User Score
6.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 221 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 43 out of 221
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Feb 21, 2012
    4
    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, 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 plusJP3 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! Expand
  2. Sep 20, 2011
    3
    The idea of Jurassic Park III didn't seem like a good idea to me even if Spielberg directed as the first two were not his finest films with the first being a great piece of action but devoid of pretty much everything else with characters that make stupid people look clever. The 2nd film, The Lost World made some of the same mistakes but its main error was a laughable 30 minute chase aroundThe idea of Jurassic Park III didn't seem like a good idea to me even if Spielberg directed as the first two were not his finest films with the first being a great piece of action but devoid of pretty much everything else with characters that make stupid people look clever. The 2nd film, The Lost World made some of the same mistakes but its main error was a laughable 30 minute chase around San Diego as a closing.
    The 3rd film makes all the mistakes both of these two makes and has very little redeeming features with Spielberg not even directing this installment. Joe Johnston took the helm for this one with William H Macy and Tea Leoni entering the Jurassic family. Despite the inherent flaws of the first two films the 3rd tries its very best at the beginning to avoid the same problems, devoting actual time to character development before getting into the action. However as soon as the action starts the characters revert to this two dimensional plot devices to the the film from one set piece to the other. Unfortunately thats just the 1st of many problems. The action as compared to the Spielberg's attempts is much less impressive but still enjoyable with is just about what makes the film watchable with improved graphics and new monsters to run away from. Finally the section in the birdcage, be it impressive visually, is just plain silly.
    Expand
  3. TrexFan
    Apr 24, 2003
    4
    Ich finde das einfach schwach. Spinosaurus ist nicht Stärker als der Trex und warum war der Spinosaurus nicht tot als der T-rex ihm ins genick gebissen hatte?
  4. DavidS.
    Jul 27, 2001
    3
    Jurassic Park III? Yeah, maybe you saw it the first time when it was called JURASSIC PARK. And to Sam Neill; yeah, Steve Irwin called and he wants his identity back.
  5. FelipeR.
    Aug 9, 2006
    0
    This movie completly sucked! Thats the only way to describe it. It sucked! It was too short. There was not enough killing in the movie and what the hell were the people of jurassic park thinking of replacing t.rex with a spinosaurus. T.rex should have been the star, not spinosaurus. There is no way that spinosaurus could win so easy. Steven Speilberg didn't even direct the damn This movie completly sucked! Thats the only way to describe it. It sucked! It was too short. There was not enough killing in the movie and what the hell were the people of jurassic park thinking of replacing t.rex with a spinosaurus. T.rex should have been the star, not spinosaurus. There is no way that spinosaurus could win so easy. Steven Speilberg didn't even direct the damn movie, Joe Johnston did. I heard that that guy is going to direct part 4. How can Speilberg be stupid enough to make the same mistake of letting Johnston direct part 4 after the crappy film he directed which was part 3. Expand
  6. JeremyH.
    Oct 20, 2007
    3
    This movie is a tragic trilogy-maker. Let's hope Jurassic Park IV recovers. It need Sam Neill to exist, we all know that. It wouldn't be the same without him.
  7. RobertF.
    Aug 10, 2001
    4
    The thrill is gone. Unless you can't get enough of computer generated dinosaur puppets chasing humans...no suspense..all the guys who deserve to get eaten are devoured in the first act...and the raptors have been transformed into cuddly overprotective parents!
  8. TommyD.
    Dec 5, 2002
    2
    Its very weird that when the T.rex bites the Spinosaur on the neck the Spinosaur is not killed.Plus, the Spinosaur kills the T-rex with its hands.Udaskey dosint`even have a chance when the velosaraptors attck! was that T.rex evain grown up? was ceratosaurus rilly that big?
  9. ParisT.
    May 3, 2005
    3
    I myself am a huge fan on the original Jurassic Park. Its sense of awe and wonder, and of course the velociraptors are what mad me love the first film. Obviously I was excited at the prospect of there being a third film, but when I saw it in the cinema I couldn't be more disappointed. Firstly, the whole feel of the film was different from the first two, simply because the direction I myself am a huge fan on the original Jurassic Park. Its sense of awe and wonder, and of course the velociraptors are what mad me love the first film. Obviously I was excited at the prospect of there being a third film, but when I saw it in the cinema I couldn't be more disappointed. Firstly, the whole feel of the film was different from the first two, simply because the direction duties went to Joe Johnston, an amatuer compared with Steven Speilberg. Secondly, despite what many critics have said, I felt that the dinosaurs in this movie were no where near as realistic as those used in the original two films. They didn't look frightning and just seemed plain cartoonish. Thirdly, the film's emphasis on humour, such as the mobile phone scene, just pulled the whole movie franchise down a level. In my opinion, the Jurassic Park films worked much better with less lame, stupid humour, and with more subtle, and witty comments, which were provided by Jeff Goldblum in the first two films. Also, I have to admit, the plot in this film is weak, and the ending is completely bizarre, and just ends up making the film one complete huge joke. As one critic said, it makes the first two films look like examples of 'epic and classic filmaking'. Quite right so. For anyone intrested in seeing this film, I warn you to STAY AWAY, and watch only the other two in the trilogy, as, quite frankly, this is an example of how a sequel should not be made. Expand
