User Score
6.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 247 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 50 out of 247
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. Jul 3, 2015
    3
    Short review due to Jurassic World release. Terrible film from what we had come to expect. Unlikable characters and so many plot holes and idiocy. Film doesn't touch on anything new and just overall bores. A harsh rating but i have never enjoyed this film no matter what age i watched it at!
  2. Jun 23, 2015
    2
    So first the black guy dies first of course. Never seen that happen in a film before (sarcasm to the max). My gosh the actions the character in this film do are horrible, I mean the way the scenarios are set up are bad. There are like plenty of times they should have been squashed, ripped in half and killed of sight....hell that would have made the film more interesting.

    Its not worth watching.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. Jun 14, 2015
    3
    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.

    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).

    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
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. Jun 6, 2015
    3
    After 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,After 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+ Expand
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Mar 13, 2015
    8
    The plot is silly in places and the premise is predictable but the movie isn't without it's thrills. It isn't at the level of the first one but it surpassed the second since it is a lot more fun and a lot less of a drag. If you can get passed the occasional silliness and accept that it isn't anything original while simultaneously enjoying the nonstop action, the movie offers a lot to enjoy.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. Oct 5, 2014
    10
    I see why many fans hate it. But I love it better then 2. Great CG I,Good (not great) characters, amazing action, cooler looking dinosaurs, and not a waist of time. Its 1 hour long. It even gave birth to Jurassic Park Operation Genesis. Love that they want more of a jungle setup. Finally Flying Dino's attacking people (BEST PART IN MOVIE). Even good music. Haters gonna hate. Lovers gonnaI see why many fans hate it. But I love it better then 2. Great CG I,Good (not great) characters, amazing action, cooler looking dinosaurs, and not a waist of time. Its 1 hour long. It even gave birth to Jurassic Park Operation Genesis. Love that they want more of a jungle setup. Finally Flying Dino's attacking people (BEST PART IN MOVIE). Even good music. Haters gonna hate. Lovers gonna love. This is a strong movie in the great franchise Expand
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. Jul 18, 2013
    7
    It has thrills, sure, but it just does not have the same feel of fear and style as the first two films did. This film also touches on cliche stuff and a corny plot ending. I hope Jurassic Park 4 does better than this one, even though this film isn't terrible.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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
  27. 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
  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. 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.
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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.
  36. 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.
  37. 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
  38. Aug 21, 2010
    9
    A bit shorter than I would have liked but still loads of dinosaurs and loads of actions.Making the film a bit longer and including a bit more story wouldn't hurt but still a fantastic film and one of my favourites.
  39. 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
  40. 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.
  41. IzaakV
    Jan 22, 2009
    10
    I love this movie. The mere fact that they brought it out just for more 'jurassic park action' is good enough for me.
  42. TomM.
    Oct 15, 2008
    8
    Surprisingly, not nearly as bad as Spielberg's second outing. The dino updates and additions and beautiful CGI make this film, but the acting isn't half bad either (if you keep your sense of humor). At least they don't end up in the mainland again.
  43. HosieW
    Apr 8, 2008
    10
    Hey Bob Y What's wrong wit you ?Stupid or somtin?what would you do if you were stranded on that Island and it was for real? Go hide under a bush? Or try{using your 2 legs and Brain{if you have one} to get off the island before you get eaten! And I also agree with Jeremy H. IT won't be the same without SAM NEILL! But Steven will probably screw it up by not casting Sam in JP4.
  44. DestinyW.
    Nov 27, 2007
    10
    i am the biggest dinosaur fan in the world. the movie was great. the new dino spinisaurus was good. i would say it needed more dinosaurs more killing and the ending needs to be good and it can end in a fight. o yeah why do the people have to survive on an island full of meat eat, fast running, good swimming dinosaurs i just dont get it i would say nobody would make it for 2 min. i would i am the biggest dinosaur fan in the world. the movie was great. the new dino spinisaurus was good. i would say it needed more dinosaurs more killing and the ending needs to be good and it can end in a fight. o yeah why do the people have to survive on an island full of meat eat, fast running, good swimming dinosaurs i just dont get it i would say nobody would make it for 2 min. i would though. ok the movie was good but not as good as the first 2 just know that. whatch it and rate it. the fourth one is coming out cant want to see that and it has my favorite actor in it i think it is going tobe good. do you i do. the effects in the movie were good the dinosaurs needed to be bigger and some of the actors were very good. Expand
  45. 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.
