--- title: "Jurassic Park III: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/jurassic-park-iii/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/jurassic-park-iii" critics_score: 59 critics_reviews: 14 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Jurassic Park III (2001): what the critics said Critics' score 59 from 14 reviews: 7 positive, 3 mixed, 4 negative. Most critics lean mildly positive, though few claim much for it. The praise clusters on brevity and pace: a lean 90-minute runtime, a headlong rush to the dinosaurs, and a B-picture modesty that several reviews prefer to the bloat of The Lost World. The effects and creatures, the Spinosaurus and the raptor sequences in particular, are admired even by critics who dislike the film, and Johnston’s no-frills direction is credited with keeping it moving. The reservations cluster on script and scale. Several reviews find the story thin and rushed into production, a generic rescue plot with none of the original’s wonder, and note that it skews young and plays closer to horror than adventure. The spread is wide: the Evening Standard rates it far above both forerunners, while The Guardian and Variety consider the series exhausted. Later reappraisals from Collider and Polygon are kinder, treating it as a guilty pleasure or an accidental parody. ## Evening Standard Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 10 April 2012. The critic calls it hugely imaginative and far better than its two forerunners, praising its concentrated shocks and intent to frighten, while noting it is very frightening for children under 15. [Read the review](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/jurassics-fauna-of-nightmares-7433200.html) ## The AV Club — Keith Phipps Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 18 July 2001. The film is a more acceptable unnecessary sequel than most, with strong effects and monsters that steal the show despite a pared-down plot aimed at kids. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/jurassic-park-iii-1798192699) ## The New Yorker — Anthony Lane Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 16 July 2001. The review highlights the film's lean 90-minute length and headlong momentum as a welcome improvement over the bloated earlier entries. It singles out the director's ruthlessness and the screenplay's focus on pure action and danger for praise. [Read the review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/07/23/claws) ## The New York Times — Elvis Mitchell Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 18 July 2001. The critic finds the film more fun and streamlined than its predecessors, with a speedy, no-frills approach that focuses on raptor encounters and survival thrills. It is praised for its brisk pacing and effective use of the dinosaur premise in a shorter runtime. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/18/movies/film-review-it-s-risky-crashing-a-raptor-convention.html) ## Total Film Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 20 July 2001. The critic praises it as the sequel Spielberg should have made, a fun, lean B-pic that gets to the dinosaurs quickly with solid characters and humour, though it lacks a showstopping climax. [Read the review](https://www.gamesradar.com/jurassic-park-iii-review/) ## Time Out — WH Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 10 September 2012. The film offers little new but remains stirring family entertainment, trading Spielberg's wonder for violent action and sound effects. It has the fun feel of a 1950s B-movie with strong animatronics and well-handled child characters. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/jurassic-park-iii) ## Empire — Angie Errigo Fi1m's normalised score 50/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. The critic finds it short, scrappy and intermittently scary, skewing young as a thrill ride that is more fun than The Lost World but lacks the scale, chills and wonder of the original. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/jurassic-park-3-review/) ## Screen Daily Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). 18 July 2001. The weakest entry in the trilogy, with a weak story rushed into production, though special effects and creatures are strong and more sophisticated. It feels more like a horror movie than a sci-fi adventure and will not have the legs of its predecessors. [Read the review](https://www.screendaily.com/jurassic-park-iii/406325.article) ## The Guardian — Peter Bradshaw Rating **. 20 July 2001. The critic argues it is time to end the Jurassic Park series, as the film shambles towards extinction despite some capable actors. The FX creatures remain impressive, but over-familiarity breeds indifference. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2001/jul/20/artsfeatures5) ## Variety Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 17 July 2001. The critic views the film as a stripped-down, effects-driven chase that lacks strong scripting and character development compared to prior installments. Effects work and action sequences receive positive mention amid overall disappointment with the franchise's creative decline. [Read the review](https://variety.com/2001/film/reviews/jurassic-park-iii-2-1200469085/) ## Collider — Sean Naughton Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 12 February 2022. The film succeeds as a campy B-movie guilty pleasure by embracing its modest scope and dinosaur action thrills rather than trying to match the original's awe. Johnston's no-frills direction and the short runtime keep it focused and entertaining. [Read the review](https://collider.com/jurassic-park-3-underrated-why-its-good/) ## Digital Spy — Justin Harp Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 10 June 2015. The critic finds Jurassic Park III much better than The Lost World and a fresh, exciting, enjoyable blockbuster that largely succeeds on its own terms as a self-contained dinosaur adventure in the wild. They single out the impressive new dinosaurs (especially the Spinosaurus and clever raptor sequences), Sam Neill's world-weary performance as Alan Grant, and the film's balance of terror, laughs, and awe at the creatures for praise, while noting weaknesses in the female lead character and some supporting performances. [Read the review](https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a651760/in-defence-of-jurassic-park-iii-fresh-exciting-and-a-whole-lot-of-fun/) ## Polygon — Susana Polo Fi1m's normalised score 60/100 (inferred from the text). 10 April 2025. The film plays like an unintentional parody of Jurassic Park's formula, with a rudderless production and absurd set pieces that make it strangely entertaining. Its prophetic take on modern franchises adds retrospective interest despite the silliness. [Read the review](https://www.polygon.com/what-to-watch/555307/jurassic-park-iii-ridiculous-movie-watch-streaming/) ## Paste — Jim Vorel Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). 9 June 2022. A chaotic, rushed production resulted in a derivative black sheep entry that rehashes highlights without inspiration or a completed script. Its brief runtime and generic rescue plot highlight the franchise's post-Spielberg decline. [Read the review](https://www.pastemagazine.com/movies/jurassic-park/jurassic-park-3-problems-review-script-jurassic-world-dominion) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/jurassic-park-iii.md