Was Jurrasic Park 3 that bad?

starry_runestarry_rune Posts: 9,006
Forum Member
Am I alone in really enjoying it? Everyone is a critic these days.
«1

Comments

  • sarahj1986sarahj1986 Posts: 11,305
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It was ok I guess. My problem is with the film is that I didn't really like the Kirbys so if they died it didn't bother me. Alan Grant dying though....
  • AbominationAbomination Posts: 6,483
    Forum Member
    No, you're not. And despite the panning it's received in light of Jurassic World I remember when it was actually considered quite successful! By no means glowing reviews, nor did it ever achieve anything groundbreaking, but I recall at the time that people really seemed to enjoy it for the bit of fun that it was. The biggest problem people seemed to have with it was the fate of the T-Rex in it.

    I recall among kids it was very popular. I was always a dino-head so it became my life for a short while whilst in school, but the thing was that for a short while everyone was a dino-head. It was the film that people were bragging about having seen three times in the playground. A far bigger impact with younger people than Disney's Dinosaur had made a year earlier.

    Oddly enough I recall the reception to The Lost World: Jurassic Park quite well too. Another film that was no patch on the original, but still quite respected as a decent movie more or less. When Jurassic Park 3 came out, it became an excuse to slam the second film left, right and centre for being dull, predictable, void of character and so on. Whilst JP3 has its critics, it's generally still quite popular when out of the limelight of a new shiny film on the horizon.

    I wonder if Jurassic World, which has had a more positive critical response than either of its predecessors, will face a similar situation whenever the inevitable Jurassic Park 5 is on the way?
  • dee123dee123 Posts: 46,165
    Forum Member
    The problem was The Kirbys.
  • ÆnimaÆnima Posts: 38,548
    Forum Member
    I remember me and a friend walking out on a Jurassic Park sequel, but I can't remember whether it was 2 or 3, all I remember is it must have been ****ing awful, because it's the only film I ever remember walking out on, and I was young and less discerning then too.

    My gf wants to see the new one though because 'it has Star-Lord in it' :p
  • ASIFZEDASIFZED Posts: 1,388
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    JP3 feels like a TV movie, with a slightly bigger budget. Tea Leoni was unbearable in it. The Spinosaurus was just too unwieldy a dinosaur and came over like a fairground attraction than a supposed real dinosaur.

    And as for the abrupt ending....
  • dearmrmandearmrman Posts: 21,408
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It was a fun movie, and done just at the right length.
  • JEFF62JEFF62 Posts: 5,089
    Forum Member
    dearmrman wrote: »
    It was a fun movie, and done just at the right length.

    I was just about to mention the length as well. that is what i liked about JS3. It just got on with it. No long scenes needed to set things up. I think it was around 95 minutes. Just about right. Some films of over two hours are too strung out.
  • Keyser_Soze1Keyser_Soze1 Posts: 25,182
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes it was bloody awful.

    The major problem was the famously T.rex hating palaeontologist Jack Horner (the advisor for the movie) and his moronic 'Godzilla' version of Spinosaurus.

    Actually in real life the Spino was longer but far less robust than rex - about 15 metres long and 6-7 tons when compared to 12.3 metres and the estimated 8.4 to over 9.5 tons for Sue (the most complete rex in the world).

    http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/273775suespino.jpg

    With the most powerful bite in terrestrial earth's history anything that the Tyrannosaurid got between it's jaws would have been utterly destroyed. In the film the (undersized) rex actually had Spino's neck between it's teeth - instant vertebra and spinal cord crushing death - not to mention possible decapitation. But the Spino emerged without a scratch - simply remarkable. :D

    An aquatic fish-eater is not going to challenge an animal that preyed on Triceratops - an incredibly huge, fast and dangerous beast - like a massive multi-ton rhino on steroids with gigantic forward facing horns and a savage beaked bite.

    But that is Horner for you for decades he pontificated in the press about rex being a scavenger - but he was actually playing the devil's advocate (all predators will take advantage of a free meal of they can get it) and it brought him fame and the money to work on the other (excellent) dinosaur research projects that he was interested in.

    Rant over. :p
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I prefer it to the 2nd film, but the Kirbys are too self-centred and annoying for a film like this. Unless they get eaten of course.

    Because it's important to be able to relate to the characters and therefore be fearful of their fate.

