$2.50 Reviews: Jurassic Park III (2001)

Next Review: Red Eye


$2.50 Reviews

Jurassic Park III

image

There was no reason to make a Jurassic Park III. Sure, there could be a sequel -- The Lost World left that door open -- but there really didn't need to be one. What's more surprising is that the open door isn't what the filmmakers used here; they decided that bulldozing through the wall just to the right of the door would be a better idea. Instead of the evil corporation doing something involving the dinosaurs, we follow one character who was absent from the last film, and a bunch of new ones who serves the purpose of either running from the prehistoric creatures or being eaten by them.

image

That one character is Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill), the protagonist of the first Jurassic Park who decided not to appear in its sequel. He's back for the third installment, presumably because Sam Neill needed some extra cash. Maybe he wanted to finish his basement renovations. Grant's working at a university teaching students about dinosaurs, and fields daily questions about whether or not he'd return to an island populated by them. "No force on Earth or Heaven could get me on that island," he tells us. It's at this point when we know he'll be going to the island.

His focus of study is the velociraptor, as after almost being eaten by one in Jurassic Park, he must have decided to learn everything there is about them. He even has nightmares about the raptors -- although that only happens once for a sad excuse at a jump scare. He is approached by a rich couple who tell him that they'll give him a check for any amount that he wants (for his research) if he'll take them to the dinosaur island. Paul (William H. Macy) and Amanda (Téa Leoni) are their names.

You'll be unsurprised when it turns out that they're not just insane risk takers. They're actually going to the dinosaur island to find something -- or someone -- and after forcing Dr. Grant into the plane, they knock him out until landing. One thing leads to another, a plane gets destroyed, and everyone's trapped on the island. Oh, and the dinosaurs are not happy about it, although if they were, I would guess that something was amiss. Jurassic Park III is basically a find-a-way-to-survive film.

image

It makes sense, doesn't it? After all, the first two films didn't have real characters, so why should this one? Granted, those ones were at least trying, but since it didn't work out, the attempt has been cut out. We jump right into the action, and save for a couple of short scenes in which characters actually talk to one another without barking orders, the action is relentless. As a result, this is a much shorter film, clocking in just over 90 minutes.

Thank goodness. I don't think I could handle this film if it happened to be longer. I'm sure there was a two-hour cut made at some point in its production history, but trimming it down was definitely the right decision. This is an abysmal film, and while it is more action-packed than either of the first two films, the action is all terrible. It's so clichéd, so worthless, so boring; if I was in a drowsy state, the film could have put me to sleep. I actually wondered if I had dozed off for a portion of it just because of how short it was.

And it all looks awful. You know how in Jurassic Park -- and even to a smaller extent The Lost World -- how the dinosaurs felt so real? How the CGI had time and care put into it so that the main attraction felt like it could be in the same place and time as these characters? Yeah, that's what happens when time and effort is put in. In Jurassic Park III, there isn't a single dinosaur that looks real, even though this film is out in 2001 and the first one was 1993. Technology like this doesn't get worse!

image

I'll tell you what I'm guessing happened. The filmmakers decided to use cheaper, faster technology to render their dinosaurs, knowing that regardless of how they looked, we'd see their movie. We'd already gotten over the dinosaurs in the second installment, so they guessed that they could get away with lackluster special effects. I know that this decision took me out of the film. I actually could believe in the dinosaurs in the first two films, but in this one, they seemed fake, like they were right out of a video game.

Like in the first film, I found myself rooting for the dinosaurs. It's established early on that raptors will play a prominent role, and when they appeared, I was glad. But they didn't even act like the raptors in the first film, which was very disappointing. If they had, it's possible that the movie would be over 30 minutes in, as these humans never would have made it past them (the first time, anyway). But, no, these ones are more interested in watching their prey than actually hunting them, leading to some terrible stare downs that lead nowhere and make no sense. Yes, we get it, the raptors are smart, but they're still hunters and they don't do any hunting in this film!

Jurassic Park III is a mess, and I sincerely hope it's the last in the franchise. It's sloppy throughout, right from the beginning to the deus ex machina ending. It doesn't care about the characters, it doesn't want to contain an actual plot, and specific scenes are so cliché that any surprise they try to generate completely fails. To top it off, it's like the filmmakers didn't even care, bringing in sloppy CGI to render the only things that we want to see done perfectly: The dinosaurs.

_________________________________________________________________________________

If you are a fan of my reviews, and want to boost my ego receive notifications when new reviews are posted, please join/visit this user group.
For an archive of all my previous movie reviews, please go here.

