User Reviews (1,269)

Add a Review

  • Jurassic Park III (2001) is a pure, fun, popcorn, Action Film and the third entry of the Jurassic Park trilogy. It is an awesome underrated Action flick a million ways better than the new movie Jurassic World (2015)!!!!!!!!

    The third entry of Jurassic park Trilogy is very underrated solid action flick. I will take third Jurassic Park III movie over Jurassic World! Just like a pure, fun, popcorn, Action Film, I will take this one. They brought Sam Neill back as Dr. Alan Grant back. The film was a rescue mission, it was fast paced and it was short than the second flick. I still love The Lost World: Jurassic Park equal as the first flick Jurassic Park, but this flick grow on me and I love it and I have changed my mind. I love this flick I love it to death. I will rather watch this flick than forgettable Jurassic World! I love this flick to death and it is my third favorite film in the Jurassic park trilogy. As the first time I saw this film, I wasn't fan about it, but I keep watching it and I liked it, this movie grow on me. The film was fast paced, it went really fast around, it was an action film, it wasn't an epic adventure like was the first movie Jurassic Park (1993) it was actually an action flick an a rescue mission.

    Plot: Adventure runs wild when renowned palentologist Dr. Alan Grant agrees to accompany a wealthy adventurer and his wife on an aerial tour of Isla Sorna, InGen's former breeding ground for prehistoric creatures. But when they're terrifyingly stranded, Dr. Grant discovers that his hosts are not what they seem, and the island's native inhabitants are smarter, faster, fiercer and more brutal than he ever imagined in this heart-stomping thriller.

    The film was directed by Joe Johnston who also directed The Rocketeer, I haven't seen that flick in ages yet, The Pagemaster, Jumanji and Captain America: The First Avenger that I am fan of that film. After the success of Spielberg's Jurassic Park, Joe Johnston expressed interest in directing a sequel. Spielberg instead gave Joe Johnston permission to direct the third film in the series, if there were to be one. I don't think the director did a terrible job, I think that this movie more lacked on a script writers, so is not Joe Johnston fault for directing this film for using more CGI in the film.

    I love Sam Neil as Dr. Alan Grant and I love that he goes on an Island Isla Sorna, where man is up against dangerous predators in the ultimate battle for survival. This movie takes no prisoners and pulls no punches. It takes the idea of the original, puts an interesting twist into the plot, injects it with good FX, good acting and a decent budget, and you have something far superior to the original.

    I like all- new dinosaurs and the special effects CGI, more practical effects are in there, they did not bothered me or that it was directed from someone else and not Steven Spielberg himself. I like the CGI in this film.

    A wealthy couple with Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neil) land on a island Isla Sorna and all the mercenaries are killed off, I like that in the film that the mercenaries are killed off.

    This film is very quickly paced, is not boring film and it is not a dull movie, it does not drag a long, is very interesting to me and it is a good action film. Jurassic park III is MILES way better to me than Jurassic World, I will rather watch this film than the new one. The first time I reviewed this film I hated it, but now I loved it a lot.

    I am fine with the FX of the Spinosaurus, I like Spinosaurus, I thought it was pretty cool.

    Btw the kid in this movie wasn't annoying and I think he really did a good job, he was smart and recourses, he was useful in this movie, he survived that length of time by himself & saved Alan against Spinosaurus, so yea I like that and I like this film. I don't think it was terrible or forgettable at all.

    I really did not like that Laura Dern can't return with her character in a cameo scene, but still I liked that they made her a happy married woman with the kid and I still like that Alan and Ellie are still in contact together, that is decent in the film.

    Also Michael Jeter from Drop Zone (1994) as a mercenary is in here, John Diehl from Miami Vice is in it and Bruce A. Young from The Sentinel and Basic Instinct (1992) is in it, as a third mercenary.

    Overall: The ranting for this film I am giving is an 8.5/10 I love this film and In my opinion is the last good Jurassic film, a very hated and underrated.

