Jurassic Park III

I have always felt this movie was better than the second although not as good as the original. This movie is defiantly more in-touch with the original than the second. The characters are likeable and the plot works. The ending though feels rushed, almost like they ran out of budget. Having Sam Neil back in the driving seat improves the film vastly. A Sunday viewing classic worthy to have been the sequel.

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.

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?

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 will say this about Jurassic Park III, I'm at least glad it didn't overstay its welcome. But just the fact that it had such a short run time already tells you what you need to know.

Unlike the previous movie where the characters were incredibly dumb and sometimes annoying, the characters here were dumb but also kinda bland. There's really not a character I was really rooting for to survive. Thank goodness for Sam Neil fortunately because he was really the only one I truly cared for and actually tried to make smart character decisions throughout.

And the action had its moments but overall, it was honestly kind of forgettable. The Lost World might've had terrible characters but at least they did a better job at tension building and using the dinosaurs the correct way.

Overall if I were to rank the Jurassic movies, I'd honestly put this in D tier. It's just so unnecessary.