User reviews

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?

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.

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.

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"!

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

To call this movie an extravagant piece of art would be a joke. The plot was extremely hollow, and a majority of the acting was less than stellar. However, I won't deny that I enjoyed the 90+ minutes I spent sitting through this film. There was everything to expect in the typical JP movie: victims with awfully good endurance, a jungle, and some scary dinosaurs.

Truthfully, it felt as if I were watching a different sequel to the original, not a second. The premise was pretty much the same: a survivor of the Jurassic Park incident is forced to return to the island, and when all communication is cut by unfortunate circumstances, it's time to run around like crazy, trying to find a way off the island while escaping vicious dinosaurs at the same time. This time, we get to watch Sam Neill squirm instead of Jeff Goldblum, and instead of doing research, they're looking for a twelve-year-old kid. Not exactly the smartest move, but all is forgiven and forgotten when the dinosaurs are unleashed once more.

If you're expecting something original and spectacular, then you're going to be disappointed. If you're like me, who only expects to see a fun-filled chase through the jungle for an hour or so, then sit back and relax.

This movie is not very good. In fact, the only things that make this film watchable, are the cinematography and the special effects. The dinosaurs look really good.

But, like I said, the rest is not good at all. The acting is not spectacular (except for a few scenes) the dialogs are also not spectacular and sometimes even abominable.

The plot is just an excuse to see people being attacked by dinosaurs.

But, I must say, the majority of the action scenes are quite good and sometimes the film is very exciting.

If you like dinosaurs, and if you don't mind a stupid script, you will enjoy it.

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.

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

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.

Greetings from Lithuania.

"Jurassic Park III" (2001) has to be one of the most shortest running blockbusters i have ever seen. While it was fun movie overall, i couldn't believed my eyes when the credits started to roll - nevertheless at running time 1 h 22 min. it delivered what it promised, sort of. Parts III was always in my opinion then a 2nd movie, which was pretty bad overall, with exception of action sequences and stunning special effects, even S.Spielberg has admit it. III-rd movie of the second hand was much more better paced. While it didn't have that "WOW" factor, it still was a pretty fun adventure.

Overall, "Jurassic Park III" isn't really great adventure, but its far better then "Lost World". It has great special effects, some new dinosaurs and fun adventures. Pretty OK movie overall.

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

I went and saw it expecting it to be a bad movie as the 2nd one sucked and Steven Spielberg wasn't directing 3 so I was like oh it's jurassic park I have to see it but it isn't going to be good. Well I was way wrong about that in the fact that it is by far better then 2 but still not as good as the first one but then very few movies are as good as the first. The acting in this movie was far more belivable then 2 and the Special effects were awsome If you like Dino movies then this is deffenitly for you and if you say I don't want to watch it because 2 sucked then go watch it and you will be supprised it's very good could be a little longer though. I thought it was just a tad to short running a little over 90 minutes but well worth the 90 minutes Alan Grant(Sam Neil) Dose a awsome job at acting once again. Well GO WATCH IT IT IS REALLY REALLY GOOD

7/10

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.

In a lot of cases like the Jurassic Park series, the films deteriorate as the franchise continues. However, the case with the Jurassic Park series is slightly different. The best film came first, followed by the worst (Lost World), and then the quite good.

Although not as good as the original film, Jurassic Park III was better than I expected. Following the disaster that was Lost World, I anticipated this film as something to tide me by for a few hours, featuring dinosaurs, and people getting eaten by them while screaming loudly. And of course, these two things were featured. But there actually was quite a good plot, and acting. I was pleased to see Sam Neil return to the series (a factor which instantly made the film more pleasing). The cinematography created a dark atmosphere, and the story moved along at a fair pace.

Overall, an good addition to the series.

7/10

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.