D: Sad Face, I loved this movie, not because it's good, but fun to watch. :D

I liked this a hell of a lot more than the second. This was actually fun most of the time.

Finally Marter all the screens came from the movie you were reviewing.

The bad thing with this movie is the way it is presented,it's a different genre movie.

Jurassic Park was a classic family adventure movie. The Lost World was a classic action movie, complete with cars exploding and action stands. Yet the third movie is more like a thriller, a horror movie with dinosaurs.
I liked how in the first two movies dinosaurs are presented just as animals. Beings that excite us yet they make us respect them with awe. Beings that they are not attacking the human characters because they are evil,but because they act with their natural instincts and are hungry.

In the third movie though they are presented as being evil. Raptors are even presented as intelligent beings who communicate in their own language,and chat about arguing if they should attack humans or not... In whole,dinosaurs are not presented as marvelous animals,but more like evil beasts,and what's it is,is that you can take a zombie movie and replace zombies with dinosaurs,and you will have something like Jurassic Park 3.

It is important to note that this movie unlike the 2 other ones,wasn't based on a book written by Michael Chrichton,neither it was made by Steven Spielberg. Because of that the feel the first two movies had is absent on the third movie.

And while Jurassic Park was a great example of originality and Lost World managed to include very few cliches and even so did them good,Jurassic Park 3 is full of cliches,and badly executed at that.

In my opinion Jurassic Park was the best of the trilogy,Lost World follows near behind it,and Jurassic Park 3 is just an average movie that doesn't hold up to the legacy of the franchise.

Yeah I remembering seeing this in theaters... it didn't get me invested at all like the first Jurassic Park did. Even the 2nd one felt more worthy then this, and I am so glad you got around mentioning the graphics in this one.

In fact, why are the raptors different then the first raptors? Those were the cooler ones, the realistic and truly horrifying beasts. These ones, they felt like those well... altered ones you'd see in fantasy movies. In fact-

I hate to break it to you but...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369610/

"That one character is Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill), the protagonist of the first Jurassic Park who decided not to appear in its sequel. He's back for the third installment, presumably because Sam Neill needed some extra cash."

The reason Sam Neill wasn't in the second movie had nothing to do with not wanting to be. The movie was based on the second book, and the character of Alan Grant was nowhere to be seen in there, so putting him in the movie would've made no sense.

It's like someone plucked a random Jurassic Park fanfiction off the internet and decided to turn it into a movie.

And the worst is that they cocktease that giant dinosaur gun, but never even use it on any dinosaur. As a matter of fact, we never see any dinosaur getting shot in the entire trilogy, despite everyone having guns.

Niels Beishuizen:

"That one character is Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill), the protagonist of the first Jurassic Park who decided not to appear in its sequel. He's back for the third installment, presumably because Sam Neill needed some extra cash."

The reason Sam Neill wasn't in the second movie had nothing to do with not wanting to be. The movie was based on the second book, and the character of Alan Grant was nowhere to be seen in there, so putting him in the movie would've made no sense.

Ian Malcom wasn't in the second book either...

This is actually the first Jurrasic Park film I ever saw. My mum rented it from the videostore, not noticing the massive clawmarks supposed to represent the roman number 3 (III). And then we sat down and watched it.

I... honestly don't remember that much from it. Aside from not knowing anything of the backstory, thinking it was dull, and boring, and wondering how on earth mum could honestly claim this was an incredible movie. Of course she had mistaken it for Jurassic Park 1, but there you go.

Jingle Fett:
I hate to break it to you but...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369610/

It says the writer of the film is Michael Chrichton.
But Michael only wrote 2 Jurassic Park books,and they are both turned to movies already.
So either this one is a lie,or they are making a remake.
The other thing is that I don't see Steven Spielberg as the director.

If a new JP movie is to come out,it should be directed by Spielberg,or else better not have the movie at all.

Stavros Dimou:

Jingle Fett:
I hate to break it to you but...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369610/

It says the writer of the film is Michael Chrichton.
But Michael only wrote 2 Jurassic Park books,and they are both turned to movies already.
So either this one is a lie,or they are making a remake.
The other thing is that I don't see Steven Spielberg as the director.

If a new JP movie is to come out,it should be directed by Spielberg,or else better not have the movie at all.

That's true... looks like the idea of this one came from spielburg, but someone else is making it... :/ Can't imagine it will be any good at all! :( Damn... because I like the 3 movies... it's Die Hard and Indianna Jones all over again...

