Rating: 
Summary: Jurassic Park Lite
Review: This third installment of the Jurassic Park franchise is the "Lite" version of the other two movies. Light on dinosaurs, light on plot and, unfortunately, light on the tension that made the other two films fun. Not much new either with a contrived story and very little character development. I didn't care about these people.The ads build this movie up to be an exciting Jurassic feast. What you'll get is warmed over Slim-Fast.
Rating: 
Summary: A Worthy Sequel
Review: Jurassic Park III was better than I expected it to be. I was glad to see that this film, unlike its predecessor The Lost World, does not take itself entirely seriously. There is plenty of black humour in JPark III, which I wasn't anticipating but was nice to see. Above all, the special effects in this film are stunning. The dinosaurs in JPark III make their animatronic forebears seem -- well, prehistoric. They move with grace, speed, and realism. Simply put, the dinos are stunning. And while the plotline has holes (which doesn't), face it -- ultimately, everyone goes to see the DINOSAURS. And this film delivers those -- smashingly!
Rating:
Summary: the best jurassic park movie yet
Review: I liked this movie a lot. They finally made a dinosaur to battle the T-rex,the Spinosaurs. The movie had a really cool scene of the two fighting,but some more of the same. But it was still a good movie.
Rating:
Summary: More Excitement to Scream At, Less Plot to be Confused With
Review: The first Jurassic Park was an excellent movie, very exciting great special effects (for its time), good acting, it was a good movie. The Lost World, ehh, okay, sort of exciting, good special effects, okay acting. It was sort of a dissapointment, mainly because they didn't bring back the main character, bad idea! Thats like Die Hard 2 without Bruce Willis. Then the third one, the first thing you notice is that Sam Neill is back, good idea, they needed that a ton to revive the series. And this time there isn't a huge plot to follow just five people trapped on and island with dinosaurs trying to eat them. This movie was very exciting. The part that really impressed me is when the kid is walking across the bridge and a huge pteradon appears out of the mist, it really shocked me. But then I realized that it was sort of predictable. Like when they're in the lab and you see the raptor in the jar, I was sort of expecting it to be alive. It was also kinda short but had a neat ending. So all in all a good sequel that was worth my 6 bucks.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Movie - It Rocks !
Review: Firstly, unlike the US, UK (which, unfortunately, includes Scotland) didn't have much advertising for this movie. It's as if in their hard work for the best minimalist advertising scheme they could think of for the US, they hatched an even better one for the UK. It's just unfortunate that the UK has never much cared for JP films. They have success when they're out, then Jurassic Park is like a bad word - you're sad [...] if you like it. It's even used by a character in a comedy for 'great'. Which is good, 'cept he's a sad character. Alan Partridge (excellent show, if you ever get to see it - Steve Coogan). What's more likely is they forgot. We weren't even told it was coming out for crying out load ! However, I have been looking forward to it, and was not disapointed. Plus it has done 4 times more money here than any other film on the go this summer here in opening week. Which is odd, seeing as how a review here said 'with such films as Tomb Raider and Shrek this summer, it is unlikely anyone will be greatly anticipating or rushing to see Jurassic Park III' - well, they did. And it rocks ! It's a good old fashioned action adventure that puts you in mind of Indiana Jones, and the old Lost World and Return to The Lost World movies. There is not a second I didn't enjoy. It had excellent suspense, at the right parts, adventure at the right parts, and humour at the right parts. The story was perfect for the type of film it was. Useless and weak, and with the impression that it had further been watered down, it was exactly what you look for in a great B-movie. Sam Neill, no surprise, stole the show as far as actors, and was great with his cynical remarks. The suport characters, although exteremely ill defined, had the right reactions to dinos, for each of their supposed personalities and life styles (unlike the stoney unrealistic ones in The Lost World : Jurassic Park) and added brilliant comic relief. The dinos were far superior to the previous films, and had more complex behaviour, and interaction. And the film managed to shock and SURPRISE you ! Rare these days. Plus it had the Pteranodon sequence - by far one of the best in ANY of the movies... This film, in many ways, captures the feeling of an island of dinosaurs best, and maybe the feeling Michael Crichton was aiming at with his original novel. You know this IS a Lost World in this movie. And, in all ways (including soudtrack), it is superior to TLW:JP. The fact that it is doing so well in the UK is testiment to the quality of the movie. It's one Hell of a thrill ride ! (PS : Even though it is not based on one of Crichton's novels, nearly all the scenes and even plot points are from the two - the Aivery (obviously - although I'd like to say JP3's scequence is much more enjoyable than even the novel's scene), the Spinosaurus following the characters through the island, and down the river, to name but two, and plot points for The Lost World novel - which I will not give away ...)
Rating: 
Summary: A Great Movie, but not as good as the first
Review: Jurassic Park 3 delivers what it promises, it entertains. It definitely beat the Lost World but not JP1. Although there are some loose ends it is very exciting and if you are looking for an action movie to entertain and to keep you on the edge of your seat you should see it. It shows you new dinosaurs and the action scenes are much more carefully elaborated. I would definitely recommended it.
