Jurassic Park III

User Score
6.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 297 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 57 out of 297

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream 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

User Reviews

  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. Jun 3, 2015
    4
    Jurassic Park III is a dumb dinosaur action film. For some that will be fine but when you consider the fact this is the same movie as the second one dumbed down even more and when you consider how smart the first one was you need to ask yourself what the point of this was. There is no characters are story and the film stumbles from one dumb video game dinosaur action level to another. InJurassic Park III is a dumb dinosaur action film. For some that will be fine but when you consider the fact this is the same movie as the second one dumbed down even more and when you consider how smart the first one was you need to ask yourself what the point of this was. There is no characters are story and the film stumbles from one dumb video game dinosaur action level to another. In some ways this film is better being much shorter and less convoluted but it is also a lot dumber. After this all I can say is why would you want a fourth one? I don’t know what’s dumber the characters who keep coming back to these islands or the studios who keep making these movies. Expand
  3. SpencerK.
    Jul 11, 2007
    5
    Spinisaurus only eats fish says my friend Noah so it can not kill the T-Rex in three.
  4. Apr 14, 2013
    6
    Jurassic Park III is nowhere near as good as the excellent original. But neither is it as bloated or unnecessarily kill-count heavy as it's immediate predecessor, The Lost World. Falling somewhere in-between, Jurassic Park III is a short, streamlined picture that delivers a fun dose of Dinosaur related mayhem. Nothing more, nothing less. Good, fun B-movie entertainment.
  5. [Anonymous]
    Jun 13, 2005
    6
    Not a recommended pick, but it's not a total disaster. A couple scenes will definitely scare you. THat T-Rex vs. Spinosaurus duel, as short as it is, pins you down tot he seat. The kid is quite brave. THe characters are cheesy, though, as the parents are absolutely annoying dumbasses. But that scene where a Spinosaurus attack is crosscutted with Barney...comic genius! It's about Not a recommended pick, but it's not a total disaster. A couple scenes will definitely scare you. THat T-Rex vs. Spinosaurus duel, as short as it is, pins you down tot he seat. The kid is quite brave. THe characters are cheesy, though, as the parents are absolutely annoying dumbasses. But that scene where a Spinosaurus attack is crosscutted with Barney...comic genius! It's about time somebody threw mud at that purple dino. Expand
  6. 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.
  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. 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?
  9. MattM.
    Jul 27, 2001
    6
    A predictable monster flick with poor characters and sloppy writing. It's an okay addition to an otherwise dismal series of summer releases. It's fun at points, but it is just so incredibly formulaic. The characters are really stupid too, and they do really REALLY stupid things. JP III is all right for a rainy day. Other than that, wait for the video.
  10. MichaelD.
    Aug 14, 2001
    4
    This movie failed to surprise or excite me. Predictable and unplausable. You have indeed seen this movie before.
  11. 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
  12. Dec 29, 2011
    6
    For all its cutting-edge special effects and compelling thrills, the third Jurassic Park film installment has the feel of a B-movie, minus the Michael Bay-esque explosions and scantily clad women. The movie makes the mistake that so many other dinosaur movies make - it fails to tell a human story as well as an adventure story, and the result can easily be called the world's longest chaseFor all its cutting-edge special effects and compelling thrills, the third Jurassic Park film installment has the feel of a B-movie, minus the Michael Bay-esque explosions and scantily clad women. The movie makes the mistake that so many other dinosaur movies make - it fails to tell a human story as well as an adventure story, and the result can easily be called the world's longest chase scene. It was merely a series of climaxes with brief and generally meaningless pauses that don't advance or contribute anything, not to mention little to no character development. While I was glad to see the pterodactyls in action, the T. rex gets hardly any screentime at all before being abruptly killed off by some bigger, badder dinosaur called Spinosaurus. I kid you not - they basically took the beloved mascot of the franchise, the one who commanded such a powerful, memorable and screen-stealing presence, and they kicked him into the dust and spat in his face. I don't care if there's another, equally-scary dinosaur to take his place - Tyrannosaurus rex was everybody's favorite dinosaur in the films, and it's oddly hearbreaking to see him cast aside for something "better" that somehow unconvincingly evaded the humans all throughout the previous film. But the worst part was the raptors. They were even smarter than the humans, and they basically controlled the whole plot. Overall, the sequel to the two greatest dinosaur movies of all time (and two of the best movies of all time) ended up as something less than extraordinary. Expand
  13. Jul 13, 2012
    6
    The exciting moments aren't as exciting despite the improved effects. However, it was great to see all the new dinosaurs in this one and it was nice to see Dr. Grant and Ellie again.
  14. 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.
  15. Jul 3, 2013
    6
    Not magical or creative enough as the others, but still thrilling enough to be likable. You get the feeling it is a high class Syfy movie. It is a good thing they have a chance to redeem themselves with the fourth one.
  16. Mar 8, 2014
    5
    The visuals are impressive, but it falls short compared to its predecessors. We have some intense action, and great use of CGI, but it all just feels like it's repeated.
  17. May 10, 2014
    5
    I am pretty mixed about this film, because while it had some good Dinosaur action, it just felt like more of the same from past Jurassic Park films. I really don't think this film needed to be made. I kind of hope that when Jurassic World comes out in 2015, it will try to do something new and creative and not do something like this where it's just more of the same.
  18. Oct 17, 2014
    5
    Dr. Alan Grant is now a happy man with the previous incidents of Jurassic Park now behind him. Grant is that happy that he announce in public, that nothing on Earth can persuade him back onto the islands. Maybe nothing, except Paul Kirby. Kirby and his wife, Amanda want a plane to fly them over Isla Sorna, with Dr. Grant as their guide. But not everything Kirby says is true. When the planeDr. Alan Grant is now a happy man with the previous incidents of Jurassic Park now behind him. Grant is that happy that he announce in public, that nothing on Earth can persuade him back onto the islands. Maybe nothing, except Paul Kirby. Kirby and his wife, Amanda want a plane to fly them over Isla Sorna, with Dr. Grant as their guide. But not everything Kirby says is true. When the plane lands, Dr. Grant realizes that there is another reason why they are there, that he doesn't know of. Now, Dr. Grant is stuck on an island he has never been on before, with what was a plane journey now turned into a search party. Expand
  19. 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.
  20. Jan 13, 2015
    6
    Rewatched it on BD. Been catching up on these BD releases of old classic movies. Not as good as the previous movies but still ok. Solid acting, ok story.
  21. Mar 21, 2015
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie was so much better than I was expecting, since everyone told me it was going to be absolutely terrible. And I mean, it wasn't great, but it was really fun to watch. The dinosaurs and special effects were awesome, as always. I think one of the weaknesses of this movie is that they really quickly killed off the extraneous characters, leaving the core group of people you knew they weren't going to have die in the movie (like, the 12-year-old kid is never actually going to die). This was too bad, because one of the most fun things about the second movie was the huge number of completely extra people that could die in lots of fun and gory ways without the audience really batting an eye.

