Who payed the critics

Far from Perfect, Far from Terrible

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

So you want to search for your lost kid in an island with marauding dinosaurs and you dress yourself as if your are out for golfing on a weekend? And you take along a few screamers who would be massive liabilities in the mission? Heights of dumbness. Line up the writers and unleash the raptors on them.

There are a couple reasons as to why this movies deserves a far better rating than what it has received. #1 The people reviewing it expected the magic that the first movie in the sequel brought. If you remove the first two movies from your mind this movie is very high quality and definitely doesn't deserve a 1/10, like a lot of these people gave it. #2 It was a fun, action packed movie that did what it set out to do, be enjoyable. Overall, this movies was good and deserves a higher rating than what it was given. 6.8/10

I always had the fear with jurassic Park 3 that this concept wasn't going to be able to hold up for too much longer and unfortunately this film proves that theory correct. The premise of the film sees a couple convince Dr Alan Grant to travel to the island from The Lost World with them. As mentioned, Sam Neil is back as Dr Alan Grant and he is easily the best part of this film, he has most of his charm and charisma still intact and you care about his character. The supporting cast though is just poor, first of all is the couple he travels with the Kirbys. These characters were so bland and dull adding nothing to this film, the film tries to make you care about them but you just don't because of how poorly they are written and acted. There is a character called Ben that also goes on the trip and he is just boring, he is basically a worse version of Vince Vaughans character from the previous film. Also if you came here to see Laura Dern again she is just a glorified cameo. The story is just one big excuse to get Alan Grant on an island so they can have a jurassic Park film. You don't care about the emotional stakes in the film or the motivations of the characters. Also the film takes some directions at the start that takes away from the previous films and hurts them too. The script has a blend of cheesy humour and uninspiring drama to help in making you not care about anybody really in the film. The style of the film does have some entertaining and tense scenes in it, but they are few and far between. Also the Dinosaurs look so much worse in this film then previously which ruined some of the more tense scenes in the film. This film amazingly is only an hour and a half but feels much longer, which clearly shows that there were some issues of pacing in this film. Overall this film is one to avoid, even if you are a big fan of the is franchise it isn't one you should look for.

This film gets a lot of stick from series fans, perhaps not all of it undeserved - Jurassic Park 3 is largely devoid of meaningful depth, originality and strong storytelling. But despite all that, I can't help but also find it effortlessly entertaining.When I re-watched all the previous films in the run-up to Jurassic World, I was taken aback on how much I enjoyed Jurassic Park 3. It's not exactly deep to be sure, but it's also pacy and packed with entertaining action sequences, never feeling as bloated and stodgy as The Lost World even if it never matches up to the original.And these action scenes are genuinely well-made. Maybe the abundance of chaotic close-ups and shaky cam in modern blockbusters has actually helped JP3 age pretty well - the action is coherently staged, the locations imaginatively utilized and the dinosaurs rendered with the same awesome might as you'd expect from the previous films (despite the dated CG, which could be applied to both of its predecessors).Although there isn't an individual scene here that I feel can match the original's paddock breakout, nor even the second's long grass scene, they're still delivered at a steady pace that ensures there's little feeling of drag during it's short runtime. Even so, the crash and aviary scenes are especially memorable for their taut tension.Much has been said of the weak story, and it's not a completely unfair observation. There's nothing special about the plot: people get dropped on a tropical island for contrived reasons, dinos attack, extras are eaten, then the rest of the film follows a series of progressively bigger set pieces until it ends (though I will say it seems to lack an obligatory finale sequence, which makes sense given one was planned before being cut). There's a fairy forgettable plot thread of a family coming back together, which at least doesn't feel intrusive enough to bloat the runtime as The Lost World's muddled themes were want to do. Despite the redundant storyline, there are some fairy snappy moments of dialogue to be found here and there ("What if they can us with them" : "What if they catch us *without* them?"), and the cast turns up a solid set of performances - well, with one exception...Jurassic Park 3 is about as far removed as you can get from the abstract science and bloody grime of Crichton's original novel. It's a big-budget B-movie with no other purpose than to deliver a few solid thrills and then bowl out before overstaying its welcome.In short, it's 90 minutes of solid dino action, nothing more and nothing less, and I still enjoy it immensely for that reason.