Rating: 
Summary: A horrible disappointment
Review: I went to this movie expecting it to be as good as the other two. It wasn't. The acting was terrible, and the characters were completely wooden. In the other two, one could identify with the characters [...]but in this one, the characters have no character whatsoever! The storyline was pathetic as well. The little bits of storyline weren't worth it, but this movie was pretty much just for cheap thrills. Also, this movie seemed way too short. It started way too soon (i thought that i was watching the trailer for it)and hardly anything happened in it (just a bunch of macho people being attacked by some dinosaurs). I give it one star, because, as always, the dinosaurs looked amazing. If you go to this movie, go to it to look at the dinosaurs.
Rating: 
Summary: Falls tragically short of expectations and hype
Review: --NOTE-- this was written for and referring to the theatrical version When Dr. Alan Grant's theory of Raptor Intelligence reaches new grounds, he discovers that they may actually have been able to 'talk' to each other. However, with minimal funding and time on the project falling short, Grant is greeted by a pair of rich adventurers that, with the power of money, get Grant to go with them to Isla Sorna, a place he swore he'd never go. Enter: Spinosaurus. When Grant figures out the real reason as to why they are on Isla Sorna(after a knockout blow to the back of the head), it is too late: The landing party is quickly attacked by the new 'bigshot' Spinosaurus. Afterwords, the rest of the movie's weak plot unravels. Unfortunately, the hype that this movie garnered did it no justice. Falling very short of expectations, we see a movie that opens up many questions which are never answered, plot holes that are glaring, and scenes that are just a bit too over-the-top, mainly the Velociraptor 'talk' scenes. The concept of Raptor talk was taken a bit too far for this film. The plot also underwent many revisions, as you will see with Laura Dern's 2 minute appearence, who supposedly originally had a larger role in the movie, but had a schedule to keep with other films. The ending also seems to have been thrown together in a couple of minutes. The Spinosaurus is greatly exaggerated in this film, and the highly anticipated battle between the Rex and the Spino is just too unbeleivable and short. If a Rex were to bite down on a Spinosaurus' neck, beleve me, the Spino would be dead. Not so in this film, as the Spino, for some odd reason, takes center stage. Many questions open up which, again, are not answered, such as: Why didn't Malcolm and the group run into the SPinosaurus in The Lost World? Spinosaurus was not on Ingen's list of Dinosaurs, why not? All in all, the action is great, but that is all that warrants the 3 star rating. Sam Neil is once again great as Dr. Alan Grant, and the Dinosaur effects, although a bit dated, still look very good. The worst aspects of the film are the convoluted and hokey plot, which is just too weak and basic to follow. You will also see that there are many scenes that were in Crichton's novel The Lost World that did not make into the Lost World movie reconstructed into this movie. Dinosaurs that were a part of the second book that were not featured in the second movie, such as Carnotaurus, make a very, very brief appearence. Nothing critical. Another glaring problem: Over-advertising. While it wasn't as bad as the insanely over-hyped and terrible movie Tomb Raider, each TV spot that came on about Jurassic Park III revealed more and more scenes in the movie. So much was spoiled in the television commercials and, during the NBC spoiler that aired a week before its release during a showing of the original Jurassic Park, in which commercial breaks were hosted by Sam Neil that unfortunately gave so much of the movie away that, combined with the tv advertisements, one could've easily seen the entire movie without having to go the the theatre. The bottom line: See it if you are a fan of the Jurassic Park franchise, but don't expect another masterpiece. At best, this is an action movie spin-off of the sequel.
Rating:
Summary: It could have been a lot worse
Review: So, is this new sequel to the widely famous Jurassic Park series a complete failure? No. Is Jurassic Park 3 a huge success? No. Did I still enjoy watching the film? Yes. The special effects in this episode are a bit less fantastic. Most of the dinosaurs are less realistic, more robotic, and just plain fake looking. It doesn't ruin the film, but it's one major mistake that the filmmakers made. It's obvious that Speilberg didn't have as much to do with this installment than he did with the past two films. Don't get me wrong. I still thought the special effects were enjoyable, it's just that they never hit that super-real oddness that the first two movies achieved with it's dinosaurs. The awe-inspiring moments that occur in the first two films never happen in the third. This film definitely had a smaller budget, and it shows. Then we take a look at the acting in the film. Great performances by Tea Leoni, William H. Macy, and Sam Neil beg the script for more than they get, but they work with the material well and really give it their all. Tea Leoni is especially good as a frantic mother and hilarious counterpart to Macy. What the film lacks in effects and scripting, it makes up for in talent. The actors are having fun, and it shows. This is a silly sequel, but it's fun and amusing. Jurassic Park 3 doesn't take itself too seriously, so neither should we. It's tongue and cheek, off the wall, and more than a little bit corny...but it's a fun ride that diverts time for a while. I can't say that Jurassic Park 3 is a good movie, but I can say that I'm not sorry that I saw it.
Rating:
Summary: Great, but not long enough
Review: I liked almost everything about this film, but I felt like it could have been a little longer. More dinosaur attacks would have been excellent. Instead of sending in a swarm of amphibious assault craft at the end, I would have sent in paratroopers or something. Then the Pterodactyls could have attacked again. I felt this film filled the void that the Lost World could not.
|