    Jurassic Park III is a 2001 American adventure science fiction film. It is the third installment in the Jurassic Park film series. The film stars Sam Neill, William H. Macy, Téa Leoni, Alessandro Nivola, Trevor Morgan, and Michael Jeter. It is the first film in the series not to have been directed by Steven Spielberg, nor based on a book by Michael Crichton (though numerous scenes in the film were ultimately taken from Crichton's novels Jurassic Park and The Lost World).

    8.5/10 Grade: B+ Studio: Universal Pictures Starring: Sam Neill, William H. Macy, Téa Leoni, Alessandro Nivola, Trevor Morgan, Michael Jeter, John Diehl, Bruce A. Young, Taylor Nichols, Laura Dern Director: Joe Johnston Producers: Kathleen Kennedy, Larry Franco Screenplay: Peter Buchman, Alexander Payne, Jim Taylor Rated: PG-13 Running Time: 1 Hr. 32 Mins. Budget: $93.000.000 Box Office: $368,780,809
  • Jurassic Park 3 was a shorter and less entertaining of the three. I thought this sequel might be good because JP2 was good but I was wrong! I have picked some notes while watching this movie. Usually Jurassic Park films are 2 hours long, this one is some 40 minutes less! and does not quite contain the same fun and horror it did on previous jp's. DR. Grant returns which is a suprise. It didn't have it's entertaining parts though i must admit. JP3 had amazing special effects, most probably the best out of the three. I have heard that Jurassic Park 4 will be released in 2004. Should I say this one will be a bad sequel as well?
  • Warning: Spoilers
    First of all, this final episode in the Jurassic series did not deserve all the bad reviews it got when it was released. In fact, it was a lot more enjoyable than the stupid second JP. Did it equal the first? No, of course not. The original story was easily the best of the three, but I found this an enjoyable movie and far better than what I had been led to believe.

    The filmmakers were smart in making this a short film. People had seen plenty of the dinosaurs by now so let's no overdo it...and they didn't with an film just under an hour-and-a-half (not including the final credits.).

    That made this short-and-sweet. We saw some new reptiles, had a few scares, enjoyed the beautiful jungle scenery (filmed in Hawaii) and - bang - it's over. The characters were fine, nobody totally annoying as in the second film. The lulls featured a family getting back together and finding their missing teen. Nothing wrong with that.

    A good story unfairly maligned and nice, short evening of entertainment.
  • I LOVED the first Jurassic Park at the tender age of 10. It had everything you could want from a movie minus some underdeveloped character personalities but that film ROCKS even until this day and age. Part two was good though not as the original. The third installment: Terrible. Where was the adventure? Where was the excitement? Where was the suspense? Where was the danger? Drained of all the qualities of what made the first one so memorable. This could be blamed primarily on the director, Joe Johnston, who made that box-office bomb The Rocketeer nineteen years ago. What more can be said? At least the special effects were good; the fight between the T-Rex and Spinosaurus and the scene with the Pterodactyls but the plot was basically nonexistent and the acting was wooden and lifeless with no sense of conveying believability. And what's with the "theory on raptor intelligence" part? Were they assuming that raptors were smarter than birds and primates? One needs only to read various books on dinosaurs to find out. Seriously I don't expect movies to educate audiences but a little research wouldn't have hurt. I first saw this on opening day expecting more action, adventure, suspense, danger, and terror. Yet I got a lot less bang for the buck. A fine example on what happens when you switch directors mid franchise.

    Not even up to par with the original. Pure piece of crap. If they got the gall to make a fourth installment, better get Spielberg back on board or else this franchise will become "extinct" like the dinos.
  • I read the original "Jurassic Park" book. The first movie was very close to good. The second movie stunk up the place-- but this third movie version was insulting. Sam Neil, bless his heart, appeared so old, distracted, and tired in this movie. He was such a downer, I was rooting for some dinosaur to eat his bummer butt. William H. Macy is a champ. A brilliant actor, and by all accounts, a wonderful person as well. Tea Leoni is also a champ, and a treasure. And a babe. But despite their valiant efforts, even their glowing presence couldn't save this turkey. All of the supporting cast were completely inconsequential. As they died off, one could only wonder if their characters' deaths brought the movie any closer to ending. One good point, although not nearly enough to make this movie worth your time, is the quaint 1950's sci-fi vibe. Some of the linguistic talents and high intelligence ascribed to the "monsters" in this movie reminded me of "Invasion of the Ant People," or some such. If I had been drunk, and sitting with a batch of drunken friends at a fraternity or dorm, we'd have been laughing and hooting our fannies off. As it was, I kept my yawns to myself, so as to not disturb the experience of the 5 and 6 year-olds in the audience. I have fond memories of the cheap, cheesey junk I saw at the local theater with my little brother and my friends when we were all very young. Great nostalgia for me as an adult. And I didn't want to wreck the moment for these kids now. After all-- they deserve childhood memories of bad crap too.
  • This movie has just one to many mistakes, they clearly did this movie with only one thing in mind to make money and fast! I can't believe that a director can suck that much. I mean the effect where okay but the plot and casting sucked, not that they are bad actors but they just did not fit in this movie. I will keep this short and leave it by saying if i could i would call up the director and say what where you thinking, are you that bad or did you just sell your soul?

    I give this movie 2/10

    The 2 points are for the special effects but what good does that make when your sitting there irritated by all the unnecessary mistakes?
  • veemee7816 July 2006
    JPIII is very good at what it tries to do. That is, update the formula used in its prequels to create even more lifelike dinosaurs. Unfortunately, it didn't try to do much of anything else, leaving us with yet another big, dumb, summer action flick... hardly the caliber of the previous films.

    Basically, the story goes like this: a rich kid is taken to Costa Rica by his parents to do some para-sailing... and, for some reason, he decides that an island famed for its man-eating dinosaurs would be the best place to do it. Surprise, surprise: Something Goes Wrong, and the kid is stranded on the island. Who do his parents go to for help? Dr. Grant, the paleontologist who happened to get himself involved with dinosaurs before. Rather than telling him the truth upfront, they con him into coming by giving him a big fake check and swearing that they will not touch down on the island. Dr. Grant agrees hesitantly to this condition. But when they get to the island, they touch down anyway, making their plane a prime target for a dinosaur attack. Something Goes Wrong again, and this time, Grant and the kid's parents are stuck as well.

    The plot pretty much ends right there, and that's only the first thirty minutes of the movie. The rest of the movie involves people running from and/or getting eaten by dinosaurs. Like I said, it's a big, dumb, action flick. If you're looking for something that even remotely has an air of the old Michael Crichton magic, look to the first two films. Jurassic Park III is the beginning of what will become a reiteration of the Jaws fiasco... endless sequels until one of them sucks so bad, it finds its home in the infamous Bottom 100 list.
  • This is with out a doubt, one of the worst films ever made. It's Mystery Science Theater 3000 material at it's finest. It does not have the Heart or soul that made the first two enjoyable, and it's bad in every way. The acting, the directing, and don't even mention a plot because it does not have one. The score of the film is even bad, so bad in fact that It almost destroys what John Williams Did with the first two films.

    I don't know who is worse, The people who made this trash or the people who is defending it. These people Say it's better than Lost World but in reality, it's Not. The Lost World is Way better than this piece of garbage. Jurassic Park 3 even Makes Blair Witch 2 looked good.
  • After viewing a screening of this movie last night the only words that come to mind for this movie is "awful" and "how could they?" Not only was the story weak, dialogue over dramatic and badly cast, its not worth seeing it for $7-$10! Wait for this movie on to go on rent or watch it on tv. I think the filmmakers tried to bank too much on the success of the first jurassic, but in my opinion they should have stopped there. This installment was just another studio's bad-attempt at trying to top the first two (although the second one was bad as it is). So, instead go see Shrek for the third time or better yet, stay home.. Save the gas money, the overly priced tickets, and the $4 popcorn! Thank god I didnt have to pay for this one...which seems to be a trend lately, what is wrong with hollywood?!
  • What a Rip off. This movie not only destroys what was set up before with Jurassic Park and The Lost World but does not even retains the same quality. There is nothing in this pitiful sequel that is up to snuff with the other movies in the series, and the actors themselves look like they are acting at gun point. This has a more strait to video feel than the first two, and judging by the lack of talent involve, it should have gone to video instead of the big screen.