Also, Michael Crichton is only credited for the characters... so I guess that means someone is being asked to return?

Casual Shinji:

Niels Beishuizen:

"That one character is Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill), the protagonist of the first Jurassic Park who decided not to appear in its sequel. He's back for the third installment, presumably because Sam Neill needed some extra cash."

The reason Sam Neill wasn't in the second movie had nothing to do with not wanting to be. The movie was based on the second book, and the character of Alan Grant was nowhere to be seen in there, so putting him in the movie would've made no sense.

Ian Malcom wasn't in the second book either...

Actually he was the main character in the second book.

Casual Shinji:

Niels Beishuizen:

"That one character is Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill), the protagonist of the first Jurassic Park who decided not to appear in its sequel. He's back for the third installment, presumably because Sam Neill needed some extra cash."

The reason Sam Neill wasn't in the second movie had nothing to do with not wanting to be. The movie was based on the second book, and the character of Alan Grant was nowhere to be seen in there, so putting him in the movie would've made no sense.

Ian Malcom wasn't in the second book either...

erm... actualy, yes, he was. He was the main character in the second book. (which, I take it, you didn't actualy read)

Jingle Fett:
I hate to break it to you but...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369610/

They've been trying to make this film for YEARS. I remember reading an article about JP4 in my Grade 10 media arts class back in 2004. For the record, the article was about a proposed scene where a group of raptors are chasing down people on motorcycles, something I'd love to see make it into a JP movie.

Casual Shinji:
Ian Malcom wasn't in the second book either...

Yes, he [spoilered] in the first book but for some reason, probably either popular demand or studio interference, the ending was retconned and he was only seriously injured.

Kenbo Slice:

Casual Shinji:
Ian Malcom wasn't in the second book either...

Actually he was the main character in the second book.

Wait...

Niels Beishuizen:

Casual Shinji:
Ian Malcom wasn't in the second book either...

erm... actualy, yes, he was. He was the main character in the second book. (which, I take it, you didn't actualy read)

...how did that...?

AvsJoe:

Casual Shinji:
Ian Malcom wasn't in the second book either...

Yes, he [spoilered] in the first book but for some reason, probably either popular demand or studio interference, the ending was retconned and he was only seriously injured.

...Ooooh... B(

I never actually read the second book, but I read somewhere that it was like his students that went to the island, curious about how their professor lost his life or whatever. Fucking retcons, man....

Stavros Dimou:

Jingle Fett:
I hate to break it to you but...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369610/

It says the writer of the film is Michael Chrichton.
But Michael only wrote 2 Jurassic Park books,and they are both turned to movies already.
So either this one is a lie,or they are making a remake.
The other thing is that I don't see Steven Spielberg as the director.

If a new JP movie is to come out,it should be directed by Spielberg,or else better not have the movie at all.

Or he could be writing the movie? They don't have to base the movie off an existing book, and book writers writing screenplays is certainly not unheard of. Plus, I'm sure it looks good business wise for him to release a novelisation of a film in line with the film.

Loonyyy:

Stavros Dimou:

Jingle Fett:
I hate to break it to you but...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369610/

It says the writer of the film is Michael Chrichton.
But Michael only wrote 2 Jurassic Park books,and they are both turned to movies already.
So either this one is a lie,or they are making a remake.
The other thing is that I don't see Steven Spielberg as the director.

If a new JP movie is to come out,it should be directed by Spielberg,or else better not have the movie at all.

Or he could be writing the movie? They don't have to base the movie off an existing book, and book writers writing screenplays is certainly not unheard of. Plus, I'm sure it looks good business wise for him to release a novelisation of a film in line with the film.

There is one problem with that. Hes been dead for 4 years.

Since we speak about a new JP movie,I'd like to write a few of my thoughts about its might be scenario.,and how it's too hard to make one without breaking the already established canon.

I mean,we had two islands with dinosaurs,Isla Nublar and Isla Sorna,and after the events of the first JP movie in Isla Nublar,this island gets bombarded by Costa Rica air force,with dinosaurs, buildings and stuff getting killed/destroyed. At the end of the third movie it is shown that the US Navy and Marines storm the second island,and it is assumed that they've gone there to do somewhat like what the Costa Rica government did at Isla Nublar: Kill and Destroy.

