Jurassic Park III (2001) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
1,143 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
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
118 out of 168 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
When a powerhouse franchise crumbles
StevePulaski12 June 2015
I mentioned in my review of The Lost World: Jurassic Park that it would be difficult to call a dinosaur film, at that time, at least, "routine" or cliché because of how rarely dinosaurs were put on film. With Jurassic Park III, however, we now have two very capable films to compare this one to, and this, on top of several issues this installment bears, work to not only derail a franchise that had fairly solid footing in the ground but managed to defy odds to become one of the few defining films in American history for its special effects.

Jurassic Park III can't manage to conjure up the same kind of danger that the original film did, nor the moodiness and the energetic cast of misfits of the second film. It plays like a theme park ride, with little sense of danger and a heavy sense of perfunctory happenings that simply occur in without much added spark of ingenuity or creativity behind them. Where Steven Spielberg had a method to his madness, and a terrific sense of buildup in both of his films, director Joe Johnston and writers Peter Buchman, Alexander Payne (yes, Election and Sideways Alexander Payne), and Jim Taylor simply stumble when trying to find a route to take with Jurassic Park III that works and breeds new life into material that's beginning to show signs of wear.

We refocus on Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) of the first film, who is now refreshed with the events of Jurassic Park out of his mind. Despite saying he has no ambition to return to a life involving dinosaurs, Dr. Grant meets a man named Paul Kirby (William H. Macy) and his wife Amanda (Téa Leoni), who cut him a blank check to give them an aerial tour of the island of Isla Sorna. He reluctantly agrees until, while on the plane, realizes that the Kirby's want to land on and explore the island, resulting in a plane crash that leaves the three of them, plus Grant's son Billy (Alessandro Nivola) and a handful of Kirby's men, stranded in a playground filled with dinosaurs. Worst of all, many of the dinosaurs are Pterodactyls, soaring menaces that hunt for prey on the ground before scooping them up and taking off without a trace.

The Pterodactyls steal the show in this film, for they are the ones who are unpredictable, quick-witted, and more entertaining to watch than the group of misplaced actors on display. The Lost World had the likes of Jeff Goldblum, Julianne Moore, and Vince Vaughn, all actors you wouldn't think would star in a Jurassic Park film, but somehow found their way onto the set and decided to make due with what they had. In turn, they turned into be a cast of likable character actors, making for one of the most surprisingly functional misfit casts I have yet to see.

Jurassic Park III, on the other hand, is what happens when a series of actors find themselves working together and something feels off. It's not really an involvement thing, but there seems to be a general level of discomfort amongst the actors; actors like Macy and Leoni seem terribly out of place with a film like this, and no character, not even Grant, bears any likability throughout the course of the film. The original Jurassic Park had its share of empty characters, but at least devoted enough time to them to show that Spielberg and company were trying to provide audiences with an even balance of talking and action, whereas The Lost World found a way to more-or-less balance the dichotomy out to a rather effective level. Jurassic Park III can't seem to do either very convincingly; it's too busy trying to set up the next action sequence when it focuses on the characters and is too busy looking for an easy way out during the action sequences.

Finally, there's the emotionally manipulative angle that comes up with this film too, particularly in the ending, which ties everything together with a very incredulous circumstance combined with cloying choral music to let us know that everybody involved is safe and sound. This kind of thing only works to soil the scope and power of the original film and the kind of dark, brooding atmosphere The Lost World bravely built. The special effects are still strong, only this time, merging CGI with animatronics leaves a bit of a hokiness to the dinosaurs, particularly the Velociraptor, which bears a feathery coat (while this may be more scientifically accurate, it looks messy and unbelievable on-screen). Where the other two films were creating a powerhouse franchise in film, Jurassic Park III is looking for a quick buck, and that part is evident from the cast choices, the writing, and the general feel, all of which feel significantly squandered and traded in for something convenient rather than daring.

Starring: Sam Neill, William H. Macy, Téa Leoni, and Alessandro Nivola. Directed by: Joe Johnston.
38 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Far-fetched and ridiculous.
filipemanuelneto5 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.
40 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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?
59 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Eminently Forgettable
UACW15 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.
27 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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)
Movie-1212 August 2001
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.
130 out of 245 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
33 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Boba_Fett11382 June 2003
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"!