    I hope they don't make Jurassic Park 4.
  • selvedays26 March 2003
    I've been a fan of the Jurassic Park series since the original, and while The second movie (The Lost World) was not as fine a film, it still retain the some of the magic of its predecessor. This film unfortunately not only a major let down in every sense of the word but a major letdown to the fans in general. There is really no plot to speak off what so ever in this lousy follow up but another excuse to bring people back in contact with the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs themselves look more like C.G.I cartoons than real animals, and when you have acting as bad as the special effects themselves, you know that the movie is in trouble. It's pretty sad when a sequel to two fine films does not live up to the standards of what it's predecessors set forth, but when the movie is this bad, then it should be considered a crime.

    Grade: F-
  • CSH933724 March 2003
    Well, they officially ruined the Jurassic Park francise with this one. Far worse than "The Lost World", this story completely lacked a plot and even at about 90 minutes, I found myself more than ready to leave the theatre. Who the hell came up with the ending? It was by far the stupidest ending that anyone could possibly come up with. Much like with Jaws 2,3,and 4 except worse, they just pushed the original concept way too far. If you liked the original "Jurassic Park", or even the "The Lost World" a little bit, do yourself a favor and don't see this movie!!!!!!!!
  • Extremely bad follow up to the Lost World manages to not only contradict what was set forth with the first two movies but manages to destroy the series as a whole with a plotless story that not only insults the viewer but manages to kill a few brain sells a long the way. Sam Neill Kills his career even more with a very hammy performance, and the cast in general is so annoying that you want the dinosaurs to kill them. The Special Effects are a few steps behind the last film, and the Spinosauris is able to change shape during different parts of the film. This movie is so bad, that I don't even consider it a Jurassic Park film, and anyone who even dares say that it's even better than the first or the second (which despite it's flaws manages to entertain in a way this movies only dreams of doing) should be a shame of themselves.

    Avoid at all cost. You'll thank me in the morning.
  • No frills entry in the Jurassic franchise follows Alan Grant as he attempts to save a child who crash landed on site b (The island of the Lost World.) Sam Neill must have really needed the money to accept the fact that there was not even a hint of plot to even drive this film anywhere meaningful other than a quick fix for action freaks who don't like to think too much. The movie does not even connect itself to the other two films, and manages to contradict a lot that was set up before. Worth a look if you are a fan but prepare to be disappointed. It's not up to caliber with the others in the series.
  • Head pounding bad third movie in the Jurassic Park series is nothing short of a disaster. Nothing in this flimsy follow up is up to par with the others in the series, and the bad part is the fact that the filmmakers may have wanted that way. This film has more of a strait to video feel than a real theatrical movie, and a very bad one on top of that. Not even the special effects are up to snuff, and that must be saying some thing.

    My advice, Stay with the first two movies, leave the third one alone.
  • Amateurish and down right degrading entry into the Jurassic Park series finds Sam Neill returning to play with the dinosaurs, and on a search and rescue mission to find a missing child. Unfortunately Poor Sam does not have the flare and coolness of the Character he played in the original Jurassic Park, nor does he have a script to work with. The rest of the cast in general is as disposable as paper and the special effects were done better before with the other movies in the series. The movie is more and less a rip off of the Lost World, and a very bad one to boot because at least The Lost World was entertaining enough to be considered a worthy follow up to the original Jurassic Park, and had a lead ` Jeff Goulblum' who held his own with the special effects with his great performance. Poor Sam Neill though not only gets lost with the sub par effects in this film but actually looks like he does not want any part of what is really happening in this movie. The direction is a real come down from what Steven Spielberg had achieved with the first movies of the series, and the Dinosaurs themselves act like Serial Killers than real animals.