    It follows the normal Jurassic Park pattern where you have a bunch of people making really terrible decisions and a lot of people scolding them for it after they get everyone else into trouble. A lot of it was predictable, but it's still fun even when you know what's going to happen. It didn't have the scary moments of the first two movies, but I'm not such a scary movie person anyway so I didn't miss them too much. Still, it was a decent end to the trilogy, and it's still left me extremely, extremely excited to see Jurassic World this summer.
    Expand
  22. 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
  23. Jun 13, 2015
    6
    While not as terrifying or groundbreaking as the first installment, Jurassic Park 3 is at least leaner than it's incredulous predecessor and therefore provides a better experience in the form of summer escapist entertainment.
  24. Jun 13, 2015
    6
    I consider this movie equal in quality to the lost world, where the lost world succeeds where this one fails is characters you actually give a damn about. Every character, even Dr.Grant, is either a money grabber, an idiot or annoying beyond comprehension. However, this sequel does succeed is colourful action. The whole scene in the aviary is very unique and fun to watch as is are the manyI consider this movie equal in quality to the lost world, where the lost world succeeds where this one fails is characters you actually give a damn about. Every character, even Dr.Grant, is either a money grabber, an idiot or annoying beyond comprehension. However, this sequel does succeed is colourful action. The whole scene in the aviary is very unique and fun to watch as is are the many velociraptor scenes which is better than the boring dinosaur walk through in the lost world. I'd say the lost world is a milestone better in quality of cinematic intellectualness, but this one stomps all over the lost world's action less mess. Expand
  25. Jun 17, 2015
    4
    I'm going to put this review in simple terms: I hate this movie. Its almost psychopathic how much I despise this movie. I've despised this movie since 2001 when I saw it in theaters, yes, I'll admit that the movie is watchable and has some enjoyable qualities but that doesn't change how bad this movie is. One of my main problems with this movie is, yes you guessed it: The SpinosaurusI'm going to put this review in simple terms: I hate this movie. Its almost psychopathic how much I despise this movie. I've despised this movie since 2001 when I saw it in theaters, yes, I'll admit that the movie is watchable and has some enjoyable qualities but that doesn't change how bad this movie is. One of my main problems with this movie is, yes you guessed it: The Spinosaurus killing the T-Rex. Yes, I know it was a sub-adult male but its still scientifically impossible for the Spinosaurus to kill a T-Rex. A single bite from a Tyrannosaurus should have ripped the things head off. The T-Rex was THE A-Pex predator of its time, yes, the Spino was larger but its diet consisted mostly of fish and it strayed away from other carnivores. Among the other things I hated in this movie were the Kirbies, particularly Mrs.Kirby who insulted the stronger female leads of the past 2 films by doing nothing but screaming and running the entire movie. However, I'm going to cut the things I hate about this movie short and focus on something I actually enjoyed, the Velociraptors and their emphasis on their communication skills between eachother. I thought it truly nailed the intelligence factor of the Velocirators. I also actually also enjoyed the return of Alan Grant (a favorite character of mine) though I felt he was wasted in this god-forsaken excuse for a movie. Expand
  26. Jun 18, 2015
    5
    Though this film brought back its original leading man, it isn't enough to make the film worth while. It begs the question, why do people keep going back to the island and why don't they bring a heavier artillery? Without giving too much away, the ending was rushed and ludicrous.
  27. Jul 27, 2015
    5
    It took me a long time to get through this one, but now I can finally share my thoughts on 'Jurassic Park III'.

