Jurassic Park III - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Jurassic Park III Reviews

Page 1 of 750
Super Reviewer
June 16, 2015
The third installment is darker and edgier than its previous two but it's still not enough to impact its audience. Jurassic Park III's ominous tone may be a plus but the dull narrative doesn't do it just and ultimately becomes flat to add on to the franchise. 3/5
Super Reviewer
½ January 13, 2010
Here we are in the homestretch of this shaky trilogy, and people probably went into this movie, scared out of their minds about how it will compare to both the original and the terrible sequel. I truly believe it falls safely in the middle of both. It will never be considered as great as the first by any means, but it is eons better that the film that preceded it. As a boy and his father are lost on the island after wanting to view it, their family is out looking for them, and who better to trick into coming with them than doctor Grant. With much better effects, a solid story, and a script that cares about it's source material, "Jurassic Park 3" is a very entertaining film from start to finish. You can completely skip the second film and come to this. They have pulled the series out of the gutter.
Super Reviewer
½ June 13, 2011
An unnecessary sequel that only provides shallow thrills thanks to a few intense situations. The plot is a predictable series of loosely stitched together chase scenes, the characters are pretty stock, and the visual effects have certainly lost their wow factor (in fact they look even more dated than the first two). The actors do their best and having Sam Neill reprise his role as Dr. Alan Grant certainly does not hurt matters but the cliche script provides little substance for the actors to work with. As long as you don't compare this to the first movie too much, their are some neat ideas at play. The bigger and deadlier Spinosaurus is a cool new addition to the franchise while the most original sequence involving the flying Pteranodons is also a decent highlight. If you can withstand a half-baked plot and dumb characters, then "Jurassic Park III" provides a decently short distraction, otherwise just watch the other two and skip this last entry.
Samuel Riley
Super Reviewer
August 8, 2012
While the visuals have lost their wow factor, this still maintains some of its acting and intense situations. While the raptors get unusual colours, T-Rex is replaced by a bigger and deadlier dinosaur; Spinosaurus. Sam Neill reprises his role as 'Dr Alan Grant' and, personally, is the highlight of acting in this film. Like with 'The Lost World', try not to compare too much with the original and this can be enjoyable.
Super Reviewer
September 9, 2007
Well although not a hit like the first, i must say its far better than the second and its a shock that it only came out a year after its sequel ! I love the cast and glad to see sam neill reclaiming his role shame about the rest tof the original cast, but the story really didnt have room for them!
However all in all i love the cast and enjoy this movie a lot! only took 8yrs to get a reasonably decent sequel discounting the 'Lost World' !
Super Reviewer
½ February 1, 2012
Is not better that the first Jurassic Park, but, for certain is better that the second. Anyway, Jurassic Park III, is nice, but weak. Rotten.
Super Reviewer
February 9, 2007
Such a letdown. It could have been so great too. But here's the thing: this film wasn't even really necessary. I felt like all that needed to be said was done with the previous two.

Granted, there are some neat ideas and decent moments to be found in this one, but, even though I had my issues with the film version of The Lost World, it was at least based on Crichton's work, even thoug hit took liberties. Yeah, it's cool that they decided to do somethign orgiinal with this one, but it's not as inspired or as well crafted, and it all feels very hollow and phoned in.

Sure, the dinosarus are cool, and Sam Neill is back, but just save some time and skip this one.
Directors Cat
Super Reviewer
½ November 22, 2011
The dinosaur's look scarier then they have ever been in Jurassic Park III. The special effects and life likeness of the dino's are amazing and they can easily beat the two previous installments. Definetely better than the Spielberg sequel but it fails to bring any big thrills like the first one did.
Super Reviewer
August 3, 2011
Confession: I rewatched this film recently while playing a "Jurassic Park III" drinking game. It helped make the film more enjoyable... obviously.

