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.

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.

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.

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!

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.