    With a different cast of likable people maybe it would have worked better. Maybe dropping the wife character completely and making it a father/son estrangement tale would have been better.
  • Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,315
    Forum Member
    Whittles down the formula to its basics - a simple monster survival flick that does its job and the Pteradactyls are great.

    Probably preferable to the bloated first and boring second in some respects, but it did make clear there's very limited mileage in dinosaurs regarding actual narrative.
  • D. MorganD. Morgan Posts: 4,166
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think it surpasses The Lost World in every way.

    The Lost World is overlong, the T-Rex's are overused, the ending in San Diego is ridiculous and the Raptors are incredibly dumb crashing in to walls and cars - and are we forgetting that awful gymnast moment?

    JP3 is by no means perfect but the Raptors are worth it alone and the aviary scene is great. Although it misses the T-Rex, I did like the Spinosaurus and I think they wouldn't have had to create a new big bad if it wasn't for the mess that was The Lost World. The plane crash is also an exciting piece. AND...it has Dr. Alan Grant back.

    So no, I don't think it was that bad at all and it's a fun adventure movie. I'd rank the series:

    Jurassic Park
    Jurassic World
    Jurassic Park 3
    The Lost World
  • MotthusMotthus Posts: 7,280
    Forum Member
    As I've just seen Jurassic World I have to agree with your rankings as Lost World is easily the worst film!
  • Rincewind78Rincewind78 Posts: 2,198
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I actually enjoyed the 3rd movie. You can really tell though it lacks the money of the first and second film (I think it was only half the budget), but it's still fun.
    The second - looks really glossy and great to see Jeff Goldblum , but is just a mess of a film. The last act where they go to the city is just terrible. But let's be honest, it's just fun to see the dinosaurs on screen.

    Me and friend recently sat and watched all 3 in a night - and the second movie is such a hard watch and felt a relief putting the 3rd movie on!!
  • treefr0gtreefr0g Posts: 23,567
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Like 'Return of the Jedi', Spider-man 3' and 'Alien 3' I try to forget that 'Jurassic Park 3' exists

    Not only did it have no positives for me, but it actually had a negative in that when I watch the first film, I know that Sam Neil and Laura Dern's relationship is doomed.

    It's not quite as big a negative than Alien 3 created, though. Whenever I see Aliens now and Ripley goes back for Newt, I shout at the screen 'Don't bother'
  • AbominationAbomination Posts: 6,483
    Forum Member
    My ranking would also be;
    Jurassic Park
    Jurassic World
    Jurassic Park 3
    The Lost World: Jurassic Park

    They're all movies I quite like, they're all good movies I feel. Just some more so than others, and good in different ways perhaps. Without considering the first or fourth in detail as they've been talked about plenty already...

    The Lost World: Jurassic Park looked amazing. Its military-inspired designs, and soundtrack and plot were all very decent and delivered a confident, sleek, smart looking movie that was darker, and more mature than the original. It actually tried to do something different, but its key problem was that it simulataneously tried to be all of the aformentioned things whilst casting the original films comic relief as its lead.
    Jeff Goldblum is an amazing actor, Ian Malcolm a brilliant character. And whilst his newfound cynicism in TLW makes sense, it doesn't sit well with people that you're giving them Jurassic Park with Ian Malcolm, but he's not much like Ian Malcolm. He does the job well, but isn't a satisfying lead. Julianne Moore and Pete Postlethwaite were great additions to the cast and I liked their characters - the latter didn't get too much to do, but owned every scene he was in. The rest of the cast were mostly disposable fodder, whilst Vince Vaughan was annoying throughout and the little girl the most annoying child in the whole franchise.
    The dinosaurs looked good, and the film even found new ways to make the whole thing cool and new again. But it trades in its earlier, more intelligent ideas to become a run-of-the-mill escape movie by its second half. It then culminates in a T-Rex-in-the-city sequence that was brilliantly made, but has dated poorly against the rest of the film and feels tonally jarring. Oddly enough the films most tense moment comes not from a dinosaur, but simply by plastering Julianne Moore across a sheet of breaking glass, suspended hundreds of feet above skull-crushing rocks and stormy ocean below.
    It was a film they nearly got right, but I feel they couldn't decide whether they wanted to let go of the ties to Jurassic Park and do something fresh with it, or cling onto it for the sake of nostalgia. By trying to do both, the final product was lesser than its potential, though still a very good product all the same.