  46. JoyceC.
    Oct 6, 2007
    10
    Since the adaption of the dinasour's on the Island is over, they go through something we call maturing. The dinasours have matured over time, became smarter, more intelligent and brutal than ever imagined.
  47. JCA.
    Oct 6, 2007
    10
    Very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very good. The best of all Jurassic Park's.
  48. JaredC.
    Oct 6, 2007
    10
    JJ1 was the beginning of dinasour excitement where a couple of opinions, one creation, and a special whoop cream can change the function of the island. Ian Malcolm is done, and we know that, it would be exhausting having him as the main role in this, he is only good in the first two and never should be chosen as a character in JJ4, unless if he gets eaton in that one. Allen Grant, well he JJ1 was the beginning of dinasour excitement where a couple of opinions, one creation, and a special whoop cream can change the function of the island. Ian Malcolm is done, and we know that, it would be exhausting having him as the main role in this, he is only good in the first two and never should be chosen as a character in JJ4, unless if he gets eaton in that one. Allen Grant, well he is the main main character, he belongs in this one, since Ian has no clue what a dinasour skeleton or raptor intelligence is, he would be picked as the last main character for this. Allen Grant is smart, witty, and serious within everything, he takes everything deeply and ambitiously, he uses the advice he gots and uses it as the main road in this hit thriller. JJ3 is not intense or terrifying, but it is adventurous, exciting, and swashbuckling. More people die, although I wish that Billy dude would have died, it would have been better. In my opinion JJ3 is here to stay because it has a sudden and stable focus and balance. It is short and sweet, a lovable film just like the first two. From my words, the best one to worst one: JJ1, JJ3, JJ2 (The Lost world). I do not like JJ2 as much because it has a heavy situation, but without any creative advice Ian has in store for safety, he never uses because al he has is chemical witt. As they say in JJ3, and I totally agree, Ian Malcolm is preachy, and talks all about chaos, and he is always high on himself. Well Allen Grant, he can handle anything. They can make seven more Jurassic Park films and have allen Grant as the main character, even since he is now 60. Great job Allen, your performance has crafted a role in such way to show a different type of situation where Raptor's are extinctively smarter than any other animal on the Planet and are capable to take over the planet if there were such species surviving on Earth. Great job: 10/10. Expand
  49. 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.
  50. SpencerK.
    Jul 11, 2007
    5
    Spinisaurus only eats fish says my friend Noah so it can not kill the T-Rex in three.
  51. PazzyM.
    May 31, 2007
    8
    I liked this! When I first stepped into the cinema, I thought "Not another movie where they all run away from a huge T.Rex and a group of Raptors, then they all fly away on a helecopter and VIOLA! End of movie!", but no. I was soooo wrong! Spinosaurus was a very nice change, and was a lot more fun than T.Rex as it included more interesting elements. It had fire, water, earth, air and even I liked this! When I first stepped into the cinema, I thought "Not another movie where they all run away from a huge T.Rex and a group of Raptors, then they all fly away on a helecopter and VIOLA! End of movie!", but no. I was soooo wrong! Spinosaurus was a very nice change, and was a lot more fun than T.Rex as it included more interesting elements. It had fire, water, earth, air and even Dino Poop! The others were just mainly running away. I also found the new raptors very cunning, and were more than just killing machines, they actualy showed intellegence. I am looking forward to Jurassic Park 4, as I feel that the series are just getting better and better. Expand
  52. 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
  53. SpencerJ.
    Feb 8, 2007
    9
    The movie was excellent, because of the constant tension and excitment!
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. BrunoS.
    Sep 23, 2005
    7
    I didn´t like the film much in the cinemas, but at home I enjoyed it more. The film is good and the effects are excellent, but the end sucks. The fourth will probably be the best because it´s like the first jurassic park but with the creatures in the mainland, getting out of their zoo cages and terrifying the whole USA with militaires going after them. It is the best we could I didn´t like the film much in the cinemas, but at home I enjoyed it more. The film is good and the effects are excellent, but the end sucks. The fourth will probably be the best because it´s like the first jurassic park but with the creatures in the mainland, getting out of their zoo cages and terrifying the whole USA with militaires going after them. It is the best we could wish for. Expand
  57. PatrickD.
    Sep 13, 2005
    7
    A decent action film. Nothing special.
