Rating: 
Summary: Ok, I Guess...
Review: There are a large collection of movies which, when viewed by the public, demand a hard-core follow-up production. "Jurassic Park" was one of those films. As soon as it debuted, the generalized public cried out to the filmaking "powers that be" to make a sequel. Universal, in its never-ending attempt to please the public, did them one better (or worse, depending on your point of view): they produced two sequels, both which recieved widespread response. But unlike the first film, with its suspense-filled plot and perfect pacing, these films just didn't work as well... "Jurassic Park 3" had a lot of promise, and it resulted in being a high-budget disaster, for the most part. True, the action-scenes are well coreographed and the climax in the boat is interesting; but a man cannot live by violence alone. The plot is missing (seriously). Amidst the running dinosaurs and screaming actors, I think I caught something about a missing boy or a rescue mission, but honestly now, NO emphasis is placed on this WHATSOEVER! It's as if Director Joe Johnston just needed some way to show several morons get swallowed up by a big lizard. Even the return of Alan Grant was poorly written, as Grant's character changed drastically from his original role. He has forgotten all his knowledge of dinosaur behavior, both study and experience-based. This fact is actually explained in the film, as Grant only studies Velociraptors now, and very little of that. Seems odd to me that an expert would forget all of his knowledge. dIrEKtEr jO (Director Joe) really didn't have any idea how to write a real movie, did he? Guess he needs to go back to Disney.
Rating: 
Summary: Like one really long deleted scene from part two. BORING!!!
Review: BORING!!!!!!!!!! Ok,yeah...Same old thing again?!!!!and only an hour in a half long?!! what the heck is this?!!!They discover bigger and better dinosaurs,they create an island for them,then they go and visit the wonderful and not to mention carniverous dinosaurs,then the dinosaurs;being that they do eat meat; and they have never seen a human being before!Go and attack the poor insignificant humans who were to brainless to think things like this out before taking action. Boohoo...poor them...well, you know what? NOBODY CARES!!!! the point is that, the first one was awsome...the second and third ones...well,were monotonous.And, not to mention boring. It was like one really long deleted scene from part two. they took out the best character Jeff Goldblume as Ian Malcom!!! they were the best poeple!Its like making Micheal Chriton not be the author of the book that is by the way, based on the first movie.You just dont do that if you're going to make a sequel!Steven Spielburg bofore considering to make a part four make sure you have all the main/best characters in it. Otherwise dont even think think about it.
Rating:
Summary: Simply Sad....
Review: This movie was horrible... I wish they could have just stuck with the original story of Jurassic Park. I don't think anyone enjoyed the idea of a new island, I mean, where the hell did this come from?? Or maybe I just missed something in the other two.... been quite a while since I've seen them. The other day I started the Jurassic Park book... I insist you people get more into reading than watching movies, the original work was MUCH better. The acting in this movies sucked and the story was many times worse. JOHN HAMMOND ISN'T EVEN IN THE GOD DAMNED MOVIE! He was the one who started the whole thing, what the hell happened to him?? Another thing, there was no background to the movie, most of this stuff just came out of no where. You could call the Lost World a work of art compared to this movie. Can't believe Steven Spielburg didn't direct it, he brought life to the first two. I suggest everyone stick to the first movie, it was the only one with a real plot...
Rating:
Summary: It's amazing what crap they'll make these days
Review: This movie was horrible! It shouldn't be allowed to carry on the Jurassic Park name. I mean, The Lost World was pushing it. This one just sucked. Granted, seeing members of the original cast was cool, even if it was brief. Still, that can't save this movie. Reasons this was so bad: 1) The dinosaurs all looked fake, probably because this movie relied mostly on computer generated effects. 2) The little boy they were trying to save was so annoying, why they didn't just leave him on that island I'll never know. 3) There were hardly any deaths, which is what made the first two exciting. 4) It wasn't directed by Steven Spielberg, the guy who did the first two. 5) The plot was way jacked up: for instance, why would Grant EVER go back? The reason they gave in the movie so did not convince me. They made out like Grant would do anything for money which, he learned in the first film, was a bad idea. Anyway, the point is: this movie blew. Take my advice and skip this one. Oh, and I totally agree with the other reviewer who made the comment that those who like this movie are idiots.
Rating: 
Summary: One of the best movies
Review: This movie was made so incredibly well that the dinosaurs looked like that they were not computer animated. It looked like they were real! Once the movie pulls you and your interest inside itself, it is impossible for you to pull yourself back out. To my opinoin, this was one of the best movies I have ever seen, defenitlly a movie you must see and a movie you must buy.
Rating:
Summary: It was an okay film, but deserves no praise.
Review: How do you top two blockbuster predecessors, both related to formidable dinosaurs, in its third sequel? The answer: you don't.
Although the plot was rather vague and ambiguous, the special effects, sound, cinematography were quite weak, as expected. I don't think anyone expected the same thrill they received when they saw the original Jurassic Park.
During most of the scenes, it felt as though the screen writers decided to make a movie about dinosaurs chasing people, trying to kill them. If there was an excuse to bring the dinosaurs close to people, such an action was always followed. This was strange.
Also, considering the quickness of the movie -- roughly 90 minutes -- it felt as though the movie was rushed. Thus, it fueled the belief, even more, that this movie had no plot and a hurried atmosphere. It was okay. This was certainly not a great film.
Rating:
Summary: Better than "Lost World"
Review: I have to admit, this third movie in the Jurassic Park triology is not the best of all three. It is a lot better than the second, and falls short (way short) of the first. However, what is good about this movie is the fact that the action starts up almost immediately and never stops. If you watch these type of movies for the action and chase sequences, this movie will not let you down. *** 1/2 stars for the action. ***** for Sound and Picture quality of DVD. ** stars for plot and acting.
Rating:
Summary: 1 star? OVER-RATING
Review: I think it's self-explanitory. But for you idiots, this movie sucked
Rating:
Summary: This is one of the best movies ever!!!
Review: this is an AWESOME movie where the dr. goes to another dinosaur island to find some kid that got lost.
Rating:
Summary: How to sell a movie with its name...
Review: Spoilers warning :Jurassic Park, the first episode, was simply innovative, amazing, intelligent, and great. The Lost World was, let's say, bad. But this is different from the two first chapters. Let me explain. This is the (very simple and stupid) story of a young boy doing some kind of parachute with a friend of his parents over Isla Sorna (the island where the story of The Lost World happened). But with some amazing coincidences and unpredictable events (do you feel the sarcasm?), they crash on the island. Then, 8 weeks later (that's a long time to survive, on a near island) the parents pay Alan Grant to come with them save their son on the island. Don't you think the story is stupid? Don't you think this is gratuitous reason to go on an island and get eaten by dinosaurs...This is stupid to the extreme...seriously. But, not only they have a crap-head scenario, but they also have special effects that are really not as good as the first two's. I couldn't recognize the raptors, because teh dinosaur models are different and cheaper, and also, the dinosaurs are so fake sometimes, it's evident...the illusion isn't really there. There are new species of dinosaurs, but the only T-Rex you see lasts only one minute. But the most stupid point of the film, making it a possible winner at the Razzies fest, is the NEW intelligence of the dinosaurs...they communicate like humans (they don't speak, but it almost sounds like that sometimes), they look at each other, they trap humans...this is awfully stupid...and especially in the dinosaur fight, one of them kills the other by holding his head and breaking his neck...and why don't they eat the humans they kill? The acting isn't so good, William H Macy is real bad and fake, like Tea Leoni...some awful one-liners, too predictable to be true...really. The action is so brief, you can't enter into it, there is no stress, no suspense...and the movie has a running time of 85 minutes...plain bad. Overall, stupid story, bad acting, sucky scenario, lame action, no plot, no suspense, just a sell-out under the Jurassic Park title. 2/10
|