91 out of 181 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
42 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An Insult, A Disgrace, An Absolute Betrayal To The Jurassic Park Franchise
TheMovieDoctorful17 December 2018
I like Joe Johnston. The Wolfman is an underrated masterpiece, Captain America: The First Avenger is probably the best MCU film and The Rocketeer is one of the better 90s superhero movies. So how, God almighty, how, did he create something as irredeemably and unforgivably awful as this? Jurassic Park III is a spit to the face to everything that made me love this franchise, disrespectful to its legacy at best and an insulting betrayal to everything it stands for at worst. I hate Johnston's Jurassic Park III almost as much as I love his Wolfman remake.

The way this film ruins Alan Grant's character really doesn't get mentioned enough. Grant here is a self centered, miserable, greedy, unnuanced, cranky dickhead. Remember that scene in the original Jurassic Park where he's explaining to Lex how the carnivorous dinosaurs of the island aren't necessarily bad, just an aggressive part of a natural ecosystem? ("The other kind aren't bad, they just...Do what they do.") Well you can forget all about that here, a film where he speaks on a pulpit like a fire-and-brimstone preacher about how they're "genetically engineered theme park monsters" who need to be destroyed, later whining about how they deserve it because they tried to eat him. He has to be tricked and bribed into saving a child for Pete's sake!

The other characters aren't that much better. Most of them are just shallow and empty archetypes with zero characterization (The workaholic parent, the badass kid, the reckless pupil, e.t.c) that are hardly worth remembering, let alone liking. Then there's Tea Leoni's Amanda Kirby, who is almost as unlikable as this film's version of Grant. Her only characterization here appears to be screaming unconvincingly and being as loud and obnoxious as possible because this film thinks that's funny. It's hard to believe watching this how this was once a franchise lauded for its relatively feminist depiction of women in a very male-dominated genre of Sci-Fi (It's telling how this and the original Jurassic World are both the worst franchise installments, as well as the least female empowering ones.) The only form of development any of these characters get is the stock "workaholic parents are finally there for their family" that we've seen in God knows how many bad family movies.

Speaking of Tea Leoni, nobody gives a good performance in this. Yes, that includes Sam Neil, who is clearly sleep walking his way through a paycheck role that he seems to have active contempt for. He underacts as much as Leoni overacts, not that the screenplay gives him anything to work with in terms of its flaccid, pathetically weak dialogue. William H. Macy's performance is similarly phoned in; show up, be quirky in a very William H. Macy way, collect the check and leave. Nobody in this cast had any passion, nobody cared.

This film talks a big game with lines about how InGen "play(s) God" and how certain characters are "no better than the people who built this place" but it all goes nowhere. It's mentioned and never expanded upon so that the movie can feel more mature and adult than it actually is. Jurassic Park III is a film that goes absolutely nowhere thematically and literally talks about nothing. It wants to feel epic without actually being epic. Without actually earning that title. It's like a High School student who lazily slaps together a school paper on Romeo & Juliet in 20 minutes and then expects to get an A+. It'a anti-ambition and it's infuriating.

For a series so traditionally dependent on visual storytelling, the film lacks any kind of awe and wonder. It's a hollow Horror show, a great, big shock-fest to see which hollow caricatures can die first and how. Sure, Jurassic Park has always had an element of terror, but it also had a deep element of (For lack of a better term) humanity to it. The best of these films were about the power of nature, both to horrify as well to shock and enchant. There is nothing to be enchanted by here. None of the dinosaurs here have any personality beyond being mindless, vicious killing machines that stalk our main characters like Jason Voorhees, even when they're reasonably full and fed. Don't even get me started on the Spinosaurus, a dinosaur with a boring design whose sole personality trait is to be a "cooler" and "edgier" T-Rex for a new generation of wide-eyed youths. Even as a kid, I hated this pretender to the role of franchise icon and his killing of the iconic T-Rex felt like a massive piss over everyone who grew to care for this franchise. The film only has one moment where it so much as attempts a moment of genuine heart with these creatures, but it's so unearned and out of left field with such a poor CGI render that it's just laughable. If these are truly what the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park have become, maybe Grant's terrible, misguided, out of character like about "genetically engineered theme park monsters" isn't so inaccurate.