    It's not directed by Steven Spielberg this time, Joe Johnston takes the director's chair and Spielberg remains as executive producer. I really liked "The Lost World", I understand why many didn't like it, but I enjoyed its dumb fun. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) is back and is
    It took me a long time to get through this one, but now I can finally share my thoughts on 'Jurassic Park III'.

    It's not directed by Steven Spielberg this time, Joe Johnston takes the director's chair and Spielberg remains as executive producer. I really liked "The Lost World", I understand why many didn't like it, but I enjoyed its dumb fun.

    Alan Grant (Sam Neill) is back and is sent to the island by the parents (Tea Leoni and William H. Macy) of a young boy who has been missing on the island for some eight weeks.

    The first thing I noticed about this film is how small-scale it is as opposed to the first two. The CGI is also questionable and the action is boring for the most part. There is very little excitement or joy in this sequel and it took me many attempts to watch it, but only now can I share my opinion.

    There are also some unintentionally funny moments in the film, and we all know what that is, when Alan Grant is having a dream and imagines a dinosaur saying his name. I can see why this would be effective, but it misfired terribly.

    'Jurassic Park III' is nowhere near as exciting as 'Jurassic Park' (1993), nor is it as "blockbuster driven" as 'The Lost World: Jurassic Park' (1997), it's just a failed, exhausting sequel where the franchise needed a break.
    Expand
  28. Oct 5, 2015
    6
    This movie is hard to talk about without getting into controversial waters. Jurassic Park 3 is NOT necessarily a bad movie, but it is per say the least impressive out of the Jurassic Franchise. The story and characters are very weak, some of the green screen doesn't hold up, and it is considerably shorter than Jurassic Park and The Lost World [and Jurassic World for that matter]. ButThis movie is hard to talk about without getting into controversial waters. Jurassic Park 3 is NOT necessarily a bad movie, but it is per say the least impressive out of the Jurassic Franchise. The story and characters are very weak, some of the green screen doesn't hold up, and it is considerably shorter than Jurassic Park and The Lost World [and Jurassic World for that matter]. But again, it is not a BAD movie, but it isn't a fantastic movie either. I would tend to think of it as a wasted potential of a movie if some of these negatives had been strengthened, but in terms of a monster movie, it is serviceable, but as a true Jurassic Park movie, it doesn't quite reach. Expand
  29. Jan 7, 2016
    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.

    Jurassic 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.

