Metascore
42

Mixed or average reviews - based on 30 Critics What's this?

User Score
6.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 183 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 30
  2. Negative: 7 out of 30
  1. 75
    Not as awe-inspiring as the first film or as elaborate as the second, but in its own B-movie way, it's a nice little thrill machine.
  2. 63
    Despite all its talk of genetic engineering and its deliberately stupid characters, the unintended message of Jurassic Park III is that when it comes to art and entertainment, you can't beat human DNA.
  3. Another of many recent Hollywood plotless wonders.
  4. At its best, Jurassic Park III is eerily similar to some of the more recent dinosaur-themed video games on the market.
  5. Reviewed by: John Leonard
    40
    With Joe Johnston directing instead of Spielberg, who executive-produces, and a scrum of screenwriters, none named Crichton, the franchise suffers some negligence.
  6. Reviewed by: Ed Epstein
    40
    Exemplifies Hollywood's standard practice of stomping a brilliant concept beyond recognition.
  7. A serious been-there-done-that number.

See all 30 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 43 out of 76
  2. Negative: 24 out of 76
  1. Jun 11, 2013
    10
    I love this movie! While not as good as the first and second movie, i still enjoy it. Also, i LOVE the Spinosaurus, but my favorite Dino is still the T-Rex. Expand
  2. Oct 20, 2010
    8
    it wasn't as good as the first movie, but it beats the second movie in just one shot and its an entertaining sequel in the series after the visuals were the great saving grace.

    rating: 8/10
    Expand
  3. Feb 20, 2011
    7
    While it's not as good as the first movie it's still a blast to watch and brings back memories of the first one, I was really happy that they brought back Dr. Grant, if you like the first movie you may be a little disappointed with this one, but it's still an enjoyable movie. Expand
  4. Jun 20, 2013
    5
    My least favorite of the series. Sam Neill is definitely a welcomed return, but the film itself lacks in the excitement and the magic that the first two had. Expand
  5. Oct 3, 2011
    4
    The Lost World wasn't a terrible sequel, and neither is Jurassic Park III. It inherits the drawbacks of the series thus far - criminal under-development of characters and a script that leaves a lot to be desired. The effects are still fantastic of course,and there's enough action here to keep event the most ardent dinophiles entertained. My main problem with Jurassic Park III is that without Spielberg in the director's chair, the film lags behind it's predecessors in terms of quality. Clearly all the film's budget went on the admittedly fantastic looking Spinosaurus, but unfortunately this means a lot of the rest of the film looks a little cheap. There's no hiding where the money ran out, as there is a multitude of scenes in confined spaces, most which appear to be ill-disguised studio sets. Essentially, Joe Johnston has ripped away the Jurassic Park series' blockbuster crown and replaced it with the rather less regal B-Movie paper hat, which is rather tragic. Expand
  6. Mar 29, 2013
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie pulled Jurassic Park into a hole for me. Johnston directed Jumanji, and that was a great movie. Why he couldn't do the same here, I don't know. Maybe more realistic situations instead of a kid falling onto an island that is supposed to be heavily protected? Or later having that kid almost being picked to death by a bunch of baby pterosaurs? Oh no, not baby pterosaurs. I'll plus the score for the slight suspense at some parts. I hope Jurassic Park IV brings the series back for me, but I think the Lost World and this one here messed it up enough for me. Expand
  7. Jan 23, 2013
    0
    What a terrible trilogy maker for Jurassic Park. It's always an overcast sky in this synthetic sound stage forest. There is about 20 seconds of awe and wonder like the first two movies then it's destroyed by the main characters wading through dinosaur droppings. The plot is basically "Go to Island to find kid. Crash. Run from Dinosaurs. Kill the mercenaries. Lots of Annoying Parents. Kill the poster boy quickly and with no honest effort at pretending it's for anything other then "KOOL, DINOSAURS!" ". All of which I assume was written onto a star buck's napkin by Joe Johnston and handed to Spielberg during a besotted event. The movie has no interesting cinematography either, no high quality you'd expect from a Spielberg movie such as the first two. It's always an overcast lighting and it's almost entirely in a sterile looking sound stage forest. There's no change of set pieces. It's all just running in the forest while "dinosaurs rip each others faces off! RawwRR" as Alan Grant put it. From a science stand point it's just dreadful. Even compared to the other films. Spinosaurus was a spindly fish eater, not a super predator nightmare monster that ate everything in sight like pretend paleo adviser Jack Horner would have you believe. Tyrannosaurus, the main antagonist and poster boy for the series the last 2 films, is killed off 5 minutes after showing up in a pitiful death sequence that you would expect only to befall a Star Trek Red shirt. The Raptors are the only semi-decent thing and even they under perform. The Pteranodons are just...weird. Especially with teeth. Only Jack Horner could give a Pteranodon teeth. Then there are the Ankylosaurus, Brachiosaurus, Corythosaurus, Parasaurolophus, Stegosaurus and Ceratosaurus that just show up in an attempt to try and give dinosaur fans something to look at and go "o0oooh pretty"

    It's just terrible. I feel robbed of 2 hours of my life some how.
    Expand

See all 76 User Reviews

Trailers