  58. Sam
    Jul 11, 2005
    7
    Dissapointing. It's a decent film, but serioulsy, the third title of a great series usually sucks because why? New director, new view, different movie, and not always for the better. I enjoyed it, but with a 4th one coming out, it'd better not screw it up because it's the last of the series.
  59. anthonym
    Jul 6, 2005
    10
    I like jp3 because of the raptors thats my favorite dinosaur and in a pack they could any animal just litsen to the beggining of the movie it'll tell you.
  60. [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
  61. 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
  62. MitchellG.
    Aug 19, 2004
    8
    The reason why i rated the movie 8 is the whole movie is too short and too quick about the t-rex and spinosaurus attack the traveling vehicle.
  63. Spino
    Aug 9, 2004
    8
    Compared to the first, crappy, but solid overall.
  64. TylerC.
    Apr 30, 2004
    10
    The spino rocks this movie like no tomorrow it should be the main star.
  65. JamesM.
    Apr 16, 2004
    10
    Great!
  66. raVen
    Mar 10, 2004
    7
    (7.539) Not as dreadfully awful as the worst reviews would suggest. It is thankfully and strategically short, coming on the heels of the five-part dino opera that was Lost World. The usual nitpicking can be done--pteranodons loose at the end of the last movie are now in captivity, the old 'spare the boat but eat the crew' trick is employed once again--but if you can't (7.539) Not as dreadfully awful as the worst reviews would suggest. It is thankfully and strategically short, coming on the heels of the five-part dino opera that was Lost World. The usual nitpicking can be done--pteranodons loose at the end of the last movie are now in captivity, the old 'spare the boat but eat the crew' trick is employed once again--but if you can't suspend your disbelief for extended periods, you wouldn't get past the whole living dinosaur part anyway. (For the record, the resurrected beasts look as good as ever). I do have a problem with one particular part of the story. When Neil's character Alan Grant reflects on his feelings about his old running and screaming buddy Ian Malcom, (Jeff Goldblum) he does so with a surprising hint of disgust. Grant has apparently forgotten that they were allies in the first go-around, and the writers have apparently forgotten who got us all through the first sequel. More respect should be paid to the best human character this series has yielded. Here's a thought: since the Powers That Be seem bent on giving us JP4, why not mix it up a little. A storyline involving an ill-fated 'reality' show would be very timely. Camera crew and contestants bucking for a million bucks soon become bait as they try to outlast each other on Site A, the old Park. You could even do the Celebrity Mole bit--a twenty says Kobe will outlast Rush. Feeding reality TV to the dinos will have audiences cheering everywhere. It would read at face value as an examination of what stupid people will do for fame and fortune, and prove once and for all that the dinosaurs are the smartest things on those islands, and should be left alone. For good. Expand
  67. GustavoH.R.
    Jan 1, 2004
    7
    JPIII is fun. It's not brilliant. It's not as good as the first film, but it's a thrilling adventure film. Obviously, the fourth film will be better.
  68. 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.
  69. SaraS.
    Jun 17, 2003
    10
    I thought the movie was great i love all of the jurassic park movies.
  70. GretaW.
    May 1, 2003
    9
    I thought this movie was just great i also thought the movie felt and seemed very real i would love to meet steven speirlburg it would be a dream i likes billy he was very hot but i do like the other characters are good too!! and i cant fogetDr alan grant(sam neill) very good actor!!! thumbs up
  71. 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?
  72. 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?
  73. 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
  74. 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!!!!
  75. DannielleB.
    Jul 29, 2002
    10
    It's my favourite movie!! It's cool!! I especially like Billy. (Alessandro Nivola!!)
  76. AdamN.
    Jul 14, 2002
    3
    The worst of the three Jurassic Park movies. Steven Spielberg didn't even direct it. Horrible.
  77. StephanieB.
    Jun 24, 2002
    10
    This movie ROCKED! Just as good, if not better than the first one! Anybody that disagrees has to get a brain check! :)
  78. 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
  79. JenC.
    Apr 7, 2002
    10
    Jurassic Park III Rocks! I love it! Whoever thinks thinks this movie sucks is crazy! I hope they come out with a fourth one!
  80. KevinE.
    Jan 22, 2002
    10
    I think this is the best film ever made and all you people who think it is crap you must be mental.
