Jurassic Park III

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?

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.

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.

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.