Le parc jurassique III

Definitely the worst of the Park Trilogy but it's not really much AWFUL. It just doesn't stand out and has nothing to it which is memorable. The plot is really basic, classic someone stuck on an Island and you need to find them but this time the bonus is there's dinosaurs running all around. It was nice seeing Sam Niell's Alan Grant return but aside that there isn't anything that makes this Film stand out in the franchise. Super forgettable. I mean, there's nice CGI and some sweet moments like Eric reuniting with his parents but that's about it. Decent Film but nothing special. Clear that in the Park Trilogy, the Films decline each time.

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.

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.

"Jurassic Park III" delivers the familiar dinosaur thrills, but it feels like the magic and tension of the original are mostly missing. The film has some exciting action sequences and creative set pieces, yet the story is thin, and the characters lack depth, making it hard to fully engage with the stakes.

The pacing is uneven-certain scenes drag while others rush through key developments. The return to the island setting offers opportunities for suspense, but the plot often relies on predictable beats rather than clever surprises. The dinosaurs are still impressive visually, but they can't fully compensate for the lackluster storytelling.

Overall, "Jurassic Park III" is an average installment: fun in brief moments but forgettable compared to the first two films.