    Jurassic Park 3 was hampered with problems that meant it was going to struggle to compare to the previous efforts. Spielberg was no longer directing which meant it was being thrown in at the deep end somewhat. It's budget was actually $20m more than the second film had been just four years earlier, so it can't really use inflation as an excuse either. Despite the costs though it felt cheaper, it was half an hour shorter than either of the previous films, it had a cast of just eight characters on the island - two of which die within minutes so it was tremendouly small scale. It had Alan and Ellie in it again, but the latter amounted to no more than a cameo - which served as more of a tease than anything else, again serving to disappoint.
    All that being said, the film was a lot more honest than the second in its intentions as an escape-the-island kind of movie. And its lack of underlying motives or clever scientific/political/ethical agenda mean the whole thing is very simple... it relies on the primitive idea of having a bit of fun watching dinosaurs chase people around for a while. That simple plot was the product of a script that was still being written as the film was made. In fact it's more or less the case that the script was never finished - which combined with the fact that director Joe Johnston wanted to make use of a real military beach scramble for the movie meant that the ending was abrupt, out of nowhere and the film just kind of stops. You don't ever feel like the final encounter with the Spinosaurus is indeed a final encounter, rather than just a set-piece within the movie. There's no closure on it, and the film just wraps up because dino-funtime is over.
    The characters weren't unlikeable for me, though weren't particularly special either. Everything was pretty by-the-numbers, which summed up the film in general. The effects were good as always, though there was the odd unconvincing shot, and the films best sequence was probably the Pteranodon aviary sequence - a concept lifted from the original novel if you need any idea as to where the films best inspiration comes from.
  • roger_50roger_50 Posts: 6,884
    Forum Member
    Yeah, JP3 is a neat little film. It's quite unusual in some ways - it functions a lot better than the messy, ill-focused Lost World.

    I suppose the issue with it is that it offered very little to what we saw in the first film. It's basically just more scenes of people running away from dinosaurs...

    Not bad though.
  • necromancer20necromancer20 Posts: 2,548
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Not seen it in years but I do remember enjoying it as much as the previous Jurassic Park movies. But then I do love watching dinosaurs on the big screen.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 33
    Forum Member
    I remember seeing it in theatre and leaving afterwards with a feeling of being disappointed. It felt too short and I hated that T-Rex lost the battle (so quickly).

    But then I saw it again on digital cable and all of a sudden it grew on me. Today I see it for what it truly is: a mindless fun ride. And I'm fine with it.

    However, I wished we would get a T-Rex vs. Spinosaurus rematch with T-Rex redeeming himself.

    A Spinosaurus vs. Indominus Rex match in JW would have been awesome, too.
  • rumpleteazerrumpleteazer Posts: 5,746
    Forum Member
    I agree with the general consensus on here, better than the second, not as good as the first. I'm going to see the forth one tomorrow so can't comment on that (I'm very excited though)
  • Tony TigerTony Tiger Posts: 2,254
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Not that bad, not that good. Better than the newest one though.
  • AbominationAbomination Posts: 6,483
    Forum Member
    HotRod78 wrote: »
    However, I wished we would get a T-Rex vs. Spinosaurus rematch with T-Rex redeeming himself.

    A Spinosaurus vs. Indominus Rex match in JW would have been awesome, too.
    Jurassic World featured a nice little nod to the controversial Spinosaurus victory from the third film. When the T-Rex is released from the compound near the end and approaches the main street, it smashes through a display skeleton before roaring triumphantly - that skeleton would be a Spinosaurus :D
  • dearmrmandearmrman Posts: 21,408
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tony Tiger wrote: »
    Not that bad, not that good. Better than the newest one though.

    Having just seen the newest one, then I would actually have to agree with you.
  • Keyser_Soze1Keyser_Soze1 Posts: 25,182
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    In no universe would Spinosaurus ever defeat a T. rex - just look at the skeletal size comparison I posted above.

    That is the main reason that so many hated the movie (amongst many other things).

    Of course all of the largest theropods were simply awe-inspiring - but despite endless pretenders to the throne (the Carcharodontosaurids like Giganotosaurus) the massively robust, relatively huge-brained, binocular-visioned, avian killing machine with the stupendous bite force is still the most formidable of the lot in my opinion. :)
  • sheila bligesheila blige Posts: 8,007
    Forum Member
    Am I alone in really enjoying it? Everyone is a critic these days.

    You're not alone. I much preferred it to the second film.
Sign In or Register to comment.