How bad is that 3rd Jurassic Park movie?

With the new Jurassic Park movie on the horizon I started to think about the previous films. I remember the 1st and 2nd films fondly, don't quiet understand the hate the 2nd one got. However I don't think I have ever seen the 3rd film. I know that the dude from the first film returns and that there are more flying dinosaurs, but other then that I can't recall anything about the film. I kind of want to rent it somewhere and watch it, but everyone says it is the worst film in the franchise. Is this true? Would I be better off avoiding it?

It wasnt amazing but it made for a good suspense/action film.

I'd say 2 and 3 are about equal. It certainly isn't the worst 21st century reboot of a late 20th century blockbuster.

It's totally fine. I probably enjoy watching it the most of any of the films at this point because it's the least dated CGI-wise and it's a fun action movie. Yeah some of the plot elements are kinda lame but I like the whole setup of how they get Dr. Grant back there and the flawed characters involved in all that. It's a lot of fun.

It's pretty bad. But, I actually thought it was better than jp2. I'd say go ahead and watch it. At least this one has Dr. Grant. (For the record I don't really like any of the JP films...)

I don't remember much because I only saw it once when it was first in theaters, but if I was the sort of person to walk out of a theater I would have walked out during Jurassic Park 3.

But sure watch it, what's the worst that can happen.

It's a fucking atrocity, don't watch it.

It's just a straight up action film.

Most of the characters serve no purpose and are there to be cannon fodder rather than to be actual characters. Doctor Grant - the guy from the first film - is really only there because he was a popular character, not because he contributes anything to the story. What makes the characters worse is the decisions they make. Seriously, it really takes you out of the movie with how dumb these people are, it makes you wonder how people like them could possible learn how to breath.

It's a bad movie, there's no mistake about that - it's a far cry from the first movie, but if you just want some B-movie action schlock then go for it.

It's not THAT bad. I'd say Lost World has more going for it being worse.

It's a bad movie because it's got a dumb premise, but I think it's pretty funny because of that. I enjoy it much more than 2 (also because the second movie is nothing like the second book which is the most infuriating part of the whole thing). Actually I find 2 to be one of the biggest travesties to film- much more so than even anything Ed Wood ever did.

So, your milage may vary. The only good Jurassic Park film so far is the first one. The others have all been campy and bad for various reasons. I suspect the third film will be bad, I just hope it's fun bad and not boring bad.

Are you insane? There is plenty of redeemable qualities in The Lost World. Jurassic Park 3 plays like the straight to DVD Asylum ripoff of the Spielberg movies.

I thought it was pretty worthless and got nothing out of watching it. The first movie's obviously a classic, the second was okay and had a few good moments among the bad, and the third felt like a forgettable low budget direct-to-video cash in.

I don't think the execution was bad but it had a serious case of sequelitis and low ambitions.

Well Tea Leoni is in it.

The part where that kid fuckin cockily said he has a jar of T-Rex piss made me wanna punch that kid in the face.

The ending where Grant's ex Ellie saved them at the end cause her husband worked for the government seemed like a screenplay that had no clue of how to save them at the end so they came up with this.

For some reason all of Joe Johnston films has some pretty uneven pacing to it I can point to Captain America First Avenger as another film he directed that also seems to suffer towards the end. It sucks cause The Rocketeer might be one of my favorite films growing up.

I like the second one despite its flaws. It had some genuinely exciting moments in it. I thought the third one was a disaster and had absolutely nothing going for it. Opinions seem to be mixed on this, though.

Without using or referencing the noun "San Diego", what's redeemable about The Lost World? Just out of curiosity.

It's actually been a long time since I've seen any of these movies, but from what I remember, I liked them both about equally. Which is to say that I came to see people run from and/or get eaten by dinosaurs and that's exactly what I got.

The Lost World was alright, not mind blowing. From what I gathered it seemed like a lot of the hate eventually came down to the 2nd half of the film when they brought the dinosaurs to San Diego.

Oh yeah! There was also the part where Ian's daughter did that gymnastic thing and kicked a velociraptor.

Wait, people hated that? I thought the San Diego bit was what justified all the stupid decisions made in the movie. It's like Spielberg and Co. said "We can't justify making these people smart, so we should just use their monumental stupidity to put a T-Rex in a crowded city".

But again, I came to see people run from and/or eaten by dinosaurs and the last bit of Jurassic Park 2 is that, taken out of the jungle and placed in a big city.

I know GB is a safe place so I will admit something about myself.

Jurassic Park 3 is the Jurassic Park I watched the most times. I was a small child with a vhs, and it had dinos, so it isn't totally my fault. But I feel this has finally come in handy. Al the best gags and things are ripped right out of the first Jurassic Park. The ideas behind 3 seem to be better realized for World. The best option is to watch Jurassic Park 1 three times. Or better yet, Jurassic Park, then Fury Road twice.

I would literally go to a double showing of Fury Road, and tried to get that set up with friends as soon as I had seen it the first time.

The trailer sequence over the cliff is still great, also it's still a Spielberg joint so it's still propped up by some good cinematography. Additionally Pete Postlethwaite gets to ham it up as the big game hunter which is great, that and it's hard always hard to hate on Jeff Goldblum. Lost World suffers from a bit of Ghostbusters 2 syndrome, of course Ghostbusters 2 is still a better a movie but Lost World still isn't as terrible as people like to make it out to be.

The 2nd movie is quite poor, the 3rd movie is just an alright action flick in the vein of something like Tremors.

@chu52: I'd go with Fury Road 3 times personally.

To put it more simply JP3 is the Attack of the Clones to JP1's Empire Strikes Back.

@believer258: The 2nd half really felt like another film, another long drawn out 2nd half film. Also did they hire like 2 Ben Kingsley look alikes in that film? There was like 2 actors in that film I kept on confusing for the Gandhi actor.

I think it's not insane that you like Jurassic Park 3. My little nephew who is about 6, so he was born way after the third one came out, loves the third film to death only cause it has pterodactyl's pecking at Billy's face before he falls over a cliff. I think a lot of what sadly makes the third such an inferior film is because it's not Spielberg directing it, and it's hard to recreate the wonders the first film setup.

I do really like Tremors. But surely JP3 can't possibly be better than Tremors, could it? If so then I need to watch it immediately.

Jurassic Park 3 being better than Tremors? Probably not. Jurassic Park 3 being better than Speed 2? Sure.

@acidbrandon18: It isn't better than Tremors just comparable, Tremors is a better movie but both of them are sort of campy messes that are lovable for their own dumb reasons. I suppose it comes down to if you like Fred Ward or Sam Neill better.

Speed 2 is an incredibly terrible film though with its only redeeming quality being that boat crash.

Oh, it was a fine action movie. I pop it in every couple of years.

I've kinda had Speed 2 on my mind recently and while I haven't seen it close to 20 years I bet that movie isn't as bad as I remember it. I bet if Speed 1 didn't exist to compare it to that Speed 2 could probably stand on it's own as a decent action film. I mean the film had William Dafoe as the main villian.

Ok. The only redeeming qualities is the boat crash and William Dafoe. But maybe I'm wrong about it being a bad film. Roger Ebert did give it 3 stars.

I remember being completely embarrassed watching Speed 2 about a decade ago, I just now watched some of JP3 because of this discussion and it's aged worse than I thought and is a little lamer than I thought but it's still way better than Speed 2.

I hated lost world when it came out and thought jp3 was better though still disappointing. Rewatching them all years later on bluray lost world has some really great parts mixed in with stupidity which i liked more than the b-movie vibe of jp3.

@aquamarin: I think one reason I liked it as a kid was because I had snuck into this r rated film after initially buying a ticket for warriors of virtue. Once those giant rabbits appeared me and my friend said screw it and went to see speed 2. I remember our choice at the time was watch warriors of virtue with the giant mutant robots, speed 2 or anaconda. If I knew what anaconda was back in the day I might of went and seen that.

I think despite if you think it is good or bad, it's at least entertaining, also it's not too long so it's not a drag to sit through it.

There is some dumb shit, there is some fun shit, there is some fun-dumb shit. If you are the type of person to be entertained by dumb stuff then I think no matter what you'll have an okay time with it.

It does pull some Alien 3 level shit though by fucking with the characters in a way no one wanted them too, Dr. Grant and Sat..saddler? Satler? Sattel... Lady Grant should have been together god dammit.

I’m not gonna lie. That T-Rex running around city (NY?) is one of the best guilty pleasure for me.

Depends on what you can tolerate more. Girl doing gymnastics to kill a raptor (worst jurassic park thing ever made) or dude blowing into raptor bones to communicate while they give raptors back their eggs. Jesus it's a close one for me.

Its pretty decent I guess. If you're really bored you might enjoy it, maybe.

Jurassic Park was fantastic

Lost World was extremely goofy fun

3 was lame

I love Lost World. I'm not crazy about JP3, but it makes for a decent watch if there's nothing else on TV.

Well, this happens:

I've only seen it once all the way through, when it first came out, but my memory is that it was pretty terrible. The bits and pieces I've caught on TV since then have dulled things a bit, but I'd still suggest watching the first one again instead.

Not that bad but the T-Rex is kind of overshadowed so its not very cool.

2 was AWESOME, but 3 was meh.....awful. dont know why people hate on 2 it was really amazing

I found it frustrating throughout. Most of what I remember from the movie is Dr. Grant trying trying to keep a bunch of idiots from getting eaten by dinos.

It's bad. They didn't even have a script when they started filming it.

I like The Lost World as well. I only wish it would've carried more of the themes that were in the book.

I'm just going to put this out there: Jurassic Park > Tremors > Jurassic Park 2 > Jurassic Park 3 > Speed 2.

Edit: Oh wait, someone also mentioned Alien 3 in this thread. We'll put that in-between Jurassic Park 2 and Jurassic Park 3.

It's forgettable. Not offensive.

Lost World is offensive at points, but not forgettable. At least in my book. Pick your poison.

I hate 3. 2 is miles better to me, just from Spielberg's direction alone. The San Diego part is the best part of the movie...because it was tounge-in-cheek in a really great way.

Obvious 1 is by far the best, still a classic today.

The problems with sequels like JP is the desire (warranted or not) to make the film x% more scary/intense/CG/etc instead of telling a compelling story.

Not that you can't enjoy its sequels, but the magic gets lost when the story and characters take a back seat.