Review of Jurassic Park III (2001) by Peter F — 29 Dec 2011

I can't recall if I had seen this movie or not. I think I must have seen bits and pieces. At any rate, rewatched it again recently, along with the other two Jurassic Park movies. JP III is much more improved over the cliche, silly movie that was the Lost Worlds. Which was an obvious rush to cash in on the success of the first movie. Jurassic Park III has a somewhat better story line, however it is full of a lot more implausibility, and sillyness. The dinosaurs look both better in some cases and faker in others. Of course there is more variety of dino's here, which makes the believability less. Did John Hammond find all these misquotes in amber of all these different spieces of dinosaurs. In the first movie it was a huge stretch, but JP III, it's down right absurd.

But one is not supposed to dwell on such things. In JP II and JP III gone is the thought provoking dicodomy of Science for science sake vs. should we put limits on where science takes us. Or in other words, just because we can, should we.

That was what made JP I such a success, not only was it a great adventure movie, thrill ride, popcorn flick, monster movie, and suspenseful movie, it was also a great thought provoking movie that asked the audience questions and made them think by presenting two different view points. This is what Crichton excells at. Poking at the scientific body.

In JP II we had acrobatic girls beating up Raptors.

In JP III, it was better then JP II, but at the end of the day, it was a simple story line of "land on island, save kid, get off island, try not to get eaten." and that's pretty much how it went. I'm glad to see Sam Neil back, I think he can carry a film like this much better then Jeff Goldblum. One thing they should have done was had a few more references to the other movies to help tie it all together., Just my opinion.

Now there is talk of JP IV. Could be interesting if they can get back to the core of what made the first JP so good.