    If this the best they can come up with, then they should end the series right now before it gets any worse.
  • This movie is so bad that it makes the Lost World look like an Oscar winner. Sure, The Lost World had it share of mishaps but this movie is really bad. So bad that I return The dvd rental I got of this movie and ask for a refund. I don't think even think the people of Mystery Science Theater 3000 would touch it, that's how bad this movie is. The acting is flat out laughable, the story is nothing more of a bad summery, and the FX shots of the Dinosaurs themselves look more like puppets that real animals. Even the island itself looks fake, like they film the entire movie in someone's back yard. I don't know what went wrong, but I hope they end the series here before it becomes even more of a train wreck.
  • They killed the trilogy! This junk was not even written by Michael Crichton Or directed by steven speilberg. Dont bother with this junk its waste of your time. I hope that they dont make part 4 as it will do worse and suck. Thank You for Your Time.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    As problematic as 'The Lost World' may have been, it did expand the horizons of the Jurassic Park universe, 'Jurassic Park III' was a huge step backwards. The characters are sub-standard, the story is lazy and shamefully contrived, and the effects aren't as good as either of the previous movies, almost seeming to be a parody of a Jurassic Park film.

    The plot, as thin as it is, centres around the rescue of a boy named Eric who ended up stranded on the now restricted Isla Sorna, and the survival of the rescue team led by Alan Grant. Alan is lured to Isla Sorna by seemingly rich businessman Paul Kirby on the promise of cash to fund his dig. The plane lands and Amanda Kirby, Paul's wife, attracts the attention of Spinosaurus which causes the plane to crash and devour members of the crew. The rest of the movie is a series of chase scenes involving the Spinosaurus and the Velociraptors, interrupted by cloying domestic drama between the Kirbys reuniting with Eric and coming back together. The climax itself is unsatisfying, requiring a military deus ex machina that just feels tacked on.

    In all fairness, Sam Neill does a good job at bringing a jaded Alan Grant to the screen, working with what little he had. But his character is ruined by undoing his arc in the first film about learning to love kids and marrying Ellie, here Ellie is married to another man with two children. The writers could have prepared something special involving Alan and Ellie's relationship and their place in the world with live dinosaurs on the planet; it was insulting to undo all that development. His scenes in the prologue had potential, showing Alan's struggle to keep palaeontology alive and rekindle his love of dinosaurs. But it all amounts to nothing.

    The film has only a few worthwhile action scenes, specifically the Raptor attacks and the group's encounter with a colony of Pteranodons in a giant aviary, a memorable scene conveyed with an eerie and mysterious atmosphere. Some of the musical cues are melodic and charming, but I yearn for John Williams's talent. At times, the visual effects for the Raptors are actually quite good, but the rest are incredibly rushed and don't allow the audience to soak it in like in the first film.

    Due to the weak writing and wasted characters there are the many stupid moments throughout the movie. Barely twenty minutes into the film, Alan has a dream about a talking raptor on the flight to Sorna, it's intended to be scary and foreshadow the Raptors' capability of speech but it comes off as childish and goofy. (Real life raptors weren't even capable of human-level speech patterns). The ever annoying Amanda Kirby seems to exist only to scream, bicker and run away, never contributing anything but maudlin or moronic moments. William H. Macy is completely wasted. The rest of the characters are bland and forgettable. Some outright stupid moments include a satellite phone being heard from the belly of a Spinosaurus, said Spinosaur is shown as being able to break a fence designed to contain dinosaurs yet cannot break down a rusty metal door, a ridiculous cameo of Barney (I wish I was joking!!), and a cheap regurgitation of the dino dung scene from the first film.

