जुरासिक पार्क III

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.

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.

I thought yay another Jurassic Park movie but nope terrible awful no good at all the spinosaurus was OK cool dinosaur to add in the movie but still not a good movie.

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.

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.