Metascore
42

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

User Score
6.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 217 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 30
  2. Negative: 7 out of 30
  1. 75
    Not as awe-inspiring as the first film or as elaborate as the second, but in its own B-movie way, it's a nice little thrill machine.
  2. Anything, Steven, anything would be better than making us watch the same movie again.
  3. Another of many recent Hollywood plotless wonders.
  4. The screenplay is so stale that even fans of the previous "Jurassic" installments might think this is one clone too many.
  5. 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.
  6. Reviewed by: John Leonard
    40
    With Joe Johnston directing instead of Spielberg, who executive-produces, and a scrum of screenwriters, none named Crichton, the franchise suffers some negligence.
  7. 20
    Stinks worse than dino dung. Sure, the creatures look good.

See all 30 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 47 out of 85
  2. Negative: 25 out of 85
  1. 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.
  2. JCA.
    Oct 6, 2007
    10
    Very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very good. The best of all Jurassic Park's.
  3. 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 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. Expand
  4. 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 theFor 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
  5. 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, noisyJP3 clearly sets out to be a short, fun romp through the JP universe. Well, it's exactly like the "quickie" it tries to be... a short, noisy exertion that's kinda fun while it lasts but leaves you feeling unfulfilled. You don't care about the characters, the dinosaurs look more puppet-ish than in either of the original films and the feeling of danger is lacking throughout. On the plus side, the Spinosaurus is pretty neat and no mumbling, stammering Jeff Goldblum to deal with. Whew! Expand
  6. Jan 11, 2014
    3
    Severe lack of characterisation, predictable set-up from the start, majorly contrived plot devices, the dinosaurs almost pushed to the sideSevere 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
  7. 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, 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

See all 85 User Reviews

Trailers