    Even the dinosaurs themselves have been ruined; the CGI herbivores are pushed to the background with little screen time, and the carnivores don't behave like real animals, like in the previous films. The animatronics are clunky and the CGI is too obvious. The movie tries to recreate the sense of awe and wonder from the first film, but it feels forced and artificial.

    The most obnoxious change is the addition of the Spinosaurus. While I accept that it was larger than T-Rex, Spinosaurus was not a rampaging movie monster that hunted human-sized morsels like a serial killer. This leads into the infamous duel between the Rex and the Spinosaur, and it's a problem because the T-Rex was an integral part of the previous films and a childhood favourite. The fight itself was overly brief and anticlimactic. The T-Rex was set up as a predator with both ferocity and nobility, having it dispatched in such a way feels like a cheap shot. It was just a botched attempt to showcase a dinosaur that hadn't earned it's stardom like the Raptors.

    What frustrates me the most about 'Jurassic Park III' is that there was potential to make up for some or more of the shortcomings of 'The Lost World'. Instead it's the shallowest and the least adventurous film of the entire trilogy, there's too much focus on the domestic drama. While the first two films dealt with themes of science, technology, playing god, and man vs. nature, 'Jurassic Park III' took the franchise away from exploring such themes, choosing to be safe and marketable and lacking in substance.
  • I'm a father of two children. Two Children who can sit quietly though the worse television known to man. Sponge Bob, Pokemon, etc, and still find some kind of entertainment value to them with a curiosity that can't stop traffic. When I put this movie in my DVD player, I thought that this will be like the other movies in the series, Good enough to keep the kids quite for a while, and good enough for me to sit by and enjoy myself. Boy I was wrong and my family and I paid for it dearly. There is no other way to describe this movie other than the word Horrible, and I think that's even too nice a word for this piece of cinematic garbage. I can't begin to tell you on how bad this film was, and I'm not exaggerating this fact. This movie has one unbelievable scene of stupidity after another, and it's about Dinosaurs of all things. The acting is so bad that to even call it amateurish is a slap in the face of working actors every where. William H Macy, who is a true actors actor, is even bad in this film and I like almost ever thing he has ever done. To make a movie of this nature look so bad has to be in itself a feat that has to garner some kind of award because movie like this has always have had some kind of entertainment value to it. The worse the movie is, the better the laugh factor is, and this movie HAS NONE OF THAT. Even the CGI effects look like crap, and that's the movie's main selling point.

    Any movie that can put my two kids to sleep is a selling point for me, but to put my whole family to sleep is down right dangerous.
  • Horrible, and really cheap looking sequel to Jurassic Park and The Lost World does not even do the title any justice with a laid brain plot involving a lost boy, and two annoying parents who you want to see eaten. Sam Neil is wasted with thankless role and The special effects are a major let down. The movie is so bad, that you really want to sue the makers of this crap for liable, and for every thing in their pockets. I don't know what went wrong but I hope they bring back the people who made The original two movies for the (hopefully) Last Jurassic Park film.
  • Jurassic Park was great, The Lost World was decent, but his one bites the dust. This movie, although fun at some points, is an overall disgrace to the Jurassic Park film series. It tries to out do its original in an hour and a half and fails miserably. This movie is just one chase scene after another, but without the fun and creativity that was seen in the first and carried over a bit into the second.

    This movie was a cheap exploitation of a great film. Hopefully, unless film makers can actually try to put the essence seen in the first back into these films, we will stop at three.

    JP3 rates as a 3/10.
  • fstormchaser16 September 2009
    1/10
    Fail
    Warning: Spoilers
    Boring. Painful. Annoying. Badly written. Anti-climactic. These are 0.0002% percent of the words I could use to describe this film, but I'll just stick with 'fail' to keep things simple. Alright, let's get into the 'spirit' of this ass-fest and insert a bad dinosaur pun.

    Let's take a bite right in (GET IT?)