  10. ZacG.
    Jun 30, 2006
    0
    The movie absolutely, positvely sucked! Iam one of the biggest dinosaur enthusiasts in the world and have no idea why they used spinosaurus, a dinosaur puny compared to the famous tyrannosaurus rex, to be the star. if they wanted to have a good movie, they would have stuck with t-rex, had spino as a side character, and killed spino when t-rex gets his mouth around spino's neck! also, The movie absolutely, positvely sucked! Iam one of the biggest dinosaur enthusiasts in the world and have no idea why they used spinosaurus, a dinosaur puny compared to the famous tyrannosaurus rex, to be the star. if they wanted to have a good movie, they would have stuck with t-rex, had spino as a side character, and killed spino when t-rex gets his mouth around spino's neck! also, they put the fight scene too early in the movie. Expand
  11. JuanR.
    Feb 18, 2007
    0
    Absolutely terrible!!!!!! My God what happened, the last 2 where great but suddenly when I thought that this would be the best ever I was absolutely amazed on how bad a movie can be made. The T-rex should have won against the Spinosaurus because when the T-rex bit it on the neck it would have broken it, but noooo it didn't even bleed. The plot is terrible and I really expected more Absolutely terrible!!!!!! My God what happened, the last 2 where great but suddenly when I thought that this would be the best ever I was absolutely amazed on how bad a movie can be made. The T-rex should have won against the Spinosaurus because when the T-rex bit it on the neck it would have broken it, but noooo it didn't even bleed. The plot is terrible and I really expected more from such an exciting movie the first one was. Expand
  12. KanakoJ
    Apr 6, 2009
    1
    The worst movie I have seen for quite some time. Good effects, but awful plotting and scripting. And I mean really, really awful. Oh dear.
  13. RyanM.
    Nov 4, 2001
    2
    This film lacks the overall simple understanding of being action-packed. Even though it's probably the most effects-filled action film of the year, it doesn't know the true meaning of action, the only thing it has is a bunch of flesh eating dinosaurs. The truth is is it just can't be interesting, and action-filled at the same time.
  14. RobertZ.
    Jul 19, 2001
    3
    You've already seen this movie; you just don't know it yet.
  15. EricC.
    Nov 13, 2002
    0
    I don't often laugh when I see really bad films, but this is what happens when movies aren't made by the same writers or directors. The fact that it was based on Michael Crichton's story doesn't do anything for this one. From the tacky scratch of the number 3 at the beginning, to the dumbest end to a crappy plot, this movie was the worst of the year. I was disturbed to I don't often laugh when I see really bad films, but this is what happens when movies aren't made by the same writers or directors. The fact that it was based on Michael Crichton's story doesn't do anything for this one. From the tacky scratch of the number 3 at the beginning, to the dumbest end to a crappy plot, this movie was the worst of the year. I was disturbed to see one of my favorite actors, William H. Macy, performing at what was probably his worst ever. Even one actor who was in JP 3 says he doesn't want to be in a 4th one (god forbid.) Heck, the highest score given called this a "B-movie". It was too rushed, too short, and too stupid. But I will give this movie one piece of credit: I never expected a paleontologist to be able to order the U.S. military to fight dinosaurs. Expand
  16. Henkv.d.W.
    Oct 28, 2002
    0
    TERRIBLE!!!! I'm a big fan of the fisrt two movies; I think they are one of the best of the nineties.... But this one is one of the most terrible movies I ever saw; PLEASE STEVEN....YOU HAVE TO DO THE FOURTH ONE, TOGETHER WITH JOHN WILLIAMS!!!!
  17. AlexanderS.
    Jan 6, 2002
    2
    Lack of rational plot or charactor devolpment. Whith endless possibilities, none were saught. An unenjoyable piece of fluff.
  18. JohnB.
    May 24, 2002
    1
    To say with Ian Malcolm in JP1: "That is one big pile of sh..". It really stinks (of money, mainly). The whole thing makes me feel embarrassed, as I am a (serious) dinosaur enthusiast. This kind of shite so very much helps to ridicule science, I think. Besides that, this movie helps to clearly show that we live in a over the top, money-hungry consumer-society, especially in the USA (the To say with Ian Malcolm in JP1: "That is one big pile of sh..". It really stinks (of money, mainly). The whole thing makes me feel embarrassed, as I am a (serious) dinosaur enthusiast. This kind of shite so very much helps to ridicule science, I think. Besides that, this movie helps to clearly show that we live in a over the top, money-hungry consumer-society, especially in the USA (the birth place of this cinematic monstrosity) where the 'American Dream' has been turned into a travesty of itself and is being used as an excuse for buisinesspeople to make (lots) more money no matter what the costs. So film makers, if you have any sense of what is right and wrong (yes, it doesn't hurt to bring in a bit of moral sensibility in what you do, even in film making!), make either a good movie, or lay off it! Expand
  19. BobY.
    Aug 27, 2007
    4
    Yuck. just another excuse to capatilze on the success of the original movie.... everything is bad. Not even that thrilling as the characters have no respect for their surroundings throughout the entire film.... they just walk around like they're chillin in their backyards or something.
  20. MichaelD.
    Aug 14, 2001
    4
