MovieChat Forums > Jurassic Park III (2001) Discussion > I have come to prefer Jurassic Park III ...

I have come to prefer Jurassic Park III over Jurassic Park II


Why?

To begin with, the film is shorter than Jurassic Park II. So, despite being worse than Jurassic Park, like it's predecessor, there's less to take in. As a result, this film moves at a quicker pace, so you're rarely focused on processing just how poorly written and possibly acted the characters (other than Grant, Brennan, Udesky, and Paul) are.

Speaking of characters...there's no horrible Nick (Prick?) Van Owen. When I was younger, I vaguely thought of him as a good guy. As an adult, I realize just how destructive and damn selfish his eco-terrorism really is. Why no one else on the "good guys" side calls him out on his actions is beyond me. Following this, Tea Leoni's Amanda Kirby is a breath of fresh air: i'll take stupid over arrogantly malicious any day of the week.

Then, there's Ian and Sarah. While Goldblum and Moore turned in technically okay performances in this film (Goldlbum arguably being superior overall), I don't get a sense of chemistry between them. Yes, even remnants of past chemistry don't appear visible at all. Despite not being romantically linked, Alan and Billy have so much more of a rapport that seems genuine, which makes their interactions more interesting.

Along similar lines, Malcolm as the protagonist didn't quite do it for me. He's much better as a supporting character ("The Lancer", for anyone wise to TV Tropes) than the front-and-center lead man. Grant has a subdued but rock-solid confidence that naturally elevates him to the position. Plus, he simply has more dinosaur/outdoor experience that logically qualifies him for a more action-oriented role.

How about the set pieces? JP II's take on Isla Sorna feels a bit too generic and dark on the whole. Moreover, it comes off as Pacific Northwest forest in nature rather than an outright tropical isle. About the only section I liked visually was the area containing remains of human construction near the communication center. JP III's side of Isla Sorna is decidedly lush and jungle-like through and through. The aviary and ensuing river segment are both well shot and well edited.

The Tyrannosaurus Rex duo was cool, but I found the Spinosaurus to be a fresh and innovative take on the main super-predator that gives our heroes a bad time. You can mostly chalk this up to it's unconventional physiological design (shape of it's mouth plus the sail on it's back) plus distinctly different yet still terrifyingly ferocious roar.

Truly, the only thing about Jurassic Park II I prefer over Jurassic Park III is it's soundtrack. Even though John Williams wasn't quite on his game like he was for Jurassic Park, his effort still thoroughly outclasses that of Don Davis.
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .

reply

I agree with everything you said. I would add that III, while not a good film, is at least enjoyable as a B monster movie you can laugh at. TLW is borderline bleak, as well as downright pretentious with its "save the dinosaurs" message. It also feels like a rehash of the first film with the end of King Kong tacked on.

---

reply

The Lost World is bleak and I would add "overly cynical".

---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .

reply

It's been a while since I've seen either 2 or 3, but I like them both the same from what I remember. I think I need to watch them both again.

Aerosmith and My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fan

reply

Well, I love them both very much

reply