Jurassic Park III also has no idea what tone it's going for at all. It'll showcase extremely dark imagery at times with its graphic death scenes, and its musical score definitely takes on the darkest tone of any Jurassic Park film to date, but then engages in weird comedic gags like talking raptors and jokes about T-Rex pee. Nothing meshes here. It's a mashup of ideas that aren't coherent and don't blend with each other at all.

Jurassic Park III is an absolute travesty, the kind of disastrous sequel that should be mentioned with the likes of Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem and Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2. Even thinking about it gets me somewhat angry at how much this missed the mark to anything resembling a quality film. How people sit back and tell me this is a better film than The Lost World is beyond me.
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Bad Sequel
OriginalMovieBuff2129 May 2004
Jurassic Park III is the worst out of the Jurassic Park trilogy. It failed in making a great film. The spinosauros just disturbed me throughout the movie of how stupid and dull it was to be the main dinosaur of the movie. T-Rex has been my ultimate favorite dinosaur and Joe Johnston made the stupid spinosauros kill it. The T-Rex was amazing and even the scientists said it was the most fiercest dinosaur on the planet. Why did they make the spinosauros be the best. Paleontologists haven't even found all of the fossils of the spinosauros. Sorry, but that just makes me mad that they would put the spinosauros the fiercest when the T-Rex was. But, I did like the raptors in the movie. They were very neat and the raptors were the ones that were the mostly entertaining throughout the movie. I guess this was an entertaining despite the stupid spinosauros and the bad acting this could've been a good film.

16 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
29 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The weakest of the first two films.
johnnymacbest22 May 2008
I LOVED the first Jurassic Park at the tender age of 10. It had everything you could want from a movie minus some underdeveloped character personalities but that film ROCKS even until this day and age. Part two was good though not as the original. The third installment: Terrible. Where was the adventure? Where was the excitement? Where was the suspense? Where was the danger? Drained of all the qualities of what made the first one so memorable. This could be blamed primarily on the director, Joe Johnston, who made that box-office bomb The Rocketeer nineteen years ago. What more can be said? At least the special effects were good; the fight between the T-Rex and Spinosaurus and the scene with the Pterodactyls but the plot was basically nonexistent and the acting was wooden and lifeless with no sense of conveying believability. And what's with the "theory on raptor intelligence" part? Were they assuming that raptors were smarter than birds and primates? One needs only to read various books on dinosaurs to find out. Seriously I don't expect movies to educate audiences but a little research wouldn't have hurt. I first saw this on opening day expecting more action, adventure, suspense, danger, and terror. Yet I got a lot less bang for the buck. A fine example on what happens when you switch directors mid franchise.

Not even up to par with the original. Pure piece of crap. If they got the gall to make a fourth installment, better get Spielberg back on board or else this franchise will become "extinct" like the dinos.
33 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
emfern137 December 2001
JP3 stinks terribly. It does not compare at all to the first two. Steven Spielberg had the edge to make two brilliant movies about dinosaurs. This guy has made two successful movies and thats it. Steven Spielberg has made more than ten blockbusters. I dont like E.T. but it is a really successful movie.

The first Jurassic Park was an excellent movie. Sure parts of it were boring and could have been five minutes shorter but Jp3 could have been half an hour longer. Out of all three the Lost World is one of my all time favorite movies. The action is so much better than the other two. The Trexes are the best in this movie. Sure there is not many Raptor scenes in the movie but the ones that are in it are awesome. Jurassic Park and Lost World are on my top 100 list. JP3 is far from that list. Jp3 has a great beginning. Its exciting and a little creepy but not that scary. I heard that this movie was supposed to be a huge Thriller. I wasn't thrilled by one second of the movie. I think most of the scenes with the spinosaurus were stupid. I did like that boat scene but it was not my favorite. The raptors were stupid in that movie. No scenes with them were good. The pteranodon scenes were awesome. The best in the movie. But just when it starts to get interesting it ends. Leaving it open for a sequel. Which if it is not directed by Steven spielberg i will not be going.
23 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Extremely underrated
perfectbond7 December 2003
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.
76 out of 153 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Final chapter from trilogy that provides exciting and sweeping amusing and entertainment
ma-cortes7 January 2008
This enjoyable third entry , plenty of spine-tingler thrills and emotion, deals about archaeologist Alan Grant(Sam Neill) and his pupil archaeologist(Alessandro Nivola). Grant is deceived by a marriage(William H Macy and Tea Leoni) and along with a mercenaries group(Michael Jeter, Bruce A. Young, John Diehl) return to Dinosaurs island looking for their son(Trevor Morgan).When the plane crashes on the island populated by the Dinos, the humans try desperately to escape of the colossal carnivorous . The group is chased through lush jungle by fanged creatures from the cretaceous period and genetically engineered formerly.

