Universal Pictures | Release Date: July 18, 2001
6.1
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 370 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
166
Mixed:
147
Negative:
57
Watch Now
Buy On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
10
JoyceC.Oct 6, 2007
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.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
8
MovieLonely94Oct 20, 2010
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
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
0
KatSevJan 23, 2013
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 throughWhat 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
10
Pepe1May 10, 2016
I love, this movie, maybe is a dumb movie, but a like all the Dinosaurs, and of course Sam Neill is back, decent movie, better than the second one in my opinion, dumb, but funny
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
4
CooperReviews44Dec 4, 2018
Definitely the worst in the franchise. Horrible acting with just straight up unacceptable performances, lazy writing, and incoherent jumbled mess of a story if you even want to say it has one. Sure there is some fun moments here and there butDefinitely the worst in the franchise. Horrible acting with just straight up unacceptable performances, lazy writing, and incoherent jumbled mess of a story if you even want to say it has one. Sure there is some fun moments here and there but overall just a mediocre film. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
10
IzaakVJan 22, 2009
I love this movie. The mere fact that they brought it out just for more 'jurassic park action' is good enough for me.
2 of 3 users found this helpful
4
CooterPatooterFeb 21, 2012
JP3 clearly sets out to be a short, fun romp through the JP universe. Well, it's exactly like the "quickie" it tries to be... a short, noisy exertion that's kinda fun while it lasts but leaves you feeling unfulfilled. You don't care aboutJP3 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 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
9
ManicMorrisAug 21, 2010
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.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
4
JacobJun 3, 2015
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 askJurassic 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
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
3
lukechristianscJun 6, 2015
After Lost World: Jurassic Park was released they decided to make a third installment and it was released in 2001, Steven Spielberg did not direct this movie (but he produced it) he decided to give it in the hands of Joe Johnston, boy didAfter 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
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
SpencerK.Jul 11, 2007
Spinisaurus only eats fish says my friend Noah so it can not kill the T-Rex in three.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
TokyochuchuApr 14, 2013
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,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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
3
hoops2448Sep 20, 2011
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 thatThe 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
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
3
EssenceOfSugarJan 11, 2014
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 ISevere 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
3
Jedi_JettsonApr 8, 2012
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 wereAbsolutely 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
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
10
godzillabotsJun 11, 2013
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.
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
3
csw12Sep 2, 2012
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
bfoore90Jun 17, 2015
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 someI'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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
0
FelipeR.Aug 9, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JeremyH.Oct 20, 2007
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
ZacG.Jun 30, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JuanR.Feb 18, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
PazzyM.May 31, 2007
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! 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
KanakoJApr 6, 2009
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
PatrickD.Sep 13, 2005
A decent action film. Nothing special.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JaredC.Oct 6, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JCA.Oct 6, 2007
Very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very good. The best of all Jurassic Park's.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
SpencerJ.Feb 8, 2007
The movie was excellent, because of the constant tension and excitment!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
BobY.Aug 27, 2007
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
TomM.Oct 15, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
HosieWApr 8, 2008
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
MichaelC.Sep 14, 2001
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
BrunoS.Sep 23, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DestinyW.Nov 27, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
bobpooJul 31, 2009
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. 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
gm101May 26, 2011
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,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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
TheQuietGamerFeb 20, 2011
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,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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
HalfwelshmanOct 3, 2011
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 stillThe 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
AquophisDec 29, 2011
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 manyFor 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Trev29Jul 3, 2013
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
OfficialMar 8, 2014
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
MonsieurEamesJul 13, 2012
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
gzayas91Jul 21, 2018
This just middle of the road b movie. Better than Lost world, but that's not saying much. This is such a weak movie and just to be a crash grab.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
HazzaGallaOct 5, 2015
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 ofThis 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
Rox22Apr 21, 2015
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
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
TrilobiteGJun 13, 2015
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 beyondI 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
BrianMcCriticJun 20, 2013
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
LordyLordMar 29, 2013
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
raporgiJun 26, 2018
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. leaner than the 2nd movie. couldve used more mystery and interesting setups. it pops its load to early when Spino eats Rex but that's just ok imho. The raptors are at again and their antics are old and tiresome at this point. They shouldve used the adolescent Rex and the hostile herbivores from the 2nd book and the camo-blending carnotosaurus. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Tessara_VejganJan 13, 2015
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
DibbHansenJul 18, 2013
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 thisIt 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
TheApplegnomeJul 11, 2015
Excitement, much adventure, great characters and a much more magical plot than The Lost World. Still; the story is not unique and did they really have nothing else to come up with? Because the plot is pretty much the same as the second movie.Excitement, much adventure, great characters and a much more magical plot than The Lost World. Still; the story is not unique and did they really have nothing else to come up with? Because the plot is pretty much the same as the second movie. The return of Sam Neill is on the other hand very much appreciated, and every character is really great (but sometimes annoying). Great practical effects and CGI, even though some vague aspects do exist. The worst thing about this movie is the dialogs, and the plot holes. There are some serious and idiotic moments that makes no sense at all, so the script could have been much better!