Still, this is about on par with "The Lost World: Jurassic Park." These are just chase movies with dinosaurs. There really isn't anything more to it. You get cool monsters, an energetic pace and the requisite wit. It is what it is and never tries to be anything but a dinosaur movie.
Super Reviewer
July 31, 2011
Best looking dinos out of the three, but the least necessary film of the three.
Super Reviewer
½ January 22, 2011
I liked this one more than the others. I don't know why though. It's just how I am.
Super Reviewer
½ April 27, 2011
And ladies and gentlemen, here is the definition of a useless sequel. The first 2 films were based on 2 excellent novels, and the third film is literally the parts cut from the first 2 books that didn't get put into the first 2 films, condensed and re-written for a cash grab. And it's not even a good cash grab. The new characters range from boring to highly unlikable (Tea Leoni's character will NOT SHUT THE EXPLETIVE UP EVER WHEN SCREAMING). You can miss out on this one, it has none of the charm the first 2 have.
Super Reviewer
½ April 24, 2011
Jurassic Park III is a much needed improvement over The Lost World. While The Lost World was visually stunning of course, the film lacked the strong dramatic and story elements that made the first one such a classic. This third entry directed by Joe Johnson is a worthy addition to the saga. I enjoyed this third part more than The Lost World. I thought that Jurassic Park III had a much better storyline than The Lost Boys, and also it brought back a few dramatic elements which made the first entry so great. Johnson crafts a phenomenal blockbuster and he is a terrific director and he's a worthy successor to Spielberg. Jurassic Park III has polarized fans of the original, and it's understandable. Sam Neil and Laura Dern return and personally I thought that it made the film better. They delivered the best performances of the first film along with Richard Attenborough. Goldblum meanwhile is a has been and his last good film was Independence Day which incidentally came out the same year as the average The Lost World. Jurassic Park III is a film that Jurassic Park fans can take or leave it. I enjoyed this picture and I thought it made the best elements of the first two, but it was toned down slightly, which really isn't bad. But the film is of course less epic in scope than the original as CGI dinosaurs are no longer anything new or exciting. Jurassic Park III has an improved storyline than the second and decent enough acting and good enough action to keep you entertained. I just wouldn't call this one garbage, I think it's too strong a word to use. I'd say this film is an above average Sci Fi Action Adventure that you can either take it for what it is or leave it as average sequel. There are far films out there. If you're looking for a fun popcorn flick, Jurassic Park III delivers the goods that The Lost World lacked.
Super Reviewer
April 4, 2011
Better than The Lost World, but still many problems. Im glad they brought back Sam Neill, but this is the dumbest group of survivors of the entire series. The effects were pretty good, but it has changed along with the Director, who does a pretty good job keeping to the series. It has the interesting beginning of the series. The story is simple, survive, find kid, escape. Overall it was a good end to the trilogy.
Super Reviewer
½ June 9, 2007
With Spielberg out of the picture, there's not much magic left. Despite being the weakest in the trilogy though, I still enjoyed this third installment. Sam Neill and Laura Dern are back, which is very nice. But unfortunately Laura is only it for a few measely minutes. And Jeff Goldblum, who has the most interesting character in the whole JP saga, is nowhere to be found. Instead we get mediocracy in the form of Téa Leoni, William H. Macy and a couple of other second-rate actors. That whole deal with the cell phone and the Spinosaurus is a really questionable element as well, that I wish they would have excluded. Not to bring up the incredibly farfetched subplot, of a teenage kid surviving 8 weeks alone among all kinds of bloodthirsty dinosaurs. That's where things got out of line for me. On a sheer entertainment level, however, it's an agreeable follow-up. I liked how they included action segments that were in the original novel, but never made it to the first film. I really hope they make a fourth one, because it's been a decade now since this came out and I'm starved to the bone for another dino-flick. Whether it be Spielberg (not likely), Joe Johnston (possibly) or some other director who makes it happen.
Super Reviewer
March 24, 2007
Very underwhelming. A couple descent set pieces.
michael e.
Super Reviewer
½ January 3, 2011
its better than the original ill say that much
Super Reviewer
½ September 18, 2010
wth was this?
Super Reviewer
½ July 21, 2010
Super Reviewer
½ February 25, 2010
I love dinosaur movie :D
Page 1 of 750