The Dinosaurs are ,once again, the authentic protagonists, they're again marvellous terrifyingly awesome and almost completely convincing, combining elements from previous films . Actors give vigorous physical performances dodging the Dinos, this time appear, an impressive Spinosurious fighting against Rex, a giant Dino-birds and , of course, the intimate Tyrannosaurious and Velocirraptor made by means of incredible combination of computer generator-ILM, Industrial Light Magic- and animatronics models- Stan Winston studio-. Simple dialogue and plain tale, the story is more exciting and inventive than second outing, Lost World, though inferior to first entry, Jurassik Park . The film packs a quite potent soundtrack by Don Davis, remaking the classic score by John Williams. Atmospheric and colorful cinematography reflecting the luxurious jungle by Shelly Johnson. The motion picture is professionally directed by Joe Johnston. The film will like to the previous films enthusiastic, but no for small kids by violent, realistic and gory attacks by monsters animals.
13 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.

26 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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
23 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
37 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Let the kids see it--They deserve memories of bad crap too!
bopdog21 July 2001
I read the original "Jurassic Park" book. The first movie was very close to good. The second movie stunk up the place-- but this third movie version was insulting. Sam Neil, bless his heart, appeared so old, distracted, and tired in this movie. He was such a downer, I was rooting for some dinosaur to eat his bummer butt. William H. Macy is a champ. A brilliant actor, and by all accounts, a wonderful person as well. Tea Leoni is also a champ, and a treasure. And a babe. But despite their valiant efforts, even their glowing presence couldn't save this turkey. All of the supporting cast were completely inconsequential. As they died off, one could only wonder if their characters' deaths brought the movie any closer to ending. One good point, although not nearly enough to make this movie worth your time, is the quaint 1950's sci-fi vibe. Some of the linguistic talents and high intelligence ascribed to the "monsters" in this movie reminded me of "Invasion of the Ant People," or some such. If I had been drunk, and sitting with a batch of drunken friends at a fraternity or dorm, we'd have been laughing and hooting our fannies off. As it was, I kept my yawns to myself, so as to not disturb the experience of the 5 and 6 year-olds in the audience. I have fond memories of the cheap, cheesey junk I saw at the local theater with my little brother and my friends when we were all very young. Great nostalgia for me as an adult. And I didn't want to wreck the moment for these kids now. After all-- they deserve childhood memories of bad crap too.
24 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The worst of the franchise
TheLittleSongbird19 February 2011
I love the original Jurassic Park, it is such great fun and one of Spielberg's better movies. However, I dislike the third film and The Lost World intensely. This one is the worst of the series, as awful as The Lost World was(it is actually a contender for Spielberg's worst film) this movie's awfulness makes it look like a Oscar winner.

Jurassic Park 3's only good points are the splendid scenery and the wonderful looking dinosaurs. Everything else falls down the plug just like that. I was very disappointed in the direction and the music, the sluggishness of Joe Johnston's direction and the banality of the score here makes me miss Steven Spielberg and John Williams even more.

The script and story are also major problems. The script is very poor throughout and wastes anyone who has to utter any line from that script. The story is almost non-existent, with superfluous scenes and the odd plot hole. The action sequences also disappoint, instead of being suspenseful they are more mildly amusing but serve no purpose to the plot, while the ending has a that's it? feel to it. The acting is not very good either, and these people are actually very talented, and it doesn't help that none of the characters are very likable. And to top it all off, I thought the film was too short and too rushed as well.

So overall, the worst of the franchise and like The Lost World a big disappointment. 1/10 Bethany Cox
61 out of 138 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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

Recently Viewed