So right now in the universe of JP, inGen is a broke company because its investors took their capital away from it after two failed tries of making a park which both ended only in casualties and lawsuits,and the only two dinosaur islands that existed got treated by militaries. There shouldn't be anything alive in any of these islands to see,and if there was something alive,probably the islands are surrounded by military forces that wouldn't allow people to go there.
Where would the fourth movie take place ? If they just unveiled in it that there is yet another secret inGen island,a 3rd Isla,it would just be too stretched out and rehashed for anyone to like this plot. But if they made a movie in one of the two islands we have already seen in the movies,it would be like ignoring the plot of past movies,like they didn't happened,which would be a negative factor for the enjoyment of this film too.

Of course in the second book we get to know that some dinosaurs managed to somehow travel the distance from the islands all the way to the shore of the mainland of Costa Rica without getting drowned,which have lead to many weird sightings by the people,that the government rejects as hoaxes. But if they tried to make a sequel out of this and make a movie based on Mainland,it would be nothing like the JP we know and love. You know,JP works because our heroes are trapped in a deserted island,far away from the security and comforts of civilization,which creates this feeling of despair. If the movie was taking place in a city full of people,it wouldn't be the same. It would be bad.

I guess the only option that stays that would make a fourth movie to not break the canon and already established lore/story is a far fetched scenario where the US military instead of going to Isla Sorna just to destroy the dinosaurs,captivate some of them and takes them to a remote top secret US military base,to train them for future use as weaponry. But again, how would our known characters get involved in a top secret military project ?
Hmm...

If a fourth movie ever comes out,I'm curious to see what will be the plot they thought.

Stavros Dimou:
Since we speak about a new JP movie,I'd like to write a few of my thoughts about its might be scenario.,and how it's too hard to make one without breaking the already established canon.

I mean,we had two islands with dinosaurs,Isla Nublar and Isla Sorna,and after the events of the first JP movie in Isla Nublar,this island gets bombarded by Costa Rica air force,with dinosaurs, buildings and stuff getting killed/destroyed. At the end of the third movie it is shown that the US Navy and Marines storm the second island,and it is assumed that they've gone there to do somewhat like what the Costa Rica government did at Isla Nublar: Kill and Destroy.

So right now in the universe of JP, inGen is a broke company because its investors took their capital away from it after two failed tries of making a park which both ended only in casualties and lawsuits,and the only two dinosaur islands that existed got treated by militaries. There shouldn't be anything alive in any of these islands to see,and if there was something alive,probably the islands are surrounded by military forces that wouldn't allow people to go there.
Where would the fourth movie take place ? If they just unveiled in it that there is yet another secret inGen island,a 3rd Isla,it would just be too stretched out and rehashed for anyone to like this plot. But if they made a movie in one of the two islands we have already seen in the movies,it would be like ignoring the plot of past movies,like they didn't happened,which would be a negative factor for the enjoyment of this film too.

Of course in the second book we get to know that some dinosaurs managed to somehow travel the distance from the islands all the way to the shore of the mainland of Costa Rica without getting drowned,which have lead to many weird sightings by the people,that the government rejects as hoaxes. But if they tried to make a sequel out of this and make a movie based on Mainland,it would be nothing like the JP we know and love. You know,JP works because our heroes are trapped in a deserted island,far away from the security and comforts of civilization,which creates this feeling of despair. If the movie was taking place in a city full of people,it wouldn't be the same. It would be bad.

I guess the only option that stays that would make a fourth movie to not break the canon and already established lore/story is a far fetched scenario where the US military instead of going to Isla Sorna just to destroy the dinosaurs,captivate some of them and takes them to a remote top secret US military base,to train them for future use as weaponry. But again, how would our known characters get involved in a top secret military project ?
Hmm...

If a fourth movie ever comes out,I'm curious to see what will be the plot they thought.

Would the dinosaurs making their way to another desert island instead of mainland Costa Rica be too far fetched?

I saw JP3 under bad circumstances, and I thought the funniest part was how the tyrannosaurus rex shows up very early in the film... and then another dinosaur shows up and kills the t-rex almost immediately, as though the studio is saying to the audience, "ZOMG THERE'S SOMETHING WORSE THAN THE T-REX IT'S THE MOST DANGEROUS DINOSAUR EVER SO CLEARLY THEY'RE IN MORE DANGER THAN EVER"

Iunno...I enjoyed 3, only because it had a sense of scale. The bit when they're running away along the fence was really cool...well, from what I remember it. Haven't seen it since it came out.

Stavros Dimou:

I mean,we had two islands with dinosaurs,Isla Nublar and Isla Sorna,and after the events of the first JP movie in Isla Nublar,this island gets bombarded by Costa Rica air force,with dinosaurs, buildings and stuff getting killed/destroyed.