  81. KarlD.
    Jan 11, 2002
    7
    A highly entertaining movie, but the plot is too simple. There wasn't so much the WOW! factor as the film brought to us things that we have seen before in the Jurassic park movies. Would I mind seeing it another time? Not at all.
  82. AlexanderS.
    Jan 6, 2002
    2
    Lack of rational plot or charactor devolpment. Whith endless possibilities, none were saught. An unenjoyable piece of fluff.
  83. Tatiana
    Dec 17, 2001
    10
    I think out of all three of the movies this one was the best!!! As soon as the DVD came out I got it. Though it could have been longer.
  84. TrentS.
    Dec 16, 2001
    10
    Absolutely EXCELLENT! the story line was very bad, But the special FX made up for that, I loved the film it really blew me away, And Hey all you critics out there who think the movies bad GET A LIFE you all think Harry Potter that nosy little wizard is better, but AHEM...It sucks compared to the great JURASSIC PARK 3!
  85. LaurieK.
    Nov 7, 2001
    7
    Well done, with a snappy script and good performances. The problem is, the dinos aren't a novelty anymore, so the wonder they evoked in the first film is absent. Time to lay the franchise to rest.
  86. 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.
  87. MichaelC.
    Sep 14, 2001
    7
    A highly plausible and moneymaking cinema event. It succeeds mostly because it doesn?t try too hard to be a sequel to Jurassic Park, it seems like a film all on its own. If I had to complain about something, the kid story is far too unbelievable to trick even the dumbest viewers and the characters sometimes do stupid things. Despite that I really enjoyed Jurassic Park 3 and it kept me A highly plausible and moneymaking cinema event. It succeeds mostly because it doesn?t try too hard to be a sequel to Jurassic Park, it seems like a film all on its own. If I had to complain about something, the kid story is far too unbelievable to trick even the dumbest viewers and the characters sometimes do stupid things. Despite that I really enjoyed Jurassic Park 3 and it kept me highly satisfied and entertained for the overly short running time. The dinosaurs look fantastic; the film is awesomely entertaining and improves on the quality of the 2nd outing. The film also improves because it is much scarier than the first two Jurassic Park films. The scenes may not have as much build-up or suspense but in the moment, right then and there, they are absolutely horrifying, more so than the first two films. The new dinosaur creation, The Spinosaurs, also helps to give the film a slice of originality and creativity. The acting isn?t great and the absence of previous director Steven Speilberg shows in dramatic scenes, but this remains a highly crowd-pleasing and enjoyable summer horror adventure flick that I?m sure you?ll enjoy if you don?t expect too much from it. So, just get the tickets, prepare to have some major-ass having fun, kick your feet up and watch some spectacular special effect dino action! Expand
  88. MichaelD.
    Aug 14, 2001
    4
    This movie failed to surprise or excite me. Predictable and unplausable. You have indeed seen this movie before.
  89. 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!
  90. 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.
  91. 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.
  92. SahebD.
    Jul 19, 2001
    10
    "I like Jusaric Prak 3. I cant spel veri wle cuz i ma in grade 1. But i wood hav givenn it a 9.5 but there is onyl a 9 and 10. Oh Well. Im a bad boy." (Ed: Classic!)
  93. RobertZ.
    Jul 19, 2001
    3
    You've already seen this movie; you just don't know it yet.
  94. SilasA.
    Jul 18, 2001
    8
    The only thing I found lacking in the movie was the plot, or the lack thereof. There were a few mistakes, like when Alan Grant made a reference to "the San Diego incident" since this was supposed to be a prequal to The Lost World. The fight between the T-Rex and the Spinosaurus was excellent, however it should have lasted a bit longer. After all, the T-Rex had been made out to be the The only thing I found lacking in the movie was the plot, or the lack thereof. There were a few mistakes, like when Alan Grant made a reference to "the San Diego incident" since this was supposed to be a prequal to The Lost World. The fight between the T-Rex and the Spinosaurus was excellent, however it should have lasted a bit longer. After all, the T-Rex had been made out to be the "King of the dinosaurs". You'd think it could put up more than a barely- 5 min. fight. I realize that they had to let the Spinosaurus win the fight due to the fact that it was the main dino in this film, but in reality the T-rex would have been the victor. The T-rex's jaws are far superior to the Spinosaurs' alligator-like mouth, and would have ripped its neck apart if it had grabbed ahold of it. Instead it didn't even draw blood. All in all the movie was very entertaining, but the lack of a decent plot hurt the rating. 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.