Jurassic Park III


Mixed or average reviews - based on 30 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 30
  2. Negative: 7 out of 30

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On
Stream On

Critic Reviews

  1. Chicago Sun-Times
    Reviewed by: Roger Ebert
    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. 70
    Fast and funny and brings back some of the wonder to the series.
  3. Definitely still beating a dead dinosaur here, but the film is leaner, more exciting and superior in every way to the last outing.
  4. Another of many recent Hollywood plotless wonders.
  5. Reviewed by: Jay Carr
    What makes it worth sitting through is the chance it offers to catch up on the technical advances since the last installment.
  6. 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.
  7. Anything, Steven, anything would be better than making us watch the same movie again.
  8. Mr. Showbiz
    Reviewed by: Cody Clark
    The ending is so absurd, in fact, that it feels like it was improvised by a committee of 6-year-olds. If the raptors truly were intelligent, they'd have eaten the final reel.
  9. 60
    Isn't terribly frightening or gory, and at times it's even atmospheric. It also has a sense of humor, and the digs at the prequels hit pay dirt.
  10. The sheer physical presence of these creatures is much more believable and convincing than what can be generously characterized as the film's plot.
  11. At its best, Jurassic Park III is eerily similar to some of the more recent dinosaur-themed video games on the market.
  12. Has no pretentions to be anything more than a goose-bumpy fantasy theme-park ride for kids, but it's such a routine ride.
  13. 50
    While kids of all ages will want to see it, the movie is loud and occasionally brutal, and while the body count is relatively low, it's still pretty scary stuff.
  14. 50
    The whole enterprise sags and wheezes like the tired, we're-in-this-strictly-for-the-money sequel it really is.
  15. This is a monster movie -- 92 minutes, lots of action, lots of green legs stomping, get in, get out.
  16. The screenplay is so stale that even fans of the previous "Jurassic" installments might think this is one clone too many.
  17. 42
    Maybe if you're younger than 10 you'll be scared or thrilled by this film. Otherwise, be prepared for one of the most unexciting pictures this summer.
  18. 40
    The story's tired, as are the main characters.
  19. When a cell-phone gag is the most exciting or inventive thing in a big summer dinosaur movie, you have to wonder if the species might not be ready for extinction.
  20. 40
    All it wants to do is scare a smile onto your face, and it often succeeds. After all, how can a movie that offers Michael Jeter as a mercenary not be fun?
  21. 40
    More of the same -- only less so.
  22. With Joe Johnston directing instead of Spielberg, who executive-produces, and a scrum of screenwriters, none named Crichton, the franchise suffers some negligence.
  23. Wall Street Journal
    Reviewed by: Ed Epstein
    Exemplifies Hollywood's standard practice of stomping a brilliant concept beyond recognition.
  24. Has to be the sorriest excuse for a reprise since "Highlander — The Final Dimension."
  25. Reviewed by: Mike Clark
    Even the special effects alone aren't worth the price of admission.
  26. Reviewed by: Derek Elley
    Game ride that makes the two previous installments look like models of classic filmmaking.
  27. The "Jurassic Park" movie franchise does not evolve. Quite the opposite: It degenerates at great speed.
  28. Drama is minimal and character nonexistent.
  29. A serious been-there-done-that number.
  30. 20
    Stinks worse than dino dung. Sure, the creatures look good.
User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 274 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 43 out of 101
  2. Negative: 29 out of 101
  1. Feb 21, 2012
    JP3 clearly sets out to be a short, fun romp through the JP universe. Well, it's exactly like the "quickie" it tries to be... a short, noisyJP3 clearly sets out to be a short, fun romp through the JP universe. Well, it's exactly like the "quickie" it tries to be... a short, noisy exertion that's kinda fun while it lasts but leaves you feeling unfulfilled. You don't care about the characters, the dinosaurs look more puppet-ish than in either of the original films and the feeling of danger is lacking throughout. On the plus side, the Spinosaurus is pretty neat and no mumbling, stammering Jeff Goldblum to deal with. Whew! Full Review »
  2. IzaakV
    Jan 22, 2009
    I love this movie. The mere fact that they brought it out just for more 'jurassic park action' is good enough for me.
  3. Jun 6, 2015
    After Lost World: Jurassic Park was released they decided to make a third installment and it was released in 2001, Steven Spielberg did notAfter Lost World: Jurassic Park was released they decided to make a third installment and it was released in 2001, Steven Spielberg did not direct this movie (but he produced it) he decided to give it in the hands of Joe Johnston, boy did Spielberg make a huge mistake! I can’t believe Stan Winston who did the special effects in the first two movies did the effects for this piece of crap, the way the dinosaurs are designed look like they were in a videogame with terrible graphics. The plot boy it’s sound ridiculous when I say this; ever since Dr. Grant survived in Jurassic park, he’s now famous and does not want to go back on the island with the dinosaurs, a couple (William H Macy and Tea Leoni) want him to go on a plane to fly over an island called Isla Sorna. But things don’t go as planned! Paul Kirby (William H Macy) lied about flying over Isla Sorna he explains the reason why they wanted him to go on the trip is because Kirby and his wife are looking for their son who is lost and is on this island and they’re going to find him and they wanted someone who’s been on the island before (which Grant has not been on). The only reason why Dr. Allan Grant is on this island is for money. Now dinosaurs are chasing them and running for lives. This feels like a horror movie with dumb and annoying characters that you don’t care if they survive or not all we care about Doctor Grant surviving this island, we don’t care if the couple finds their son. The theme song is there, Laura Dern’s character is back (Grant and her broke up) Sam Neil is awesome but that’s not going save this poorly written movie. There is nothing executive producer Steven Spielberg could have done to make this movie better, the only thing he did in the film is run like a raptor when he read the script that’s why he did not direct good for him. Leoni and Macy blurt out their lines, Neil is too good to return and the director does not stick to originality which made the first two an epic two-hour film filled with crazy realistic dinosaur’s roaring and awesome acting there’s none in this movie. Since this is not an adaptation of Michael Crichton’s two book series, the script copied numerous scenes from his books (total rip off!). This movie is ninety two minutes long, Jurassic Park and The Lost world were two hours long which have the perfect time to have character development and won’t stop to make fan’s entertained for two hours wishing it could never end, since the film is ninety minutes long there’s no character development and us fans want it to end. What a missed opportunity to make an epic trilogy. We fans didn’t expect this franchise to go that far down which is bad and took us out of the series but the first two were on the top and worth watching. Grade D+ Full Review »