    It was probably foolish to hope for something new or original to surface during the course of Jurassic Park III - after all, the formula has long been established for this sort of movie - but it shouldn't have been too much to expect a little excitement. Instead, in keeping with 2001's roster of lackluster sequels, we have been presented with something that is uninspired and obligatory. It fits right in with the likes of Crocodile Dundee in L.A., The Mummy Returns, and Dr. Dolittle 2. 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
  30. Feb 9, 2016
    4
    When the series is dying due to the greatness the original Jurassic Park had, you have to wonder if the filmmakers are going to stop making anymore installments for this franchise for money and do it for the audience.
  31. Feb 17, 2016
    5
    Worst in the series, but still not a terrible film. At least they brought back Sam Neill right, but what the heck happened with Laura Dern?!?! The effects in this film were quite possibly the worst in any Jurassic film. The Goldblum might have been able to save this film. The film is literally FLOODED with cliches, and cheesy lines. Sad! This could've been a great film, but sadly, itWorst in the series, but still not a terrible film. At least they brought back Sam Neill right, but what the heck happened with Laura Dern?!?! The effects in this film were quite possibly the worst in any Jurassic film. The Goldblum might have been able to save this film. The film is literally FLOODED with cliches, and cheesy lines. Sad! This could've been a great film, but sadly, it isn't. Well, at least Jurassic World made up for this. Like I said, it isn't a terrible film, but isn't a great one either. If you are a true fan of the franchise (like me), then GET this movie. But, don't expect it to be anything like the original. Expand
  32. Mar 13, 2016
    5
    Jurassic Park III is a some kind of illogical, darker, with not-much action and shorter than the originals. Fans will be disappointed, because of the not-inventive story-telling of the film, and maybe the worst of the year.
  33. May 27, 2016
    6
    I have mixed feelings about this movie. I disliked all the characters except Alan Grant, but the film introduced the Spinosaurus. My feelings about the film will always be mixed, but I love the Spinosaurus.
  34. Jun 2, 2016
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The artistic medium of film is very subjective. Every audience member has a different set of criteria they use to measure their viewing experience. Not everyone shares the same set of criteria. If we did, what a bland and uninspired world this would be.

    What I Personally Liked About "Jurassic Park III":
    Right off the bat, the first thing I liked about this film was its premise. The idea of executing an illegal rescue operation on Isla Sorna is exciting and filled with promise. While this film doesn't live up to that promise, it was still a sound theme which deserved a better exploration. I really enjoyed seeing William H. Macy in this film. He seems to be the only cast member who's really enjoying being part of the production. The others feel like they are waiting around for their paycheck. Even Trevor Morgan seems to be phoning in his performance, particularly when compared to Ariana Richards and Joseph Mazzello in the first film. The action surrounding the dinosaurs is also decent. Much like the initial outing, there is a heightened sense of danger and this constant threat to our cinematic inhabitants is something the second movie was sorely missing. Of course, the large beasts don't seem to be as detailed or as lifelike as in the first two features, so that does hamper the carnage a bit.

    What I Personally Disliked About "Jurassic Park III":
    Where to begin, oh where to begin? I'm not a fan of the pacing of the film before they hit Isla Sorna. The build is drawn out considerably, especially when one takes into consideration that the film is only ninety minutes long. I'm also not a fan of the pacing when they arrive on Isla Sorna either. Seriously, ninety minutes are not long enough to capture the wonder and the tension of a story such as this. The convenient "quick save" ending with Ellie Satler as well as the final confrontation with the Velociraptors don't sit well at all. Most of the faults lie in the direction of Joe Johnston, whose biggest claim to fame prior was "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids." He should have stayed with the more buffoonish action/family pictures such as that and "Jumanji" instead of attempting to step into the summer blockbuster shoes of Steven Spielberg, which he was certainly not qualified to do. Some of that blame has to lie on the shoulders of the screenplay writers, too. Peter Buchman, Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor have fashioned something that resembles the cartoon equivalent of a "Jurassic Park" spectacular. It feels like it started off as a direct-to-DVD sequel with its characters that seem more like caricatures than anything else.

    My Overall Impression of "Jurassic Park III":
    For all of its impressive faults, if you turn off your brain function, this third entrant into the deadly dinosaur franchise is only slightly less enjoyable than its 1997 predecessor (though that's not saying much).
    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. Mr. Showbiz
    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.