Jurassic Park III

I knew this movie sucked after seeing it for the first time in the theaters but over a decade later, it is even worse than I remember. The production problems I think are mostly to blame because you can tell that this movie was written in haste. The special effects, design and acting also have glitches. These flaws bring about an unrealistic final product, which create a rift between this movie and its predecessors. "Jurassic Park III" is a monster movie while its predecessors were less science fiction and more "science-fact".

This was the first film in the franchise not based off a Michael Crichton book but that is not the reason for its failure to entertain. The original script for "Jurassic Park III" was thrown out only five weeks away from filming. The new script was written during filming and that is what I believe sent this film straight down the tubes. It is hard for me to believe that Steven Spielberg as the executive producer was happy with the final script but maybe he and director Joe Johnston felt it was too late to turn back once filming got underway. A good sequel recreates the fun of the first film but takes the audience on a new adventure. Some changes must be made to create originality but those changes must be kept in check. If there are too few changes, the sequel will not be entertaining. If the changes are too numerous, the movie will be far different from the original film. "Jurassic Park III" was very different from the previous films in the franchise for so many reasons. I will begin with its story because it is messy one. The theme of the first two installments was the same: can you create and control nature for financial profit? This third movie was only about survival and that is cliché. The movie also jumps too quickly into the action and adventure. The first two shows take time to establish the characters and setting before introducing suspense and action. The majority of the exposition in "The Lost World" may have been sort of lengthy but it was still decent to watch. As for "Jurassic Park III" however, there is a lack of exposition. In addition, the exposition that we do get isn't very sophisticated or subtle. By comparison, the scene in the first movie in Montana between the kid and Dr. Grant is so interesting and entertaining that we fail to fully grasp its importance concerning not only Velociraptors but Tyrannosaurus Rex. In "Jurassic Park III", the discussion between Alan and Ellie isn't as subtle or interesting. It only establishes the Velociraptors as more intelligent than they were previously, which affects continuity in the franchise. Making these dinosaurs more intelligent also destroys the verisimilitude that "Jurassic Park" is known for. Alan Grant says at the start of the movie, "No force on earth or heaven could get me on that island." We believe him when he says it so are we really supposed to accept his decision to go even near the island for money? On "The Lost World", Ian went to "rescue" Sarah even though he likewise had no initial desire to visit Isla Sorna. Had Ellie needed rescuing, I think that Alan would have been properly motivated but the idea that money changed his mind sounds completely baseless. Even the idea that Billy further persuaded Alan doesn't fly. It is true that in the first film Alan was convinced by money but he had no idea what he was in for back then. To have Alan lied to is a good story idea but the way the truth came out seemed more comedic than revelatory because of the amount of lies that Kirby told and the level of their exaggeration. To summarize, it seems like the filmmakers did anything they could to get Alan to Site B even if it didn't make sense or wasn't dramatic. Just in passing, the short dream the Alan has on the plane has no story purpose other than to scare the audience.

There are subplots in the third film that deal with relationship & character development and such things are important in a movie but these scenes in this movie felt rushed and phony. We don't believe the growth of unity that the family undergoes because the characters weren't established properly and their dramatic scenes (if you can call them "dramatic") were short throughout the story. It feels like the filmmakers are too eager to get back to the dinosaurs that pose a threat. This is probably why the group conveniently locates the parachute quite close to their crash site. Another horrible change that was made to the franchise was the use of Spinosaurus. The second film also used new dinosaurs like Compsognathus but this species did not take the spotlight away from the more popular T. rex and raptor. To have Spinosaurus kill a T. rex is like Jabba the Hut killing Darth Vader. There is nothing interesting about a Spinosaurus that compares with T. rex's visual acuity and you feel cheated as a result. Everyone who dies in "Jurassic Park III" is killed in the first half of the film and even though you still worry over the remaining characters, the level of anxiety isn't increased over the course of the plot as a result of new deaths. This means that subsequent viewings of the film are less entertaining. The first film had a sense of wonder & awe that balanced very well with the action & suspense. Without a Richard Attenborough-type character, the sense of wonder of Jurassic Park is lost. The scenes that do try and convey a sense of awe are equally rushed in order to make way for action. We also have a lack of sincere suspense in this third movie. Other parts of the movie bothered me like the joke about Eric getting T. rex urine (it wasn't really funny because it once again demeans the once-impressive character) and Billy's survival (another example of sloppy storytelling). All of these mistakes I have mentioned lead to a loss of the realism that was present in both "Jurassic Park" and "The Lost World".

Beside decisions concerning the story, other choices made by the filmmakers ruined this picture. The special effects weren't necessarily bad, they just weren't handled as perfectly as on the other Jurassic Park films. The way the plane gets stuck in the tree for example is similar to the trailer's fall off the cliff in the second film because the physics appear too fake. The robotic dinosaurs were devoid of the realism we have come to expect from this franchise except for the final scene with the Velociraptors. The robotic Spinosaurus in particular really failed at behaving organically. Stan Winston created the robotic dinosaurs for this sequel as he did for the previous instalments but my guess is that he was more focused on his work for Spielberg's "A.I. Artificial Intelligence", for which he got another Oscar nomination. I also blame the design of the movie for many of the problems with the special effects. This doesn't look like the same island from the second movie because the color scheme and lighting are different. Even the dinosaurs have a lot of color on their skins compared to their previous renderings in earlier films. Their eyes were also less expressive. One might argue that the shark on "Jaws" had "lifeless" eyes but so do real sharks. I also have a problem with the red eyes that some of the dinosaurs had. The acting in this film also failed to live up to expectations but I don't know if that was bad casting or the fault of the actors. Either way, Tea Leoni gets the award for worst performance. Even her first scene in the movie is terrible. As I have implied, Spielberg was not in director's chair on "Jurassic Park III" and therefore many of his usual collaborators were not involved. John Williams was not involved at all because he was working on the score for "A.I.". Don Davis wrote the score for "The Matrix" previous to this movie but I think he was trying too hard on this movie to sound like Williams. The use of Williams' musical themes and cues were too frequent. On "The Lost World", Williams himself created new musical themes and re-used the original score quite sparingly. I know I might sound hypocritical at this point because I liked John Ottman's frequent use of Williams' themes in "Superman Returns". I guess in this case, Davis forced the original score on us at times instead of doing what felt natural.

I am familiar with Joe Johnston's work previous to "Jurassic Park III" and this level of failure is uncharacteristic of him (not to mention Spielberg). I am just glad this movie did not ruin Johnston's career because I loved "Captain America". Another theory as to why this film is so awful for me could be that the filmmakers felt no drive to work hard. Being that this is a lucrative franchise, it didn't ultimately matter if the movie was good or bad (this movie did end up a financial success). That is a real danger with film franchises in that money becomes more important that art of storytelling. The script, design, special effects and acting are below par compared to the earlier shows and this created an unrealistic film that was no better than a cheesy monster movie. Yes, all the Jurassic films are unrealistic because dinosaurs are extinct but back in 1993, Steven Spielberg changed our perceptions of reality for two hours and seven minutes. The bar was set and this 2001 film lost sight of that high bar.

1.5 Stars