and Amanda (Tea Leoni), gather a rescue team to find him. Among the rescue team unknowingly are Dr. Grant (Sam Neil) and his partner Billy. They themselves get stranded and now must find Eric and get off the island while running from dinosaurs who want to eat them.

The main reason I enjoy this film is because Sam Neil returns as Dr. Grant who is my favorite character of the franchise. Sam Neil I find to be one of the most underrated actors at least in American cinema. It's a shame he doesn't get more work as he's one of my favorite actors.

The rest of the cast is pretty subpar. This film probably sports the weakest cast of all the movies though Jurassic World comes at a close second. The best character, by far, is Dr. Grant but he can't save the cast. The only other notable characters here are Billy and Eric. William H. Macy does a good job with what he has. His character is really nothing but he has some entertaining bits.

The film looks good. The effects are below the first two given that they got a different effects team, but they're still pretty good for the most part. Though, some effects do look pretty dated like some of the animatronic effects for the Spinosaurus. Besides that the setting and sets still look great and builds atmosphere.

Unlike all the other films, Jurassic Park 3 is the only one without a human antagonist, which I am honestly fine with. I'm sick to death of the two dimensional money-grubbing villains in this franchise. Been there done that.

Above all I found the film entertaining. If you want a more philosophical film that the first two films had with the message of man tampering with nature then you won't find it here. They through all that out in favor of just having a straightforward and entertaining survival flick. For me it was fun despite some annoying characters, dumb plot threads, and a laundry list of things that make zero sense.

Overall, I can see why so many hate this film. I know it isn't good. However, I enjoy it as a fun monster b-movie. If you just want an entertaining monster movie to watch then you can give this look. If you want something like the first two films than you will be disappointed.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Has it's heart in the right place but it's with a doubt the weakest entry in the series.
midnighttheater8 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.
30 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
JP3 Lacks Originality
awfmail25 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.
29 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
"Two's company, three's a crowd." J.P. 3 doesn't compare to the first two.
Jacki-chan28 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
29 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
'Jurassic Park III' Film Review: Third, Final Instalment Is Pure Dino-Dung!
zstephens-4084517 October 2018
'Jurassic Park III' is visually catastrophic and narratively inept, indicating the extinction of a once mesmerizing franchise! Deceived by wealthy couple Paul and Amanda Kirby, (William H. Macy and Téa Leoni), palaeontologist Dr. Alan Grant, (Sam Neill) negotiates an aerial tour of Isla Sorna and requests funding for his Velociraptor research. Billy Brennan, (Alessandro Nivola) and three mercenaries, provide desired assistance, as the voyage to the uncharted island of Site B is daunting. An unspecified landing, results in the destruction of their aircraft by a ferocious Spinosaurus. The Kirby's acknowledge that their adolescent son Erik, (Trevor Morgan) is deserted on the island, after a ghastly paragliding incident. Imprisoned on Isla Sorna, Dr. Grant escorts his companions on a prolonged trek to shore. An intimidating Spinosaurus and an intelligent herd of Velociraptors, threaten their chance of survival.

Boring dinosaur pursuits, insufferable dialogue and tedious characters alter a once exhilarating franchise to a dead standstill. 'Jurassic Park III' is an eighty-minute wild-goose chase, on an island inhabited by appallingly rendered CG dinosaurs. The inferior animatronics is noticeable when viewing all dinosaurs (the Spinosaurus in particular). The previous two instalments possessed exceptional authenticity in the artistic design of the dinosaurs, blending CG and animatronics seamlessly. The effects in this movie were theme park worthy and impacted the believability of the film. The 1993 phenomenon is a visual masterpiece compared to the grotty effects of the third chapter!

Audiences must endure Téa Leoni's exasperating performance as Amanda Kirby, who single-mindedly attracts the likes of a Spinosaurus. In an attempt to locate the whereabouts of her son, Amanda continuously screeches his name, not realising that she is enticing several bloodthirsty dinosaurs. Common intellect suggests that shrieking amidst a jungle of dinosaurs, isn't the niftiest idea. Amanda Kirby shrieks, groans and sobs, therefore would advise you to ignore her character altogether. My satisfaction levels would've increased if the Spinosaurus had devoured her whole! Nonetheless, Sam Neill rejuvenates the mood, by delivering a convincing performance as Dr. Alan Grant. Neill's charisma and intelligence is a sigh of relief, considering the picture's deplorable character study. Laura Dern, a competent actress, gives a brief, unnecessary appearance as Dr. Ellie Sattler. Talent is present in the film, yet is dreadfully misused.

A few amusing action sequences attracts wanted attention, in a fairly lacklustre film. I can recall several terrifying dinosaur ordeals that were surprisingly pleasurable. The aviary scene in which a group of Pteranodons attack Grant and his associates was well-structured and thrilling. Amidst the uninspired script and ghastly CG there is a clear vision regarding the set pieces and spectacle of the picture. Too bad the visuals are atrocious, as the action is written with a high level of expertise.

'Jurassic Park III' miserably fails in providing a visually stimulating blockbuster. The characters aimlessly meander on Isla Sorna, dodging a gigantic Spinosaurus and shrieking to the point of exasperation. Director Joe Johnson has literally created pure dino-dung that dishonours Steven Spielberg's past ingenious efforts.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Was not made by Steven Spielberg, and it shows.
shortcut1050927 December 2001
There is really no reason for this movie to have been made. First off, This is not even based on anything written by Michael Crichton and it shows by the lack of any real story or substances. Second, Nether Steven Spielberg or Jeff Goldblum is involved, and it shows by the amateur directing and the lack of depth. Spielberg knew how to spotlight the wonder and power of these wonderful creatures, and Goldblum gave the films it's intelligence and it's heart. Unfortunately, this movie does not benefit from ether of them. And it suffers greatly because of it. Sam Neil Returns as Alan Grant Who is trick this time around into looking for a missing kid who has crashed landed on the Island Sorna (Setting of The Lost World) And instead ends up trap on the island with the parents trying to get off the island. Now this would have worked if there were more to the story than that but unfortunately there is not, and it does not even try to be anything other than that. The whole discussion about The danger of playing god is tossed out for a run in the mill monster movie that has no brains or heart. Sam Neil is a very good actor but his character reminds us on why Jeff Goldblum character is so important to the series. One hint, Goldblum's character had brains, and a sense of humor. Sam Neil's Character has nether. If he did, he would have had the parents of the missing kid checked out before he agreed to go with them on the island. The parents of the missing kid are in fact so dumb, and so annoying that you end up wishing that they would be eaten by the dinosaurs, as for the screen writers and the director of the abomination of a film. There is barely any mention of the first two films, and the story does not even make any lead way into trying to connect it's self to those movies. It does not even make sense in some aspects of the story, like how the Spinosauris even got on the island in the first place. It was not in The Lost World, so why is it in this one? At The End Of The Lost World, The military was surrounding the island because they did not want the Dinosaurs to go to the mainland, so where aren't they surrounding the island now? All of this and the quality of it make this the most pointless and useless film of this series. It seems like the makers of this film did not even try to make a good film, they just expected people to just swallow it, with out thinking on what they were seeing. That is a really sad because it taints the magic of the extremely better first two movies.

My advice Rent The first Two Films film of this series instead of wasting your time with this one.

P.S. As for the whole Debate on which was a better sequel (Jurassic Park 3 or The Lost World) While The Lost World was not as amazing as the original, It still upheld the quality and substance. Something Jurassic Park 3 does not even attempt to do
26 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
below average movie
Jones-4114 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.
26 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Why not go all the way
Blindman-224 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.
41 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Stupid Plot, rehashed ideas
nin_fragile1418 July 2001
The action was not well developed, nor were the character or anything else about this movie. One big rehash of the first two films, that didn't even come close to equalling their quality. The ending and other parts of it were so bad, that I was laughing. This is the worst movie of the summer, even worse than The Mummy Returns.
30 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Great special effects; No plot.
db318 July 2001
JURASSIC PARK III *___ Adventure

Sam Nell (The Dish), William Macy (Happy Texas, Fargo), TZ(a Leoni (Family Man)

A better title would be: ESCAPE FROM THE ISLAND OF REALLY MEAN DINOSAURS. But then no one would need to see the film. In this sequel, a rag-tag group pays a visit to the island of dinosaurs to rescue the teenage victim of a hang-gliding accident.

ACCESS HOLLYWOOD reports JP3 began filming without a completed script. That explains why the film seems to have little or no purpose other than to demonstrate state-of-the-art special effects. Sure, there are a few clever scenes and some moderately funny bits, but no meaningful plot line to tie them together. The dinosaur puppets and animation in JP3 are very good to excellent, and more numerous than ever. But the overall film experience can not hold a candle to the original JURASSIC PARK or even JP2.

JP3 is a mercifully short 90 minutes -- the last 10 minutes of which is credits. Even at that, I found myself frequently checking my wristwatch. The audience I saw it with left the theater in silence.

A better bet: see the movie LEGALLY BLONDE.

Dave
24 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Dino-Disaster
dustymitchell4823 July 2001
This movie was a total tragedy from the very beginning. So many scenes were so terribly done, with very fake backdrops and poor audio use. The computer animated graphics definatley lacked the brilliance of the first 2 movies. It's like they wern't even trying with this one. I thought that it might be okay that it was really short, because it was a thriller type movie and that way you wouldn't leave being absolutely worn out. I was wrong with that assumption. It was so short you had no time to get involved with the characters, it doesn't give you any time to have any kind of feelings for them. Dr. Grant it taken back to Hell on earth and he's nowhere near as upset as you would think he should be. There is no climax what so ever. The movie just kind of ends, with a short raptor seen and there we have it, you're going home mad that you've wasted $6.50 and an hour and 20 minutes of your life. This movie was basically done for the money that they thought they could make off of it. There is no art or personal touch to it at all.
24 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Excruciatingly Bad
planetlarss27 July 2003
What a wasted of time and talent. A movie so bad that it even makes some of the finest actors around look like they came out of dinner theater. The story is nothing more than a summery of a real story and the acting is way below averaged. The Dinosaurs even look embarrass to be on camera, and they themselves don't look as well as they did in the first two movies. The movie barely gets anywhere before it ends, and is not even as long as the others in the series. I really loved Jurassic Park and The Lost World but this movie is just too disappointing to be added to my Jurassic Park collection.

Entertaining for those who are sleep deprive only, and maybe they might even turn off the tape before the movie ends.
25 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
they killed the trilogy
milanzman13 February 2003
They killed the trilogy! This junk was not even written by Michael Crichton Or directed by steven speilberg. Dont bother with this junk its waste of your time. I hope that they dont make part 4 as it will do worse and suck. Thank You for Your Time.
16 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A 5.9 for this abomination?! Lower the rating people!
Filvies14426 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
20 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
One long TV pilot for a bad family series.
marvreturns6 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.
39 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
They should have trashed the park after Lost World!
c_p_c5 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.
39 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Awful
kanifuker-8470828 January 2021
Couldn't get past 30mins of this rubbish. The annoying woman and ex husband screaming and shouting, so badly written with trying to add humour/comedy and it didn't work. It's supposed to be a bloody Dinosaur movie.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bad. Very Bad.
The Terminator30 July 2001
I can't really say much other than this is a far cry from the original. After the lacklustre JP2 - The Lost World, I was expecting something better here but instead I was greeted with incredibly bad special effects and blatantly annoying characters. The whole film lacks direction and suspense and in the end I was hoping for the CG dinosaurs to rip the cast to pieces to prevent a fourth installment. I give it 1 out of 10, seriously.
25 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I can't find a kind word to say about this film, that's how bad it is.
stormscourge29 July 2003
I though the first two Jurassic Park films were fun, a grade A entertainment that had a little of everything to offer. A very good story pack with a lot of emotion and thrills. This film unfortunately does not have any of the things that what made those two movies so good, and it does not even have a shred of decency to cover up the fact that nobody involved even cared about what they were doing. The island looks like one big sound stage split in several pieces, and the actors involve look like they are sleep walking in their parts. The dinosaurs in this movie are a little too computer generated for there own good, and the new dinosaur looks like a man in a rubber suit. Don't expect to find a story here because that would be asking too much from this movie. Think of it as the dumb down version of The Blair Witch Project, but without the thrills or the interest to make you care about what is happening on screen.
30 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed