Featured Audience Ratings

• Emil K

  
  First chapter in Jurassic Park -trilogy was interesting and ambitious adventure film with many flaws. It was average job from Steven Spielberg and was far from his greatest films. Second chapter, The Lost World, was one of Spielberg's greatest achievements as a director. It was,… More
  First chapter in Jurassic Park -trilogy was interesting and ambitious adventure film with many flaws. It was average job from Steven Spielberg and was far from his greatest films. Second chapter, The Lost World, was one of Spielberg's greatest achievements as a director. It was, and still is, a dark and extremely well made adventure -film which is full of great suspense set-pieces and state of art special-effects. So after ther second film the expectations for the third one were quite high and sadly director Joe Johnston cannot come even close to Spielberg's vision or skills. Johnston has always been a average director and his filmography is not that impressive either. He often makes films that are aimed for families but they also are lacking originality or real feel of awe. His best film to date is darkly atmospheric The Howling, which is quite entertaining and good film, but i would not go and say that it is a great film. It would be wrong to blame only Johnston for the mess that Jurassic Park 3 is. Much of this film's weakness comes from the weak screenplay that was written by Alexander Payne, Peter Buchman and Jim Taylor. The characters, the story and twists are so weak that it is truly surprising that they actually decided to turn this screenplay into a film. Everytime film tries to be more comedic it is just downright embarrasing to watch. To bring back Sam Neill as a Alan Grant is an interesting choice but his effort here goes to waste because there is no good material for him to work with. Rest of the cast are mostly annoying characters that act without logic. At least the effects and production values are mostly above average but this entry into the wold of Jurassic Park is highly uneven and flawed work. It is a wannabe adventure film with no life in it. It just shiny hollow shelf without any emotion or story to tell in it.

• Samuel R

  
  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,… More
  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.

• Film C

  
  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… More
  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' !

• Lucas M

  
  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.

• Chris W

  
  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… More
  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 C

  
  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… More
  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.

• Steven C

  
  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… More
  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.

• Eric A

  
  Best looking dinos out of the three, but the least necessary film of the three.

• Matt G

  
  I liked this one more than the others. I don't know why though. It's just how I am.

• Jacob E

  
  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… More
  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.

• Jeff "

  
  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… More
  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.

• Jim C

  
  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… More
  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.

• Mike S

  
  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… More
  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.

• Ken S

  
  Very underwhelming. A couple descent set pieces.

• Michael E

  
  its better than the original ill say that much

• Albert K

  
  wth was this?

• KJ P

  
  The third installment in the Jurassic Park world does everything right that the second failed to do, and it comparable to the original, without the originality present. Jurassic Park 3 is great, but nothing can top the original!

• Richard C

  
  B-

• Dead A

  
  I love dinosaur movie :D

• Jennifer D

  
  A very shitty sequel to a great original concept. So why do I like? More dinosaurs. Duh. Semi-interesting plot as well.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings