Rating: 
Summary: My favorite of the three
Review: I can't believe the lousy reviews people gave this below. If you would just forget that this is the third in the series and watch it objectively, it is certainly better than the second one, which is too talky and develops slowly. This, the third one, develops about as slowly as an attack of african killer bees. It is also, in some mysterious way, more kid-friendly to small children than the first one, although believe me people get eaten(!). On top of that the sam neill character, the paleontogist who wears the indiana jones style hat, is by far the most interesting character in the trilogy. I dare you to watch the first twenty-five minutes of this and not be totally hooked. I'm pushing fifty and I've watched the first twenty minutes of this at least five times...because it fascinates me! For imaginative action/entertainment this is a darn good movie. Some people need to drop their hoity-toity attitudes and just judge this for its entertainment value.
Rating: 
Summary: At Least it has a plot
Review: I was a little disappointed by Jurassic park 3. It had the actiona dn adventure, but for some reason nothing can compare to the first one. There are some awesome new dinosaurs int his one
Rating: 
Summary: Michael Crichton must be rolling in his grave.
Review: ... Wait, he isn't dead. Well I am sure that in the tradition of Sphere, Congo and the original Jurassic Parks, he is most likely disappointed beyond belief. I believe the only decent transfers of his techno-thrillers to movies were The Terminal Man and,maybe, The Andromeda Strain. This "sequel" to the Steven Spielberg directed film, which is loosely based on the Crichton book, concerns Alan Grant (Sam Neill) going to Isla Sorna, the testing grounds of Ingen and the isle in the Lost World, to rescue the son of a husband and wife (William H. Macy and Téa Leoni). They go to the island, Grant being an idiot this time around (what do you expect? Crichton didn't touch this), and dinosaurs proceed to eat the crew while they search for the parents's son. I have nothing but respect for Michael Crichton, his books are excellent and well-researched. I enjoyed his Jurassic Park books immensely. I hated the movies because they butchered Jurassic Park and massacred the Lost World (The book and movie are hardly alike). This movie is no exception: Grant would NEVER go to the original Jurassic Park or "John Hammond's dirty little secret." Also, the whole father owning a paint business and somehow hiring armed hunters and a pilot, not to mention Grant, with a check bound to bounce and a promise was... stupid. Avoid this movie like ebola. They will both make your skin green and you'll vomit black puke, but I give the edge to ebola. At least Jurassic Park 3 is only two hours or so; ebola can last for two weeks.
Rating: 
Summary: Okay, but...
Review: I was so excited to see "Jurassic Park 3" when it was released in the theaters, but I was disappointed in this installment. The first two films had me on the edge of my seat. Granted, this one did too at moments, but I think the whole storyline just turned me off. The fact that a couple hired Sam Neill's character to find their son who had crashed on the now deserted island where the former Jurassic Park existed had me shaking my head in disbelief. I thought more could have been done to develop this storyline, but I think the special effects and the dinosaurs made up for that. This was also the first in the "Jurassic Park" series that was not directed by Steven Spielberg and it definitely showed. Don't get me wrong, the director of this film did a good job, but that spark that Spielberg brings to his films was missing. "Jurassic Park 3" was a pretty good movie and I would suggest it to those who are fans of the series, but at the same time, don't get your hopes up too high because they may (or may not) come crashing down.
Rating:
Summary: fun and fun
Review: Entertaining with cool special effects. Funny. Better than Lost World. Score: 97/100 A+
Rating:
Summary: AMAZING DVD package of extra features like subtitles
Review: As a fussy DVD collector who loves subtitles this movie would have to be the one of the best in my collection. The special features documenatries and featurettes are amazingly subtitled (even the commenatry track is subtitled!). The only DVD I can think of in my collection of 100 which has such accuracy would have to be Hannibal, the sequel to Silence Of The Lambs. Now on the film. It does lack the grand spectacle of the first 2 in the series. It has potential definitely : the awe-AMAZING scenery of green rain forests and the island at the start was BREATHTAKING. However I envisioned iy to have different and new dinosaur roaring in a MAJESTIC scale never seen and unprecedented in the other films. This didn't eventuate and the dinosaur did lack definition and variety, and was done on a insular scale. Alessandro Nivola is a actor of raw potential, up there amongst the class of Matthew McConaughey. I wish him the best of luck in his aspiring career. He is also very athletic and fit in this film. Sam Neil is fantastic too. William H Macy is a revelation , so as Tea Loni. So all in all you have an ensemble cast that I cared and cheered for to all get of the island safely. The kid was great too, a bit unrealistic how he survived for 8 weeks though. Get this DVD , for it's value packed extra features!