    This movie failed to surprise or excite me. Predictable and unplausable. You have indeed seen this movie before.
  21. AdamN.
    Jul 14, 2002
    3
    The worst of the three Jurassic Park movies. Steven Spielberg didn't even direct it. Horrible.
  22. JohnO.
    Aug 13, 2003
    2
    It takes a franchise which combines the cutting edge of computer animation technology with the brilliance and craft of Michael Crichton... and turns it into just another monster movie.
  23. bobpoo
    Jul 31, 2009
    0
    JURASSIC PARK 3 IS RUBBISH!! I am a huge jurassic park fan and love the first 2 films which were both brilliant and i was very excited when i heard there would be a 3rd but how disapointed i was. jp3 was a disgrace to the whole franchise. Firstly, the biggest problem from the start was that Steven Spielberg didnt direct it. Instead the job was given to Joe Johnson, only because he had JURASSIC PARK 3 IS RUBBISH!! I am a huge jurassic park fan and love the first 2 films which were both brilliant and i was very excited when i heard there would be a 3rd but how disapointed i was. jp3 was a disgrace to the whole franchise. Firstly, the biggest problem from the start was that Steven Spielberg didnt direct it. Instead the job was given to Joe Johnson, only because he had been pestering Spielberg for the job of directing the lost world. Because of this poor choice of director, jp3 contained stupid humor such as the cell phone. Johnson has directed films such as jumanji and honey i shrunk the kids which are just the sort of films which also include his annoying "humour". Aside from that, other bad points about the film are the lack of people and consequently, the lack of deaths. They were the best bits of the first 2 (Donnald Genaro's and Eddie Carr's to name my favourites) Also most of the chacters just annoyed me (apart from Grant) The plot was terrible there was no imagination to it, and wat was that all about at the end?! The raptors corner them for stealing their eggs but are then confused and run off because of the raptor calls. To make the end even worse the survivors just so happen to walk in to the army on the exact same bit of beach who have also just so happened to have found Billy as well. Them "finding" Billy was to similar to how Ian was later found in the first film. Note that in jp1, Robert and Ellie had a reason to be searching for survivors were he was, but the whole jp3 ending feels rushed. The final nail in the jp coffin is that the main dinosaur was the spinosaurus after a cheesy fight with the t rex. The worst part of the whole film was that stupid cell phone ringing inside the spinosaurus. When Eric hugs his parents through the fence we can hear the jingle so pesumably the spino is just standing there watching them for even longer than it does when they notice it. It seems they couldnt get anything right with this film. Even the toys were the the wrong scale for the previous 1s and most even the wrong scale for others in their own series. Terrible film and a Terrible disapiontment. I can only hope that a Jurassic Park 4 is made that will live up to the first 2 and redeam the franchise. Expand
  24. May 26, 2011
    1
    Growing up with the first two Jurassic Park movies, I was excited to see this movie when it came out. However, even as a ten year old boy, I was very disappointed watching this movie. Replacing Spielberg and John Williams was a big mistake, and everything that made the first two great was gone in this sequel. And so, my childhood was gone forever becuase of this stinker.
  25. 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 thatThe 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
  26. Jan 11, 2014
    3
    Severe lack of characterisation, predictable set-up from the start, majorly contrived plot devices, the dinosaurs almost pushed to the side with about the least annoying character being Dr. Alan Grant, a stock, pointless ending...it's like I didn't care any more. And it's a great insult to have one of the main female characters to be so poorly written that she was about one of the onlySevere lack of characterisation, predictable set-up from the start, majorly contrived plot devices, the dinosaurs almost pushed to the side with about the least annoying character being Dr. Alan Grant, a stock, pointless ending...it's like I didn't care any more. And it's a great insult to have one of the main female characters to be so poorly written that she was about one of the only ones to be found screaming for help. Expand
  27. Apr 8, 2012
    3
    Absolutely underdone and overdone on the same levels of everything in Jurassic Park. The actors, the script, and the story were all just underdone and the dinosaurs were overdone. Some action/terror sequences were overdone and some were underdone and didn't have the uplifting experience of the first. If only the story was extended to more science than just learning how velociraptorsAbsolutely underdone and overdone on the same levels of everything in Jurassic Park. The actors, the script, and the story were all just underdone and the dinosaurs were overdone. Some action/terror sequences were overdone and some were underdone and didn't have the uplifting experience of the first. If only the story was extended to more science than just learning how velociraptors communicate, if the story was extended as an eco-thriller to be like Michael Crichton's The Lost World which it tried but failed on many levels, and if the plot had more detail and a better script, then it would of been a necessary sequel. They should of stopped at the first Jurassic Park unless The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park III were better than they are now though unfortunately, they could of been better but were not. Expand
  28. Sep 2, 2012
    3
    What has happened to this franchise. It went from a classic, to a great movie to now a movie that flat out sucks. A few good moments but horrible on every other front.
  29. Apr 21, 2015
    3
    Just an awful sequel.

