I¹m a big JP geek.  I don¹t have the action figures (anymore) or wear silly
³JP3 Crew² t-shirts but I did make an effort to see it on the first day of release.

Now that I¹ve admitted the ugly personal part we can get on the ugly public
part.  When asked by a friend to sum up the film I explained it thusly,
³It¹s like a flaming bag of dogshit left on your front door step.  It¹s
might be funny if you think about it.  But you still have to clean it up and
you had to think about it before it was funny, didn¹t you?²

The next time I need to blow almost eight bucks on fun, I think I¹ll wait until I
have ten for a dime bag of rock.  That way I know I am guaranteed a good time.

But on to the actual criticism. And Trevor¹s review.
To respond directly to a few things he wrote:
 

Trevor wrote;
³As expected, Jurassic Park 3 didn't live up to the heart pounding original,
or the less powerful, but equally entertaining sequel. Jurassic Park 3 was
obviously NOT a Steven Spielberg film, but it WAS entertaining. JP3, as a
film, will not be nominated for a single Academy Award, but it will likely
be a top grossing production.²
 

Being financially successful is not measure of success artistically.
And don¹t get me wrong, I was not expecting art and awards at Cannes here.
Just some good dino-death and maybe a laugh or two in between the cliff hangers.
Nope.  Nada.  Zotz.  Zip.
 

Trevor wrote;
³Directed rather blandly by Joe Johnson (Jumanji, October Sky), the film's
pounding action sequences seemed to compensate for the lack of directorial creativity. ³
 

³pounding²?  The only thing I saw that pounded was the crappy speakers in
ther multi-plex I saw this thing at.  And to be perfectly correct, I never ³saw² them.
I heard them.  I don¹t think that extremely loud bass signals equate to anything even
apporximating pulse pounding action in any way.  The action scenes here were
as leaden as the heads of the writers of this stiff.
 

Trevor wrote;
³But, unfortunately, these same sequences took up way to much time, and,
without Spielberg's suspenseful genius, quickly became rather repetitive.
Extended dinosaur attacks became annoying, as you waited patiently for
someone to die, as that usually signifies the end of such sequences. The
first major attack took place after the plane landed on the island, and was
attacked by a large, bizarre dinosaur. The plane attempted to escape, but
crashed in the process. The dinosaur quickly caught up, and attacked. The
rest of the scene mostly consisted of shots of the dino trying to chew his
way through the plane's flimsy hull, something it had considerable
difficulty doing. The entire sequence was a rip from Jurassic Park's T-Rex
attack, but lacked the suspenseful buildup, and was very unsatisfying.²
 

Actually, it was a much closer rip off of the T-Rex attack in Lost World (JP2).
The attack on the trailer in particular.  In fact, it was almost a clone of that scene except,
of course, utterly devoid of Speilberg¹s understanding of the visual dynamics that makes
such a scene really grab the viewer by the throat.
 

Trevor wrote;
 ³The plot, as well, was a serious weakness, and would be quickly forgotten
if the writer hadn't made a point to remind you ever other second. The film
opens with a simple intro sequence: Some idiot took his friend's kid
parasailing near Isla Sorna, the infamous Site B from the second film. The
boat is attacked by some unknown creature that kills everyone aboard, but
leaves the boat intact.  This causes great distress for the parasailers, as
the boat is heading for a large breaker reef. The boat crashes, and the
parasailers float down to "safety" on Isla Sorna. This sequence felt a lot
like the intro sequence for The Lost World (JP2), in which a rich family
lands on the island to party, and their little girl is mauled by the Compies.²
 

Aaaaaaahhhhh, the plot.  The writers.  First of all, with all due respect to
you, Trevor, there is almost no plot at all.  Well, not a coherent one.  In
fact, there are so many decent false leads one has to wonder of the ³plot²
was not changing significantly in editing.  How about some random plot
questions.  Why is there several instances where we are led to believe there
may be a darker side to the father and to the ³Billy² charcter only to never
have those issues addressed (Dad kidnaps Allan Grant and Billy seems to be
on the island with an ulterior motive having helped orchestrate Grant onto
to it by prevarication).

My other favorite JP mistake.  The kids.  I hate the kids.  These could be decent
movies but they always have (for the best financial reasons mind you) kids in them.
While I appreciate the monetary exigencies of including children couldn¹t just one get eaten?
Couldn¹t one just one be an utter dolt that only serves to prove that not all children are
loveable and basically good (and maybe that they make good dino-bait)?
 

All the ³bad² guys get eaten and all the good guys survive.  Stupid and unnecessary.
And incorrect in the sense that the kidnapper/liar/pathetic parents of the child don¹t get eaten
even though they obviously deserve to. Instead we are treated to another family bonding story
that ends with the estranged parents reuniting. Sickening.
 

Trevor wrote;
³The boy's family enlists a funding-hungry Dr. Alan Grant to help rescue the boy.
Unfortunately, they neglect to inform him of the rescue mission, telling him that they were
adventure seekers looking to fly over the island. Grant is suitably upset when he finds out he
was duped into landing on yet another dinosaur infested hellhole, but is more preoccupied
with dealing with some new breed of Raptor to be pissed about it.²
 

Well, OK.  I could nitpick this but I won¹t.  This plot element shouldn¹t be
judged by any more stringent believeability test than any other part of JP3.
 