Was that in the book? Kinda silly since Costa Rica hasn't had an army since the 1940s :P

But hey, it's a book about dinosaurs so what are we talking about.

imahobbit4062:

Stavros Dimou:
Since we speak about a new JP movie,I'd like to write a few of my thoughts about its might be scenario.,and how it's too hard to make one without breaking the already established canon.

I mean,we had two islands with dinosaurs,Isla Nublar and Isla Sorna,and after the events of the first JP movie in Isla Nublar,this island gets bombarded by Costa Rica air force,with dinosaurs, buildings and stuff getting killed/destroyed. At the end of the third movie it is shown that the US Navy and Marines storm the second island,and it is assumed that they've gone there to do somewhat like what the Costa Rica government did at Isla Nublar: Kill and Destroy.

So right now in the universe of JP, inGen is a broke company because its investors took their capital away from it after two failed tries of making a park which both ended only in casualties and lawsuits,and the only two dinosaur islands that existed got treated by militaries. There shouldn't be anything alive in any of these islands to see,and if there was something alive,probably the islands are surrounded by military forces that wouldn't allow people to go there.
Where would the fourth movie take place ? If they just unveiled in it that there is yet another secret inGen island,a 3rd Isla,it would just be too stretched out and rehashed for anyone to like this plot. But if they made a movie in one of the two islands we have already seen in the movies,it would be like ignoring the plot of past movies,like they didn't happened,which would be a negative factor for the enjoyment of this film too.

Of course in the second book we get to know that some dinosaurs managed to somehow travel the distance from the islands all the way to the shore of the mainland of Costa Rica without getting drowned,which have lead to many weird sightings by the people,that the government rejects as hoaxes. But if they tried to make a sequel out of this and make a movie based on Mainland,it would be nothing like the JP we know and love. You know,JP works because our heroes are trapped in a deserted island,far away from the security and comforts of civilization,which creates this feeling of despair. If the movie was taking place in a city full of people,it wouldn't be the same. It would be bad.

I guess the only option that stays that would make a fourth movie to not break the canon and already established lore/story is a far fetched scenario where the US military instead of going to Isla Sorna just to destroy the dinosaurs,captivate some of them and takes them to a remote top secret US military base,to train them for future use as weaponry. But again, how would our known characters get involved in a top secret military project ?
Hmm...

If a fourth movie ever comes out,I'm curious to see what will be the plot they thought.

Would the dinosaurs making their way to another desert island instead of mainland Costa Rica be too far fetched?

I think yes.
I mean in the first movie we are shown that dinosaurs are born in the main Jurassic Park island where the Park is,Isla Nublar. For the shake of making a sequel this part was ignored like it never happened,and the writer wrote that there was a second island (Isla Sorna) where dinosaurs are born at,and only after they have grown up somewhat they are then moved in the park. This was supposedly because not all experiments worked out well. There would be many times the scientists would try to clone a dinosaur,but instead of a healthy being being born, most animals were mutated abominations,and because Hammond didn't wanted the tourists that would visit the park to see the abominations,he bought a second island to breed dinosaurs.

So,we already got the "there is another island which is secret" reason for a sequel, and re-using this would make it feel like too much of a rehash I think. And I think it would be hard to justify why a third island exists.
I mean there is already the island with the Park,and another island that Hammond bought just to not scare the tourists,which is already a weak excuse,as they could just incubate the dinosaurs on some underground facility with sign on its door saying "authorized personnel only" or something.
What the third island's purpose would be ? What must to be done that can't be done in the other two islands,to justify the existence of this third island ? A dinosaur cemetery so tourists won't see bodies of dead dinosaurs ? A dinosaur hospital so tourists won't get depressed by seeing an ill dinosaur ?

But then again I think that if dinosaurs just got to a deserted island by themselves would also be far-fetched. I mean ok,a few of them could get there,but I think its not plausible that enough dinosaurs would just start swimming to get to another island. Some could somehow ended up there,on another island,but I think their numbers would be so low that you couldn't make a movie out of it.
Well except if a human factor carried them over there.

Korten12:
D: Sad Face, I loved this movie, not because it's good, but fun to watch. :D

Agreed. I liked it because it was fun, but I admit it was still a bad movie. xD

Has nothing on 1 or 2. I hope 4, if it ever graces my oculus, returns things to normal somewhat. <3

Also, I found a typo Matthew! ♥

Woah this has got to be the largest amount of comments on a Marter review :O

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked