Jurassic Park III

Not as awe-inspiring as the first film or as elaborate as the second, but in its own B-movie way, it's a nice little thrill machine.

What makes it worth sitting through is the chance it offers to catch up on the technical advances since the last installment.

The screenplay is so stale that even fans of the previous "Jurassic" installments might think this is one clone too many.

At its best, Jurassic Park III is eerily similar to some of the more recent dinosaur-themed video games on the market.

With Joe Johnston directing instead of Spielberg, who executive-produces, and a scrum of screenwriters, none named Crichton, the franchise suffers some negligence.

Has to be the sorriest excuse for a reprise since "Highlander — The Final Dimension."

Drama is minimal and character nonexistent.

Joe Johnston is proving that even the movie is not 2 hours long like two previous movie and also without Spielberg's sit on a director chair, Jurassic Park III is still incredible, Jurassic Park III can be a bad movie if you are really like The Lost World, but it can be a really good movie if you don't like or even hate The Lost World so much like me.

Greetings from Lithuania. "Jurassic Park III" (2001) has to be one of the most shortest running blockbusters i have ever seen. While it was fun movie overall, i couldn't believe my eyes when the credits started to roll - nevertheless at running time 1 h 22 min. it delivered what it promised, sort of. Parts III was always in my opinion weakest in the trilogy and it didn't add anything new to the series. It felt like they did run out of ideas for the third film. Pacing of this movie is kind mixed bag - at short running time it still manages to drag. It lacked the "WOW" sense that was in a first movie, but still it was a pretty fun adventure film yet felt like a small spin off.Overall, "Jurassic Park III" isn't really anything to remember except that it featured Sam Neill again and he was the best part of the film. It had good special effects (for a year 2001), some new dinosaurs and was overall fun adventure but it felt like a side quest.

Somewhat better than Jurassic Park II, but still nowhere in the same biome as the original. This one is yet another island rescue mission involving a child (yawn), with a few new dinosaurs thrown in the mix.

Jurassic Park 3 was a bad movie and unnecessary sequel. This movie didn't have charm, originality and grasping power like the original. Instead, it was boring, unnecessary and sufficient to give you headache. The concept was very bad and so much simple for this franchise. The direction and the acting wasn't that good. I also missed the original cast. I don't know why studios agreed to make a 3rd movie when it didn't have a proper story instead, it was just a rescue mission for a boy who went alone paragliding. Seriously? Overall, this is a bad movie and weakest in the franchise, which I think should not have been made as it effected the classiness of the franchise.

I would give this a 35% The story is kind of boring and the acting is not the greatest and it is just a boring movie in total