Trevor wrote;
³Yet another one of Jurassic Park 3's shortcomings was the rather jarring
change in the physical appearance of the Raptors. In the first two films.
Spielberg was adamant about staying as true to life as possible, and took
very few detours from it. In JP3, the Raptors had odd spines on their heads,
and sported different color schemes, as opposed to simple brown. The "Alpha
Male" was white with grayish stripes, while other dinosaurs had splotches
and such. Of course, there is no way to know what color the dinosaurs' skin
was, but odds are it wasn't spotted. Plus, the first rule of a sequel is to
remain true to the preceding films. Jurassic Park 3 steered clear of
Spielberg's proven methods, and tried out new, dangerous waters.
Unfortunately, it seems that JP3 may drown.²
 

Actually, the raptors in JP and Lost World were not at all ³lifelike².  They
were too big and very conservatively colored when there is actually no
evidence at all that they might have been (though it is, admittedly, sound
biological theory in light of contemporary species).  Crichton¹s Raptors had
the more bold tier stripes that some of JP3¹s Raptors had.  As far as the
³new² Raptors go, that¹s really an addition from current findings, new
theories and a few flourishes from someone¹s imagination (don¹t expect me to
credit the writers of this thing with any).

Consider the Dilophosaurs from the JP were about half the size they should have been
and did not have neck frills (like the contemporary and very entertaining frilled lizard).
While Spinosaurus was a tad bigger than T-Rex it was mainly believed to be a fish
eater as exampled by it¹s more narrow jaw.  It¹s also disconcerting to see a new breed
of dino knock around the previously thought ³king².  In fact, where the hell did these things
come from?  Even one of the charcters of the film asks this question only to go unanswered
by the time the film is over. So we are left with the nagging question and given no answer.
Am I supposed to just send Universal Ten bucks for a ticket to JP4 for the answer?
 

Trevor wrote;
³Jurassic Park 3 stretched its credibility beyond any limit...  ...He also
managed to work his way in into the cover of a tree, so he could fall down
unexpectedly and get tangled up with the only woman of the group.²

Good call Trevor.

Trevor wrote;
³There were several other gaping reality holes, including the young boy's survival for 8 weeks.
The one that really got me rolling my eyes was the end sequence. Dr. Grant used a satellite phone
recovered from a dinosaur's...excrement to call his partner, Dr. Sattler. He never was able to
speak to her, due to some rather extreme calling conditions (drowning), but she figured it out
none the less. Within an hour or so she had dispatched squads of Marines, Navy choppers,
and TWO Aircraft Carriers. This woman somehow managed to mobilize a attack force worthy
of Desert Storm in two hours, and steam them all to Costa Rica as well. This is absolutely
inexcusable. Come on, AIRCRAFT CARRIERS?²
 

No argument there my friend.  The entire ending was the biggest pile of shit in the film dwarfing any
dinosaur droppings by an several orders of magnitude.  This ending is right up with the dreadful ending
of  ³The Abyss² when the alien town floats up the surface.  Silly shit does not belong in fantastic stories.
Why is it Hollywood figures that Fantasy and Speculative Fiction have to be so damn silly?
 

Trevor wrote;
³The film ended with a crappy prelude to a JP4, a flock of Pteradons flying up into the clouds.²
 

Correct again my brother.  Horrible crap.  And by the way, the thought of the Pteranadons
attacking the mainland, now that¹s really scary?  OK, being locked in a cage with them as they
on the island (and that was one enormous cage eh?) was kind of scary coneptually.
But out in  the open of the real world?  Not at all.  These oversized bats would not last very long.
Now, give me an ending where intelligent, communicating Raptors ravage Central America, THATS a story.
 

Trevor wrote;
³In conclusion, Jurassic Park 3  doesn't measure up to the blockbuster original, or it's tamer,
but equally exciting sister. It does, however, merit the admission price, and you should see it.
JP3 IS an exciting movie, just not nearly as heart-stopping as the Spielberg two. Teenagers are
far more likely to enjoy it, and adults might get a kick out of it too. Check it out.²
 

Actually, I think the only people who might ³enjoy² this movie
(hypothetically admitting it is possible) are pre-teens who are very
uncritical of the whole thing.  I doubt even the most stultifying stupid
teen could suspend their disbelief enough to buy the idea of this kid with
his grass suit surviving on an island as deadly as Sorna.  The kid is bait.
End of story.  And that is just another reason why this movie is so damn
bad.  The basic plot element, that this kid survived for eight weeks, is so
convenient and unreal it¹s nauseating.  I doubt many people will ³enjoy²
this thing.  Well, I take that back to the extent that some of the really
dense adults appeared to enjoy it.  The kids they brought to the theater
(far too young to really understand why the big lizards were running amok
feasting on people) were, for the most part and given their loud protests
and crying jags, horrified.
 

For anyone who may have played the ³Lost World² video game (come on, I was
in Vegas, I had a free pass at Gameworks, they serve highquality cocktails
and then let me play video games?) there were not many surprises here as
strangely enough, much of the JP3 plot is revealed in the video game from
five years ago.  As are much of the landscape.  I wonder if the director
didn¹t crib storyboards from the video game?
 

The whole JP concept is an excellent vehicle (Hollywood talk for: excuse)
for great special effects.  They involve fantastic but real (albeit extinct)
creatures that fascinate many of us.  Why Universal felt the need to further
dilute and pollute the brand name with this flaming bag is beyond me.  And
in the end, that¹s what I am left with.  Confusion.  Frustration.  And an
overwhelming sense that I wasted eight bucks.