Jurassic Park III

As a Jurassic Park, it is one big pile of sh!t. As a movie in general, it's fine. Ultimately, for me, it was the Jurassic Park name and return of Alan Grant that killed it. I watch it, but the Jurassic Park name is always a nagging thought as I watch it.

Excluding the Spinosaurus, it still isn't as good as the other 2 in my opinion. The plot was a bit weak, the change from CGI to animtronic was obvious, and there were a couple of other movie mistakes. I'll give it 3/5 stars as a movie in general and 2/5 stars as a Jurassic Park. I don't hate it, but I don't love it. It's OK.

Okay, so not to play Devil's Advocate, but, to you both, what is the definition of a Jurassic Park movie?  For me, the third film was an interesting plot twist that we had not yet seen in the first two.  I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the plot and themes, aside from the obvious visual casualties.

For me, Jurassic Park has a degree of magic to it. Seeing the dinosaurs as animals and not Hollywood monsters. Seeing the Brachiosaurus for the first time for example or seeing the dinosaurs running free on Sorna in TLW. In JP III, I thought it was one never ending chase scene where the dinosaurs were no longer animals, but monsters. Hope that makes sense.

That does make sense.  However, I would argue that there was a similar degree of magic in the third.  You have Alan and Ellie's appreciation and fear over the intense intellegence and ferocity of the raptors, you have the discussion of astronauts vs. astronomers and Billy's desire to experience the magic of these animals in the flesh, and you have the scene where the characters emerge from the river to behold the dinosaurs in all their wonder, just to name a few.  I would also argue that, while Jurassic Park is definitely about the magic of seeing the animals in the flesh, there is a great degree of chasing/evading dinosaurs in the first two films.  In a sense, what John Hammond created to be wonderous and amazing truly blew up in his face, and in the end, what the characters were running from - in all three films - were in fact monsters, not in a literal sense, but figuratively.

Eh, I still like the other 2 more.

Haha, I get it.  I'm not trying to convert you or anything.  I just want to understand why some people hate it so much, and the response I usually get is that it would be an okay movie, it's just not a good Jurassic Park movie, which I don't get.  You obviously don't hate it, you just prefer the other two. I'm just eager to figure out through discussion why people don't like it.

Well now you know :)

i'm with you Fanatic.  honsetly the CG wasn't a huge problem for me.  I like the family aspect of the movie, its something people didnt really get to see in the first too.  also RexFan you said the plot was weak and lots of people think thats becuase of the script- but i thought the simpleness of it made it more relateable, like that part where mr. kirby talks about the fishing trip,. if i wass in a tramatic experience i think my dad would try to tell stories like that

just my opinion though

I say it was weak because it wasn't really like the other 2 movies.

Agreed Lotus.  To me, this film was one of the few films created in the early 2000s where the CG was really believable and life-like.  Although I will agree with Rex Fan that the transition from animatronic to CG was pretty noticeable.

And I agree, the family aspect was something that we were not as exposed to in the first two. Granted, you had great bonding scenes with Grant and the kids and Malcolm, Sarah, and Kelly, but, like you, I felt that the simplicity of the script and the comic relief of the third film conjured up images for me of what my parents might try to do to encourage or comfort me in such an experience.  

rex fan i dont really think you can say a movie is weak just becasue it is diffrent from the other two...

I proposed the argument that there is in fact magic in third film, and that wasn't disputed.  I'm just trying to grasp why people don't like it.  

It's just not the same as the other two. The plot is weak, the charactors aren't that great, and the interactions with the dinosaurs wern't the best. The JP 1 and 2 Velociraptors would f*ck you up for looking at them funny, the JP 3 Raptors only killed one person. When the eggs were returned, they left. The eggs were taken, all the more reason to rip Billy and them to shreds if you ask me.

hmm, well i'd like to start with the movie was alright. I like the approach Johnston took with it, but going in he knew this was going to be difficult. Spielberg brought back the wonder of dinosaurs with Jurassic Park, even TLW(albeit in the lesser sense). 

JP/// though....it took what the first two movies had, and quickly turned it around for the worst. Making the dinosaurs seen like genetically engineered monsters just wanting to eat every human on the island. They also killed off the Alan Grant we all got to know and love in the first movie..

To me, the CG/ animatronic crossovers weren't that bad, although i did notice somethings with the raptors that kind of threw me off..

Other than that, i would say this movie compares to Godzilla '98. Not over the top bad...a decent movie....just not worthy of the title "Jurassic Park"

Okay, so MrHappy, you were pissed off by the behavior of the dinosaurs.  That is a valid argument; I agree that it was very unlikely that the raptors would behave in this manner. I will say, though, that for creative purposes, the raptors had to act as they did. They definitely tried to kill Alan, but were gas-bombed. Alan was able to use his knowledge of the raptors' resonating chambers to divert the animals, which I say is a point to him, not a point deducted from the raptors. They were just responding to a call for help.

In regards to your statement about the amount of people the raptors killed, they would have undoubtably killed many more people if the film had required more characters.  But you can't kill off vital characters when there are so few of them, nor can you leave all the killing to the raptors.

@Carnosaur - thanks for your input.

Here's my question: what about JPIII Alan Grant did you not like, and how were the dinosaurs portrayed as monsters any more than in the first two?

well, i remember thinking Grant was the badass of the first firm(right next to muldoon). Getting out of the car to face a T.Rex, among other things...

And as to the point of the dinosaurs, yes they were portrayed as monsters in the first two films. But they seemed to have some purpose, some reason for their actions. It all flowed very smothly, and i just didn't get that vibr from JP///.

I think Grant is as badass as he can be in this movie. He reacts calmly and uses his brain in the raptor confrontation, something that an ordinary person would flip out if it happened to them, just to name one example. We have to remember that Grant is older and weary, and had no desire to even be on this island in the first place.  He still fights the intellectual struggles of being overwhelmed and is able to protect the other characters. 

I feel that the purpose of the dinosaurs is to inspire thrill, excitement, and awe for the audience, something that these dinosaurs still managed to do.  Just like in the first two films, these dinosaurs got people's hearts racing in theaters.

@MrHappy - It's difficult to come up with original material.  I would say the film's plot is different, not weak.  Why do you say it is a weak plot?