It's not a bad movie, it's much better than the overall rating and I actually think this really is a greater installment of Jurassic Park than The Lost World! It even got some magic, like what we saw in the first Jurassic Park!

This is a surprisingly great movie with entertainment, adventure and beautiful events.

7.5/10
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
marcmyworksJun 18, 2015
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 muchThough 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
oDjentoJul 3, 2015
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 neverShort 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! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
Robinson2511Aug 10, 2015
Jurassic Park III brings back Sam Neill for some more Dinosaur action, that for me, is enough to make this a great film. Dr. Alan Grant is hired by Paul and Amanda Kirby to guide them on an aerial tour of Isla Sorna, but when they land on theJurassic Park III brings back Sam Neill for some more Dinosaur action, that for me, is enough to make this a great film. Dr. Alan Grant is hired by Paul and Amanda Kirby to guide them on an aerial tour of Isla Sorna, but when they land on the island their true motives for going there become clear. There are many debates as to whether Jurassic Park III or The Lost World are better, but The Lost World seems to be a clear favourite, but that doesn't mean Jurassic Park III is bad, in some ways it's better, it certainly makes up for the thrills and dinosaur action the Lost World definitely lacked. Although this is not a Spielberg film, the direction is still great, although the animatronics seem less natural than they did before. The acting is great, although Alessandro Nivola's performance is very dull at points and Trevor Morgan doesn't seem to know how to do certain lines of the script. The writing is great save for a few unexplained moments, such as the skeleton in the tree, and the people disappearing on the boat, and a few really unbelievable moments such the spinosaurus being able to break through a dinosaur enclosure, but not through a metal door. Um, no. The climax is also way too sudden, and the tension is short-lived. Personally I find Jurassic Park III to be better than The Lost World mainly just because of that film's lack of dinosaurs, lack of thrills, and this film has Sam Neill. But also because of Jurassic Park III's action scenes, direction, and acting from most of the cast. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
DrewtheDude85May 10, 2014
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 WorldI 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
vikesh2206Jun 13, 2015
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
JurassicParkFanDec 27, 2015
I love this film Alot. It is one of my favorite childhood movies of all time. I loved the spinosaurus (despite it killing the T-Rex), I loved the character of Alan grant in the movie, The Pteranodon scene was incredible, and the raptors lookI love this film Alot. It is one of my favorite childhood movies of all time. I loved the spinosaurus (despite it killing the T-Rex), I loved the character of Alan grant in the movie, The Pteranodon scene was incredible, and the raptors look very cool and terrifying. I don't get why this movie gets alot of hate, but this is my opinon on this movie and you guys have the right to hate this movie if you like, but I will always love Jurassic Park III and it is alright in my book. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
SythusRATINGSOct 17, 2014
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.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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
REDWOUNov 22, 2014
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
heathermMar 21, 2015
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
homer4presidentMar 13, 2015
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 passedThe 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
MrMovieBuffJul 27, 2015
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
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
MovieManiac83Apr 25, 2015
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 movieRelatively 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
ReelViewsJun 14, 2015
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 movieRelatively 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
NatT96Jun 23, 2015
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 plentySo 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.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
buttonscasperJul 7, 2015
This is better than the second but does not live up to the fantastic first film in the franchise with the spinosauros stealing the show. The reason this only gets a 7 is because the over use of CGI.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
Evyan2002Jan 24, 2016
Jurassic Park 3 is a good movie. Just like the first two there is a lot of action packed scenes that everyone will enjoy. The special effects are really good also. Tea Leoni was annoying but she was ok.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
EpicLadySpongeFeb 9, 2016
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
FilmMasterEdJan 7, 2016
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 movieRelatively 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
RickyReviewsFeb 17, 2016
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 mightWorst 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
timoneSep 18, 2018
From two Michael Crichton's novels of Jurassic Park, Steven Spielberg decide to make those two movies based on his novels as if which are really fantastic. But now then that Joe Johnston had got the chance to direct Jurassic Park III, peopleFrom two Michael Crichton's novels of Jurassic Park, Steven Spielberg decide to make those two movies based on his novels as if which are really fantastic. But now then that Joe Johnston had got the chance to direct Jurassic Park III, people had lost interest in this one. Okay, I'll get to that later. The third novel has not published and the filmmakers are going to do the film in a new way imaginable but the audience didn't like the film as a whole. Sam Neill is back as Alan Grant and this time he's been tricked by a divorced couple who wanted to find his son who is lost at Isla Sorna. What can I say about the third film? All I can say is the best thing about it is the Spinosaurus. I enjoyed the scenes with it like the first scene it attacks the Alan Grant and the others while destroying the plane and fighting the T-Rex and p***ing the audiences off with it by killing it. The story is very basic, it's really all about finding the divorced husband and wife's son and getting out of this place and that's really about it. Other people would think that the story is s**t when they first watched it and others have already seen it knows it's s**t, including my sister. It's really cheesy, I gotta tell ya. There are moments that don't really make sense like when Alan and the others hearing the satellite phone and the divorced couple had found their son and while they're heard the phone, they know it's the Spinosaurus. The phone is inside it's stomach. It's so f**king stupid! And there's another one where the Alan and the others heard the satellite phone again, it was in the Spinosaurus's s**t after it swallowed it and then s**ting it out. F**k me! And now let's get to the good stupid things about this movie. When Alan Grant is asleep, he's dreaming about a plane with no one in it and no one riding it and then the raptor is on it and saying his name going "Alan." but you know it's only Alessandro Nivola's voice when he's waking him up. And now the ending where Alan Grant and the others are rescued by the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Navy and all of the sudden, Billy played by Alessandro Nivola who is known for his first film debut, Face/Off is still alive and injured after being attacked by the Pteranodons. I can how people are going through this experience with flaws that don't any goddamn sense and I think The Lost World: Jurassic Park is not as dumb as the third but the third had some stupid moments. I can only think that they're making a Jurassic World 3 with the same plot but didn't put any stupid moments in this. I hope. The CGI and special effects still look good to look at. It would have been fantastic if you're looking at the bonus features of how they made it. Jurassic Park III is not as good as the other two films, however I don't mind this one at all despite some silly moments in this, I still enjoyed the action sequences with the dinosaurs. This actually killed the franchise until Jurassic World came on screen which I will get to later but from now on, Jurassic Park III is a decent flick to look at and it is what it is for the most part. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
FuturedirectorMar 13, 2016
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
FilmClubMar 27, 2016
There’s more than a few spirals of DNA missing from the script of “Jurassic Park III,” an all-action, helter-skelter, don’t-forget-to-buy-the-computer-game ride that makes the two previous installments look like models of classic filmmaking.There’s more than a few spirals of DNA missing from the script of “Jurassic Park III,” an all-action, helter-skelter, don’t-forget-to-buy-the-computer-game ride that makes the two previous installments look like models of classic filmmaking. Showing all the signs of having been stripped back at a late stage into a lean, 91-minute chase machine — and to hell with pacing and character development — pic has that unmistakable feeling of a franchise being severed from its creative roots with considerable confusion about what to put in its place.

Except for the visual effects, the movie has a hand-me-down feel. The first two installments used largely the same key talent behind the lens and two key actors (Jeff Goldblum, Richard Attenborough) in front of it, giving them a homogeneous feel. With “JP III,” however, the script’s not based on a Michael Crichton novel, and — aside from Stan Winston and a few others on the dino side of things — there’s an all new crew on the tech side. Even with Steven Spielberg in the coach’s chair, there’s an unmistakable sense that the reserve team has gone in to bat.

Opening with an OK teaser sequence in which a young kid (Trevor Morgan) and an adult (Mark Harelik) are attacked by an unseen thing when parasailing over Isla Sorna, pic adopts a real-time stance. It’s eight years after the original debacle at John Hammond’s theme park on nearby Isla Nublar, and Hammond’s company, InGen, is a memory. One of his original invitees, Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill), is struggling to maintain funding for his paleontology research. Grant is keen to develop his theory of velociraptor intelligence, but auds at his fundraising lectures only want to hear more tales about Jurassic Park.

Grant is approached by Paul Kirby (William H. Macy), and his wife, Amanda (Tea Leoni), to guide an aerial tour of Isla Sorna, the so-called Site B (and setting for “The Lost World”), where InGen secretly bred the dinos and where they’ve been on the loose for almost a decade. Presenting themselves as wealthy thrill-seekers who want to buzz the quarantined island, the couple asks the cash-strapped Grant to name his price.

These establishing reels have a hasty feel that prefigures many of the film’s later problems. Laura Dern briefly reprises her role of Ellie from the first movie; other characters are clumsily introduced and thinly drawn. Result is that, when Kirby, against Grant’s wishes, tries to land the plane on the island, the viewer is plunged into immediate action with only the barest idea of who most of the characters are.

Pic’s first major action sequence is a highly kinetic screamfest, with the plane crashing into some tree-tops and its occupants being attacked by a spinosaurus, the movie’s much-touted new villain. As the fuselage rolls this way and that, the sequence plays like a B-movie version of the dangling Winnebago sequence in “Lost World” — heavy on screams and visceral shocks but lacking in deep-seated, skin-crawling fear.

The truth is that the lumbering spino, despite its larger size, longer jaw and fancy back fin, just doesn’t cut it as a substitute T-Rex. With none of the T-Rex’s extensive backgrounding, this new addition to Winston’s dino lineup looks more like an escapee from a Japanese monster movie.

Following an attempted escape in another plane, pic settles into one long chase movie. The two previous installments had varied situations and cross-plots in which the humans and animals interacted, plus a larger story arc in which the action sequences were implanted. Here, the majority of the movie takes place in jungle settings with the cast running between them as predators arrive on the scene.

Smidgen of a script cooked up by three credited (and two uncredited) writers soon reveals that Kirby and Amanda are in fact a divorced couple searching for their 14-year-old son, Eric, and Amanda’s boyfriend, Ben — the parasailing pair attacked in the opening teaser.

“JP III” thus becomes a very different movie from the previous two pics, in which human hubris received its just deserts when protective technology proved inadequate. Here, the protagonists are never in control: They’re dino-dinner from the get-go. In essence, pic becomes a prehistoric variation on another genre: Americans under threat in a hostile, foreign environment. Unsurprisingly, the final line of dialogue is “Let’s go home.”

Direction by Joe Johnston, who cut his teeth as a visual f/x designer before graduating to effects showpieces “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” and “Jumanji,” keeps the action ticking but without the broader sweep he brought to adventure saga “The Rocketeer.” Blame that largely on the script; lame attempts at humor and characterization make even the few surviving moments of non-action dialogue painful to sit through.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
JPSpinoRex65May 27, 2016
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
BerCJun 2, 2016
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
s10721314Jul 19, 2016
Worst Sequel in Jurassic Park Franchise. This movie SUCKS SUCKS. I hate this film and it is the worst excuse for a Jurassic Park film ever. This film horrible.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
MasterRileyAug 9, 2016
Jurassic Park III is still an enjoyable ride but does at times feel like the same movie we've already seen. The characters and writing aren't as fleshed out and interesting this time around. The action set pieces at times feel over the topJurassic Park III is still an enjoyable ride but does at times feel like the same movie we've already seen. The characters and writing aren't as fleshed out and interesting this time around. The action set pieces at times feel over the top just for the sake of being over the top, but it is still an enjoyable action flick. The special effects don't reach the same level of quality compared to the first two either but are still good for 2001. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
JPKJun 23, 2018
Lacks the magic of the first two
The plot isn't good, the characters are bland, and the Dinosaurs aren't really a wonder like the first 2.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
Joshinatir2200Jun 23, 2018
JP3 feels like a very unnecessary and unremarkable retread of The Lost World. It does feature a fantastic introduction scene to the Spinosaurus, but from there it all goes downhill. If anything it feels like a parody of the first film, withJP3 feels like a very unnecessary and unremarkable retread of The Lost World. It does feature a fantastic introduction scene to the Spinosaurus, but from there it all goes downhill. If anything it feels like a parody of the first film, with completely unlikable characters and a predictable, cheap ending. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
GorbaxDec 2, 2017
Jurassic Park 3 has a decent cast, is shot well enough, and is at times mildly engaging, but it's subpar CGI and weak plot become unforgivable as the mediocre-bad movie drags on. It has positive aspects, but they can't overcome the flaws.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
Miles_SDec 3, 2017
Jurassic Park 3 has a decent cast, is shot well enough, and is at times mildly engaging, but it's subpar CGI and weak plot become unforgivable as the mediocre-bad movie drags on. It has positive aspects, but they can't overcome the flaws
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
hardcorekiddJun 27, 2018
After being persuaded by a wealthy businessman to conduct an aerial tour of Isla Sorna, InGen's second site for a failed Jurassic Park experiment, Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) discovers the true reason for his invitation. A tragic accidentAfter being persuaded by a wealthy businessman to conduct an aerial tour of Isla Sorna, InGen's second site for a failed Jurassic Park experiment, Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) discovers the true reason for his invitation. A tragic accident maroons the party of seven, and they must attempt to escape with their lives. Jurassic Park III is darker and faster than its predecessors, and that does quite compensate for the franchise's continuing creative decline. Final Grade is a B. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
CTHReviewsJul 14, 2018
Jurassic Park III has a few problems including some CGI close-ups of dinosaurs that don't hold up completely, some animatronics (mainly the Spinosaurus) that don't look that good, and a pretty cheap cop-out for one of the characters at theJurassic Park III has a few problems including some CGI close-ups of dinosaurs that don't hold up completely, some animatronics (mainly the Spinosaurus) that don't look that good, and a pretty cheap cop-out for one of the characters at the end of this movie, but this is still a fun thrill that includes one of the coolest dinosaurs to have ever existed (Spinosaurus). Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
JamesdaGreatFeb 11, 2018
THIS MOVIE IS OK. There's nothing entirely wrong with it, it is just a Jurassic Park sequel we didn't want. It had laughable acting, terrible CGI, and a completely forgettable story. But it does have Sam Neil in it and some scary scenes, soTHIS MOVIE IS OK. There's nothing entirely wrong with it, it is just a Jurassic Park sequel we didn't want. It had laughable acting, terrible CGI, and a completely forgettable story. But it does have Sam Neil in it and some scary scenes, so that's good. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
FilipeNetoFeb 12, 2018
Far-fetched and ridiculous.