Rating: 
Summary: They should be ashamed of themselves......
Review: From start to finish, this movie was plagued with production problems. There was an actors/writers strike on the horizon so Universal raced this movie through production....Joe Johnson proved to be unable to really finish this movie in a manner that was satisfying. They never had a finished script so a lot of this movie looks like it was made up as they went along. They upped the visual effects and showed more dinosaurs, but the actors really have no clue what to do in this movie. Everything they do seems to get them into more trouple and they end up meeting more dinosaurs who proceed to kill the people off one by one. You can see who is going to get it before it happenes. Unlike the first two movies, where everyone worked hard to make the movies the best they can be, this film was rushed through production and it shows everywhere. Visual effects, production design, cut and paste editing, a bombastic music score, and a very predictable ending. This movie is not worthty to be called Jurassic Park.
Rating:
Summary: So much room for improvement...
Review: "Jurassic Park 3" is probably the most disappointed with a film I've ever been. It had so much going for it, and delivered so little. The film's biggest problem is the silly plot. The first film was believable, the second film was fun, this one's got energy, but we've been there, done that. But back to the plot: Alan Grant (Sam Neill) is lured back to the island the same way he was lured the first time: with money. That Grant could possibly be so greedy and stupid is the film's most unbelievable part. Most everyone (the characters) in this movie deserves to be eaten by dinosaurs, but only a few are. In a way, I'm glad Spielberg didn't direct this one. This would have seriously hurt his career. It's not a terrible film, but it's not good. I'd say only hardcore fans might like this one. But that's only a guess.
Rating:
Summary: Nice comeback
Review: Ready for some forget-about-the-real-world-for-awhile fun? This film may have been the third release in the J-Park trilogy, but it is clearly the 2nd best of the series. No sequel will ever outdo the novelty of the original, but this episode injects enough "oomph" into the storyline to keep you on the edge of your seat. For starters: 1. Sam Neill returns in the lead role...
2. Introduction of a predator bigger and badder than T-Rex (who knew?!)...
3. Intro of a flying dinosaur species (In the minds of even casual dinosaur enthusiasts, the dino-bird is a "must have" element which was grossly absent from the earlier movies)...
4. Continued character development of Velociraptors is extremely well done. The complexity of the raptor's personality is human-like by the end of the show...
5. The movie didn't try to outdo itself as was done in the Lost World by bringing dinosaurs to the mainland. (Jurassic Park will never be Godzilla.) Generally speaking, the plot lived within its means. So why only 4 stars? Of all things, HUMAN character development and motivation is a little hard to keep up with. You just kind of get the sense that the writers couldn't come up with a really good idea to get everyone on the island in the first place, so they had to pick something kind of outlandish. As a result, they had to spend the rest of the movie scrambling to explain and resolve that outlandishness into something believable. Close, but no cigar. That said, it's a good fantasy/action movie, defintely one that is worth popping corn for. You'll be better off seeing the first two J-Park videos first, so that you can understand the historical references in this film. Enjoy!
Rating:
Summary: I love Jurassic Park & ALL its sequels...
Review: I dont know why people didnt like this movie.. because I did. It had Romance, Action, Drama... tons of good stuff!! and NEW Dinos like the birds (unlike the other movies we the charaters NEVER got fac-to-fac with) We saw alot more of the Raptors, and even learned some things about them. This movie is just as good as the first. BUT basically all the first movies of Sequels are the best. That is all!!! I love Jurassic Park
| 
