"Jurassic Park II" (that's two) was the only movie I've ever seen where I thought it was a waste of money. And I've paid to see a LOT of movies! Be it theater or rental, I'm probably in the upper quarter of people outside the movie industry who have seen the most movies. Even really BAD movies I don't consider a waste of money because I was likely entertained by how bad it was. If nothing else, I earned the bragging rights to say "Man, I saw that movie, and boy did it stink! Here's why...." But "Jurassic Park II" was a completely worthless movie I did not gain a single thing from except wasted time and money.
The original "Jurassic Park," however, I still love dearly. I still get a little choked whenever I hear that music that was played while they left the island in the helicopter and watched the birds flying over the water, because I'm a schmuck. Even though I was disappointed that it didn't contain all of what I thought were best parts of the book, I still thought it had the right balance of action with development, sci-fi, and b-rate/monster movie philosophizing.
Now, where does "Jurassic Park III" fit in this? Firmly in the middle. It was certainly not a GREAT movie, but I indeed enjoyed myself. One of the biggest problems with the second movie was putting Jeff Goldblum in as the lead. I love the guy, and think he has some great characters, but he CAN NOT carry a movie! No no NO no no he can't. They made up for that little (read: "HUGE") mistake by bringing Sam Neil back. Sam's not a great actor either, but he sure can lead a film. And one of the great charms of "JP III" is that it doesn't require great actors. Just good ones. (It does have William H. Macy, a great actor, but he gives only a very good performance here...so it fits.) "JP" the original could afford to reach for being more than just an action flick. It was novel and visually stunning. It had a good ensemble and a good plot/premise. "JP III" doesn't pretend to be more than it is: A summer action movie. It doesn't pad the story with anything more than the basic hook, which is: Sam's character, Dr. Grant, is shanghaied into helping a couple find their son who has become stranded on the island. There IS a subplot between Tea Leoni and William Macy's characters as the divorced parents, but it's given only the depth it needed to allow for some laughs and diversions.
Did I mention laughs? There are those. In fact, I went into the movie expecting to hate it. To feel disappointed at being suckered into another worthless sequel. But I found myself laughing out loud at all the right places. Macy and Michael Jeter especially (another "good" actor, with GREAT comic timing) gave the movie the right amount of comic spin to keep from being bombarded with action overdose.
Speaking of action, it was JUST the right amount. But I'm more or less guessing. Since "The Matrix" I've become slightly jaded by action these days. So much, so big, so grand, so computer enhanced. It's gotten to be too much. Thank God for "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon." The sheer beauty and artistry of the action in that movie woke me back up. So, as far as I can tell, since the action in "JP III" didn't reach a point as to bore me, it worked OK. Actually, there were a few moments where it was just unique enough to make me interested. For example the pterodactyl/pteranadon (whatever) chase/fight in the aviary. That was indeed suspenseful and interesting.
I have to mention the ending. I won't spoil it, but let's say it's a little...under explained. Some would say it's a ridiculous ending, but I won't go that far. I can imagine a justification for it, but I'd rather the movie spend an extra two minutes near the beginning setting up the plausibility for how it ends. All it would have taken was two minutes...actually, only two lines of character-developing dialogue to set up the plausibility of the ending. Instead, we're sitting there going "HOORAY! Wait--er, how the...OK now hold on a minute here...."
So, I recommend "JP III." See it at matinee price or wait til it shows up at a 2nd run theater (that still has THX or Dolby3+ or whatnot.) See it in the theater, otherwise more than half the reason for seeing it in the first place is wasted. At under an hour and a half, it doesn't overstay its welcome, but it also makes one pause before spending more than $5 to see it. (Don't bother with the concession snack.)
Category: Movie
Genre: Sci-Fi
Date Reviewed: 2001-01-01
Pros:
Cons:
Rating: 6