    Talented actors go to waste in this third installment of the once dignity-possessing series. I'm going to spoil stuff, because I already summed it up by saying "fail" so why not go further? A divorced couple (William H. Macy and Tea Leoni, two good actors who's talent is set aflame by bad writing) pretends to be married and tricks some emotionless character from the first film to come with them to the island to find their son, played by Trevor Morgan, a decent young actor who mysteriously isn't doing many movies anymore. Oh, and I shouldn't really call the main character emotionless. His thing is to grunt and complain and give warnings about the island's danger, even though no one really dies except a few background people and one character who gets about 30 minutes on screen. What a dick of a main character. No one here is likable. Unless you count Udesky, played by Michael Jeter (RIP) who seems to be the only quiet and innocent character. But, he's a balding mercenary, so of course he dies after 44 minutes or so. And he's also the only character to die that we actually got to know (sort of, not really). Tea Leoni's thing is to complain and whine. At least she still has a career. And I'm pretty sure this movie is the reason William H. Macy ended up having to star in "Shorts". Poor guy. He could have gone places after "Fargo". So anyways, Grant, the super-grumpy main character, is also a paleontologist. He has a sort of intern or student or something named Billy,who is a young paleontologist. He supposedly is killed by Pteranodons halfway through the film, but of course he's alive at the end. Speaking of the end, there's no climax, unless you count the confrontation with the raptors, but that wasn't even an action scene. And I guess director Joe Johnson thought it would be cool to be more "scientific" by giving only the male raptors feathers. Okay, but why are they blue, and why do the Pteranodons have TEETH? THEIR NAME MEANS "WINGED WITHOUT TEETH"!!!! They even decided to put in a DREAM SCENE. No comment on that. I'm probably running out out of space, so I'll end on two positive notes-

    1. At least the music was okay. 2. There's still a different JP sequel to watch that has it's dignity.
  • For me the T-Rex is Jurassic Park, Everything brilliant and groundbreaking about the First film revolves around the Rex.

    Jurassic Park was perhaps a critical flop, but it's importance regarding the incredible C.G.I must never be forgotten. Orginanly the dinosaurs where going to be brought to life using animated models(like Wallace and Gromit) for example only a tad more realistic obviously and full size anamatronic models, used in the T-Rex close ups.

    But Spielberg wasn't satisfied with the quality of the animation, despite Phil Tippert using the motion blur to make the movement of the models less static and more fluid. Then Tippet suggesting trials with C.G.I which was used for the first time by I.L.M in 85 on Young Sherlock Holmes, the rest as they say is history. The results in my opinion are awesome I am a great fan of stop motion animation particularly Ray Harryhausens, But the the first time I saw the Tyrannosaur rip down the fence I could'not breath. I'm work in the industry now and it was that scene more perhaps than any other film that made me want to work in film.

    The T-Rex is the star of Jurassic Park, the ending is probably one of my favourites of any movie, With the Rex saving the day at the last minute, Ripping apart the annoying Raptors.

    The spinosaurs is a joke, it's not only a incredibly stupid idea to introduce a dinosaur that wasn't even mentioned in the first two films or the books on a island no larger than 8 miles long, I would have thought we would have noticed it useless it was a incredibly shy 12 tons killing machine.

    But its not only the fact the appearance of the Spinosaurs is laughable, but it also breaks wind in the face of all the amazing work that was done on the first film.

    For me the T-REX is an Icon of groundbreaking visual affects, in the same way the original King Kong was at the time and later 2001 and star wars could be considered as landmark films effects wise also. The Rex is the Star of Jurassic park and is still probably the most popular dinosaur ever just ask your kids what their favourite is! So killing it off in the first half hour of what was a terrible, terrible film for me is nothing less than proof that Hollywood is slowly losing it's soul. Ignoring what films should be about Artistic expression and intelligent entertainment and instead it seems from an Englishmans point of view that the Art of film making is being destroyed my big company's who's sole motivation is earning money. And the constant stream of insulting re-makes and lame brain sequels flying out of Hollywood only gives weight to my argument.
An error has occured. Please try again.