Jurassic Park III

Jurassic Park III is an energetic but ultimately underwhelming addition to the franchise. While it offers bursts of tension and impressive creature effects, it lacks the grandeur, thematic weight, and emotional engagement of the first two entries.

The film's strongest asset is undoubtedly the return of Dr. Alan Grant, played once again with stoic charm by Sam Neill. His presence adds a welcome thread of continuity and credibility. The introduction of the Spinosaurus provides a new apex predator, and the action sequences, especially the early crash and river chase, are well-executed and visually engaging.

However, the narrative is thin and feels like an afterthought. With a runtime barely surpassing 90 minutes, Jurassic Park III rushes through its plot with minimal character development and little room for emotional stakes. Supporting characters are largely forgettable, and the dialogue often borders on clunky.

What's missing most is the sense of awe and philosophical tension that made the original Jurassic Park feel monumental. Instead, this installment feels more like a creature feature with a blockbuster budget, a fun diversion, but not a meaningful continuation.

That said, it's not without merit. For fans who simply want dinosaurs, chaos, and a fast-paced survival story, it delivers. But for those seeking the world-building and moral complexity of its predecessors, it falls disappointingly short.

I will say this about Jurassic Park III, I'm at least glad it didn't overstay its welcome. But just the fact that it had such a short run time already tells you what you need to know.

Unlike the previous movie where the characters were incredibly dumb and sometimes annoying, the characters here were dumb but also kinda bland. There's really not a character I was really rooting for to survive. Thank goodness for Sam Neil fortunately because he was really the only one I truly cared for and actually tried to make smart character decisions throughout.

And the action had its moments but overall, it was honestly kind of forgettable. The Lost World might've had terrible characters but at least they did a better job at tension building and using the dinosaurs the correct way.

Overall if I were to rank the Jurassic movies, I'd honestly put this in D tier. It's just so unnecessary.

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?

With the OG Park, I can't quite decide what the standout moment is, there are so many brilliant ones. I have the opposite problem here, there's some fun but there are a couple of Yikes moments that... Dream raptor saying Alan, the ninjasaur that can sneak up on people in dead silence until the phone gives it away, the random bird cage, the kid collecting dino-pee... There's a lot of cringe in III and up until recently, I thought it was the most forgettable JP out there.

Seriously, how does a gigantic dinosaur sneak up on these people, but then somehow the phone rings and it's loud enough, FROM ITS STOMACH, that everyone hears it? GAH!

Every franchise, sooner or later, is questioned for its insistence on continuing. But personally, all it takes is a dinosaur on screen, some polished production value, and I'm already sold. All I need are prehistoric animals, bared teeth, people running. You can call it an infinite franchise; I'll be there. However, if The Lost World: Jurassic Park still had enough charm to win me over - even without the first film's magic - Jurassic Park III treads on swampier ground. Not because of the production (which remains impeccable), but because this time, I simply couldn't bring myself to care about almost anyone. And in Jurassic Park, sympathizing with the characters is half the adventure.

The film even starts promisingly: Alan Grant playing with a baby, reuniting with Ellie (until her husband shows up, just for us to discover she took a different path - what a shame!). I always preferred Ian Malcolm's charismatic chaos to Alan's rigidity, but I respect his arc in the first film: the man who preferred fossils to children being forced to protect two. Here, however, not even Grant himself could hold my attention. He returns as the guide for an expedition funded by a supposedly eccentric millionaire couple, the kind who seem destined to become appetizers for a hungry crocodile. Of course, the story holds a secret: it's not extreme tourism, but a mission to rescue their missing son. It's noble, it's family-oriented, it's even coherent with the franchise's DNA... but the couple drove me up the wall. From start to finish, all I saw was people arguing, blaming each other, and dragging the film down with them.

And it's curious, because the script, in terms of premise, is tighter than the second film's. It's almost a "Jurassic terror," straight to the point. And when Spielberg isn't at the helm, what remains is precisely this shift: the plane crash shredded by the Spinosaurus (a new competitor for the T-Rex's crown), it tearing through the fuselage like opening a can of sardines, the foggy bridge infested with pterodactyls tossing bodies through the air like toys, the velociraptors communicating with disturbing intelligence, the boat attack complete with fire, gasoline, and near-drowning. In these moments, the film delivers - and how. The problem is that, away from the teeth and claws, the plot insists on a family drama that doesn't captivate me, no matter how much I admire the boy surviving miraculously for eight weeks and even saving Grant himself.

Deep down, what's missing isn't terror, nor dinosaurs - it's humanity. The first film had characters that entered the pantheon: Hammond and his megalomaniacal stubbornness, Ian Malcolm and his rock'n'roll sarcasm, Alan and Ellie with their bittersweet chemistry, even the kids with their mix of fear and courage. Here, on the other hand, we're left with a gallery of disposable characters. Some crew members, introduced as elite expert hunters, barely take a breath before becoming statistics. Billy, Grant's loyal student, does get his moment, but he never sets the screen on fire. And the couple, despite competent actors, only made me root for them to become the Spinosaurus's dinner. Perhaps Jurassic Park III would work better if it had fully embraced the horror, without relying on characters who can't hold our empathy.

But here's the paradox: even without winning us over with its humans, the film works. Because Jurassic Park was never just about people - it was about the clash of eras, about the fascination and fear of seeing prehistory roaring before us. In the end, what remains are the creatures. And in that department, there's no denying it: the Spinosaurus leaves its mark, the duel with the old colossus is pure spectacle, the pterodactyls in the aviary are genuinely chilling. If the first was about wonder, and the second about surviving the spectacle, this third one seems to ask: "what if it were a nightmare?". Unfortunately, the nightmare can also be following certain characters. But, between script stumbles and insufferable humans, the jungle still belongs to the dinosaurs. And that, I confess, remains irresistible.