REVIEW: Jurassic Park III

REVIEW: Jurassic Park III

Originally published in 2016, here are my thoughts on Jurassic Park III.

Jurassic Park III is nowhere near as bad as people make out. Sure, it's not the best sequel in the world. It's not the best movie either. But despite the silly moments such as the talking raptor and the phone still working after being swallowed by the Spinosaurus, it's a fun films and that's all you want with a monster movie. Monster films by their very nature are not supposed to be works of art; they simply exist to provide a good time at the cinema, and Jurassic Park III delivers on the promise of an evening of entertainment.

Isn't it great to see the return of Doctor Alan Grant (Sam Neill) too? Sam Neill is as great as the palaeontologist as he was in the first movie; it feels like his character has really progressed from where the first film left of, as we get to discover further shades of Alan here. Laura Dern was criminally underused as Ellie Sattler though and it's a shame not to see her on Isla Sorna alongside Alan. It is also disappointing to see that Alan and Ellie are not romantically intertwined, despite the shared love between them that was heavily hinted in the first Jurassic Park. I am not a part of the Jurassic Park fandom but I can only imagine how many Alan/Ellie shippers must have been annoyed at this movie backtracking on this promise.

The T-Rex and Spinosaurus fight is nowhere near as bad as some make out either. From my own individual perspective I found the outcome of the battle believable enough; the T-Rex seemed to give a good enough fight and it therefore doesn't detract from the power of the iconic dinosaur. To me, the complaints about the fight are no different to those who were upset at no feathered dinosaurs in Jurassic World. It's just meant to be a fun blockbuster film: it doesn't have to be entirely accurate. The T-Rex may have won in real life and an argument could be made that the previous two films in the original trilogy show the T-Rex to be powerful enough to take down the Spinosaurus as opposed to the other way round but if you over-analyse any movie it is inevitably going to detract from your enjoyment of the film.

The unique thing about the original Jurassic Park trilogy and the Jurassic World film is how each movie arguably centres on a different protagonist. Jurassic Park is John Hammond's story, The Lost World: Jurassic Park is Ian Malcolm's, Jurassic World is Claire Dearing's  journey from a cold and bitter woman obsessed with facts, figures and 'assets' to an aunt who shows a more loving relationship towards her nephews, and Jurassic Park III is the story of Alan Grant attempting to deal with his past traumatic experiences on Isla Nublar in the first movie. Whereas most franchises tend to focus on one protagonist's story, Jurassic Park's strategy allows for more variety - something that maybe other film companies could take tips from in order to create more sustainable franchises.

Overall, Jurassic Park III is a solid movie and not as bad as some claim it to be. It develops the character of Alan Grant further and offers some solid dino-on-dino action. It's not a movie that is likely to change the face of cinema, but if you go in expecting an action spectacle and not a critical darling, there is plenty of joy to be had. It's just a shame that the writers chose to split Alan Grant and Ellie Sattler for no good reason, as this film really should have been both of them on the island together. I guess some people just aren't Alan and Ellie fan shippers.

What do you think about Jurassic Park III? Let me know in the comments.