    Some great visuals and dinosaur designs. Some exciting scenes here and there. And also some rather funny performances from the leads (although I'm sur that's not what they wished to be remembered for.) But a stupid premise and dreadful writing and dialogue. I wasn't sure if the writers knew they were meant to write a script for a Jurassic Park movie, not a
    Just an awful sequel.

    Some great visuals and dinosaur designs. Some exciting scenes here and there. And also some rather funny performances from the leads (although I'm sur that's not what they wished to be remembered for.)

    But a stupid premise and dreadful writing and dialogue. I wasn't sure if the writers knew they were meant to write a script for a Jurassic Park movie, not a sitcom.

    Overall:
    While the movie does look nice and the cast is trying their hardest with what they've got to work with, it still isn't enough to save it. This is a sequel best left forgotten.
    Expand
  30. 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. KillWhat 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
  31. 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
  32. Nov 22, 2014
    4
    One of those third installments that makes the whole trilogy (or franchise) awful, not just the movie itself. Jurassic Park III had a terrible plot, so terrible that it shouldn't have been made.
  33. Apr 25, 2015
    4
    Relatively speaking, Jurassic Park III is a disappointment of behemoth proportions. With Steven Spielberg gone from the director's chair (replaced by Jumanji's Joe Johnston), the Jurassic Park saga has sunk down to its B-grade monster movie roots. The concept of a human character has been replaced by a cardboard cut-out, each of which serves one of two purposes: to run away from theRelatively speaking, Jurassic Park III is a disappointment of behemoth proportions. With Steven Spielberg gone from the director's chair (replaced by Jumanji's Joe Johnston), the Jurassic Park saga has sunk down to its B-grade monster movie roots. The concept of a human character has been replaced by a cardboard cut-out, each of which serves one of two purposes: to run away from the dinosaurs or to be eaten by them. The "synthespians" of Final Fantasy would have been perfectly at home in Jurassic Park III. There's no need whatsoever for human actors.

    The first Jurassic Park was a well-paced adventure movie wrapped in a magical package that used state-of-the-art special effects and digital sound to make us believe that dinosaurs could once again roam the earth. The Lost World: Jurassic Park II, while panned in some corners, basically offered more of the same - tightly-paced action and adventure. Unfortunately, Jurassic Park III not only re-hashes the two previous outings (hapless humans hunted by hungry dinosaurs) but does it with far less style and human interest. This time around, there's no build-up to the first appearance of the dinosaurs - they're suddenly there. Character interaction, never a strong suit in the series, is worse than perfunctory - it's virtually non-existent. Every action piece is staged in a generic fashion, leaving no room for suspense or tension. And the whole movie is over so fast (sans credits, only about 1 hour, 20 minutes) that it hardly seems to have happened.

    The plot, insofar as there is a plot, has paleontologist Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) traveling to Isla Sorna ("Site B") as the paid guide for Paul and Amanda Kirby (William H. Macy and Téa Leoni), an estranged husband and wife searching for their son, Eric (Trevor Morgan), who is lost on the island. Grant, accompanied by his assistant, Billy Brennan (Alessandro Nivola), soon finds himself in the same kind of life-and-death situation he ended up in during the original Jurassic Park, being chased by Raptors, T-Rexs, and the "new" Spinosaurus. Also along for the ride are a few other individuals (Michael Jeter, John Diehl) who practically have "Dinosaur Fodder" stenciled on their foreheads.

    It's a sad observation to note that the best scene in the movie - a reunion between Grant and his former sidekick, Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern, in a cameo) - features no dinosaurs. Everything that transpires on Isla Sorna is repetitious and largely uninteresting. Admittedly, there are some new dinosaurs (including a few that fly), but they act in basically the same way that all of the others do. The raptors have been elevated to super-genius status (they now talk to each other, albeit not in English - I was half-expecting subtitles) while our old friend, the T-Rex, has only a brief, ignoble cameo. The special effects, while still impressive, seem to have been done on the cheap - some of the dinosaurs, especially the new ones, look less polished.

    urassic Park III lacks a legitimate climax - it sort of ends with a big, deus ex machina bang. This is in keeping with the film's overall poor structure. It doesn't have much of a beginning, a middle, or an ending - causing me to wonder if there was a finished script before filming started (according to comments made by two of the actors, there wasn't). The movie vainly attempts to replicate the human relationships of the first two movies: a low-key romance between two adults (Grant and Sattler in Jurassic Park; Jeff Goldblum's Ian Malcolm and Julianne Moore's Sarah Harding in The Lost World) and a adult/child bonding (Grant and Hammond's grandchildren in Jurassic Park; Malcolm and his daughter in The Lost World). In this case, however, there is no chemistry between the couple, William H. Macy and Téa Leoni, and Grant's interaction with Eric simply doesn't work. It is forced and unnatural.

    The filmmakers obviously hoped that bringing back Sam Neill would lend an air of legitimacy to this production that it might not otherwise have possessed. And, to give Neill support, they have added a group of top-notch character actors - William H. Macy, Michael Jeter, John Diehl, and hunk-in-waiting Alessandro Nivola. The only serious instance of miscasting is Téa Leoni, who is farther out of her element than Julianne Moore was in The Lost World. Yet, because the characters are so thinly written, no amount of acting experience can make a difference. Given the material he has to work with, Neill can be forgiven for his lackluster performance.

    At the end, Jurassic Park III leaves the door wide open for a Jurassic Park IV. I can only hope that a justifiably poor box office showing will slam that door shut with a louder thud than the sound made by an approaching T-Rex.
    Expand
Metascore
42

Mixed or average reviews - based on 30 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 30
  2. Negative: 7 out of 30
  1. 40
    The story's tired, as are the main characters.
  2. Reviewed by: Cody Clark
    60
    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.
  3. 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.