Its the third film of the "Jurassic Park" saga and tells the return of Alan Grant to Isla Sorna, of the second film, and that Alan never have thought to visit again in his life. He eventually returns, convinced by
Far-fetched and ridiculous.

Its the third film of the "Jurassic Park" saga and tells the return of Alan Grant to Isla Sorna, of the second film, and that Alan never have thought to visit again in his life. He eventually returns, convinced by a couple who hides her true intent with that trip: to rescue a child who was lost on the island.

Its the only film in this franchise that has not been directed by Steven Spielberg, one noted and notable absence throughout the film, which reveals itself, scene after scene, increasingly far-fetched and unbelievable, to the point of becoming absolutely ridiculous and we almost wish all end up devoured by dinosaurs. The director, Joe Johnston, proved that he only serves to direct comedies (is the director of "Jumanji" and "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids"). The script is a shame and looks more like a parody of Spielberg's movies than something that we should take seriously. The characters are totally improbable, and who saw the first movies will never believe that a child can survive with such dangerous animals more than two or three days. The only positive note is the performance of Sam Neill, lending talent to a film that should have been lost in the bowels of the dinosaurs he portrays before coming to our homes.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
4Nick3Jul 12, 2018
Feels like every Jurassic movie is something different from its predecessor. This survival episode adds suspense for the audience. Although the acting could've been better and it is a little cheesy, it's still its own story that pays aFeels like every Jurassic movie is something different from its predecessor. This survival episode adds suspense for the audience. Although the acting could've been better and it is a little cheesy, it's still its own story that pays a respect to the audience and the original by bringing Alan Grant back which is a fantastic character. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
Highlander372Jul 11, 2018
Jurassic Park III is one of those movies where the writers were thinking “Hey! These Jurassic fans don’t want a coherent story! They just want to see people run away from dinosaurs! Right?!” Wrong! Jurassic Park III is arguably the worst inJurassic Park III is one of those movies where the writers were thinking “Hey! These Jurassic fans don’t want a coherent story! They just want to see people run away from dinosaurs! Right?!” Wrong! Jurassic Park III is arguably the worst in the trilogy. The story is forgettable, the characters are insufferable except for Alan Grant and Eric. Jurassic Park III is an extremely disappointing third movie in the franchise but not terrible. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
Boss123Jun 27, 2018
One of the worst films I have watched, saying this as a Jurassic Park fan! It felt like watching a short film! Less plot more action! Should have balanced a bit. Still, this film did not kill the fanism I have Jurassic Park films
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
GarethBOct 9, 2018
Unpopular opinion but I prefer this to the second one, Dr Grant is back, its on an island and the Dinosaurs are developed further. Spino is great as a new addition (even if it could never have really taken the TRex), the Pteranodons areUnpopular opinion but I prefer this to the second one, Dr Grant is back, its on an island and the Dinosaurs are developed further. Spino is great as a new addition (even if it could never have really taken the TRex), the Pteranodons are creepy and the Velociraptors improve again! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
ErikTheCriticOct 14, 2018
This film falls heavily short, to the point where certain scenes are laughably bad and ridiculous.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews