Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Jurassic Park III

This is topic Jurassic Park III in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000160

Posted by David Baum (Member # 568) on 07-06-2001, 04:55 AM:

hi!

anyone saw it yet? heard some film managers and/or projectionnists saw it already. Some reviews start to appear, on the www.hometheaterforum.com for instance.
There's talk of a very odd abrupt ending and a running time of 90minutes only.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts if any.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-06-2001, 09:16 PM:

actually i have no problem with the tightness the film is going to have. lets keep the pace going. I am worried about the abrupt ending. I wonder if this is one of those tactics that has been done befor were they are trying to keep something secret as long as they can. Maybe there is something that is supposed to be there but not there yet. I remember this being done on star trek II when they refused to show what happened to spock on thes special screenings. How bout it Brad...did you get to watch it yet. If so, what about the ending.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-07-2001, 02:03 AM:

Maybe the abrupt ending and short running time was due to the projectionist forgetting to put the last reel on. I can't tell you how many times I've done this! Probably because I've never done that.

Posted by David Baum (Member # 568) on 07-07-2001, 05:20 AM:

argh!

Well, seems the reviews point to 90minutes but Joe Johnston confirmed it's 94minutes. I hope the abrupt ending was done on purpose for the pre-screenings, to keep the real ending secret. www.dansjp3page.com

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-07-2001, 05:56 PM:

It's definitely short in comparison to the first two Jurassic movies. I screened the finished film and wasn't impressed. I leave you with this indepth review:

Is it too much to ask for at least ONE good summer film this year?

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 07-09-2001, 02:07 PM:

JURASSIC PARK 3
How much does it take for people to fed up seeing live Dinosaurs on the big screen. JP 1 GREAT. JP 2 Not so great. JP 3 BLIAH. Personally I think that the film is tooooooooo short. I saw it today at a screening. I have to admit that this film is a bit more frightening than the others (actually a lot more) and has some more humour rather than the other movies. Some scenes are so badly rendered that u can tell it is 3D Animation like the camera flyover with the plane underneath and the whole dinosaurs bunch running. The acting (if there is such thing in this movie) is not worth discussing at all. As for the ending. YES. It does end in a kind of strange way and kinda fast for it. The script is ok and the plot is quite nice, but it is not an A rated film for a reviewer. I prefer Spielberg's fist JURASSIC PARK. It is not a film I would be dying to see in the first place anyway and it would not be my first choice in the summer blockbusters since they overshit us with this Dinosaurs. Also it is not a movie I would gladly see twice. I have to admit that there are impressive shots and new dinosaurs in this movie that have not been given so much attention in the past film.
Rated from 10, I would give a 6 to this movie. But don't have it on ur first choice in the "TOO SEE" catalog

See u guys

Demetris Thoupis

P.S: I am going to the army in my country and will not be able to post any other messages for at least a month.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-14-2001, 03:28 AM:

I just saw this. This probably ties Lost World in the "forgettable factor". I barely even remember Lost World and I have a feeling this one will be the same way. Was it me or did Sam Niell's voice sound waaay different in some scenes, especially when he is talking to the auditorium? Almost like a different person.

I liked it when the kid said "I liked the first one better". That was pretty amusing! Of course, it wouldn't be a Jurassic Park movie without some sort of obnoxious kid in it.

The editing sucked unwiped goat ass! There were an abundant amount of bad cuts that just threw me off. I was expecting something absolutely awesome since it is from the director of Jumanji. Oh wait... no I wasn't.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-15-2001, 03:11 AM:

I didn't know goats wiped. I think if I crapped pellets I would not have to wipe either! Uh, it's late. Some friends are screwing with the sound system and I need another beer.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-15-2001, 05:12 AM:

Bob Maar sent me some unsolicited photographs of goats wiping, so it must be true.

Never let friends screw YOUR sound system. Especially when beer is involved. And if you happen to have Yamaha equipment then you are in REALLY BIG TROUBLE! I'm sure you wouldn't buy Yamaha, though. Apex is much better.

Posted by Steven Pickles (Member # 785) on 07-18-2001, 01:01 AM:

Surprisingly enough I enjoyed this film. I cannot pin exactly what it is that I liked, but when put together it kept me entertained for the hour and a half that it was on screen. The storyline was a bit weak--and modeled Jurassic Park in some ways. The ending came out of nowhere and was disappointing to say the least. All that drama just goes nowhere—very poor editing in that respect—and then suddenly the film is over. I was annoyed how they left the plot open as well… as if there was to be yet another sequel. Perhaps they needed to stop while they were ahead. Overall I think it will do pretty good business considering its shortcomings.

Posted by Aldo Baez (Member # 790) on 07-18-2001, 04:26 AM:

The whole movie basically is three big scenes with dinosaurs. I didn't like it that much just the wow factor of the scenes. 1.5 out of 5 stars. It will make money though the crowds at my theatre gobble movies like this up.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 07-18-2001, 05:52 AM:

When reel 5 started I got scared that I'd put the reels in the wrong order, but I remembered it was the last reel so that's how it was supposed to be. PLEASE, NO MORE SEQUELS!

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 07-18-2001, 10:29 AM:

With a running time of 92 minutes, I didn't expect this to be a long, drawn-out clunker of a film, I was right: it was a short clunker of a film.
JP3 seems to be nothing more than a short episode of "The Idiots Run From the Dinosaurs Show." The film's action scenes are rushed & ordinary. I say ordinary because they're nothing different from the first 2 movies except for the fact that there's little setup for the scene which makes for hardly any suspense.

And as if sitting through an hour of watching the same chase sequences wasn't bad enough, the ending is totally unfulfilling, with no action and a confusing resolution.

I'll give it 2 out of 4 stars, though, because there were a couple of new action sequences that caught my eye (The bird cage, the river). I'd say that the only people who should see this one are kids ages 10-14, and anyone else who doesn't mind spending 90 minutes watching the same special effects with an unsatisfying ending.

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 07-18-2001, 08:40 PM:

I have no recollection of sending you pictures of my Goat, maybe my rabbit?

Hey

Where did you get that prettie girlie,
Where did you get that jolly dollie,
where did you get that dish, I wish, were mine.

We'll be friends until the end but
this looks like the end, my friend.

Question is: Who sang that song in what year?
for I want that dollie, for my own.

Posted by Les Daniels (Member # 931) on 07-19-2001, 01:01 AM:

A couple things about the movie, and I apologize for the spastic post, just a lot of random comments 'bout the movie.

I thought the satellite phone ringing was a cool touch...

I remember saying, "Good lord, they found the kid already?" As reiterated from an earlier post, it wouldn't be a Jurassic Park without a child being the motivation for the movie.
And yes, the movie was much scarier than it's predecessorss...

The fog was ridiculous... It's almost as if the screenwriters found a new toy and then overused it. I don't remember a really foggy scene in the first two.. and it's used WAY too much in this movie.

One thing that I can say I absolutely liked about this one was.. that Pterodactyls. I had been wanting to see that on the screen since I read the first Jurassic Park book.

Some things still continue to confuse me though, about the ending..
How did they know where to pick them up? And why in the hell did "government man" have a megaphone? Adding something so trivial for comedic purposes really takes away from the ending...

I also felt perturbed that the music was tarnished by the movie. The musical score fit perfectly in the first of the series.. but it seems almost trivial or out of place in this one. I do agree that the sound was absolutely awesome.. as always the sound effects were great with the Jurassic Park movies.

I know that we shook the dust off our speakers in our DTS theatre for the manager/projection screening the night before. (No, our speakers aren't dusty)

I give the movie a 4 out of 6 goat asses.

Posted by Gregory Brannon (Member # 405) on 07-19-2001, 09:14 AM:

I saw this movie last night at AMC Stonebriar in Frisco,Texas. Would you believe that the audience gave this movie a big amount of applause at the end.

Posted by JC Cowles (Member # 914) on 07-19-2001, 09:29 AM:

I hated this movie for one and only one reason...Tea Leoni didn't DIE! Most people hated Deep Impact, but I liked watching her get swept away by the big wave...I imagine her bones crushing and smile. Anyway, I was laughing my ass off when I saw her flipping out trying to get the skeleton untangled from her. That was cool.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 07-21-2001, 08:05 AM:

Saw it 1:30 pm friday moring (day of release)
(showing in 4 screens I think i was in the smallest

)
All in all I felt is was a good movie. It was short, way to short.
I agree that sometimes you shouild leave the audience wanting more. But this film made we want too much more. I would have worked with a just over 2 hour running length like the first 2 movies. Also I agree that there were too many people left alive at the end.

Sound mix was good but in the theatre i was in i didnt seem to hear all that many surround effects, but this may be dure to the rear speakers being placed very hight up on the walls combined with me sitting low down at the front. I also found that the music seemed too be too confined to the front channels. But the soundtrack had a very good amount of bass. And it should have been in scope. Other monster movies such as Godzilla made good use of the scope ratio.

Damn it was so short. I heard that the started shooting with an in-complete script? Could this by why it is short as they wanted to get the movie released as quick as possible.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-22-2001, 04:25 PM:

I think this movie is nothing more than a remake of just about every monster movie that's ever been made. If you go into it with that expectation you'll like it. If you want a good story or want to see great special effects forget it.

The movie going public demands more sophistication when it comes to monsters, nowadays. Back in the days of King Kong, and later on, Godzilla it was enough to put a guy in a rubber suit and have him stomp around the stage. Later on, with the Sinbad movies people started wanting to see more realistic monsters. As monster movies progressed through the years, on up to the days of Alien, things were pretty much at a standstill as far as technology goes. When Alien came out, they upped the ante again. Ever since then the "curve" has been getting steeper and steeper. (Yes, I know Star Wars was a big breakthrough in special effects. It did contribute to the artform but it wasn't a monster movie so I don't include it in the timeline.) It just took more and more realism to get the audience involved. Now, I think that curve has reached another plateau. With movies like The Mummy Returns we are seeing the special moster effects getting just a bit cheaper. I wonder whether the effects are actually worse or whether the people are just getting used to seeing special effects like that and are able to "spot" them easier.

No matter... if your taste is for seeing people get chewed up by dinosaurs this movie is for you.

I did like the soundtrack. The surround sound effects when the plane flies overhead get a good reaction from the audience. I've seen that scene about 6 times by now and you can still feel the whole audience jump when the plane flies over. The bit with the cell phone ringing off in the distance was a good joke too! When you first hear it ring you start to think, "OK! Who's the ass hole who didn't turn his phone off before the movie started!" Then, one of the characters picks up the a cell phone and says, "Hello?" That one made me laugh. Maybe Speilberg took it a little too far with the guy getting eaten and subsequently shat-out but the ringing phone "gag" did entertain me.

The one thing that bothered me is the idea that "All dinosaurs want to do is eat people". It's a bit of a stretch for me. I don't think dinosaurs would differentiate humans from any other source of food. As a matter of fact, I don't think a human would make a very satisfuing meal for a Tyranosaurus. I imagine that they'd go after something with a little more meat on its bones. Okay, if it wasn't for this there'd be no movie, right? The whole idea for this movie is a simple, "Stomp and Chomp", right?

Overall I'd give this movie ** (I'd watch it because I can get in free.)
Lost World would have gotten a *1/2 from me (I'd go see it only because my friends want to see it and I can get them in for free.) but Jurassic Park got a definate ***. (I might actually pay to see this movie.)
I say this to put the movie in perspective with the other two J.P flicks... I liked it better than the second one but not as much as the first.

Posted by Don Anderson (Member # 397) on 07-22-2001, 10:41 PM:

Have not seen it and have no desire to view it. Our local competitor is running it. On day one they already scratched the print. Plus, imagine watching this fine family entertainment, only to be into reel 3 when the audio track becomes Spanish, and English subtitles run for the rest of the movie. Ha, and they just replaced the reels this weekend! The corker is that they were not telling the patrons about the mixup. Oooops.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-23-2001, 08:02 AM:

Don said: "Our local competitor is running it. On day one they already
scratched the print. Plus, imagine watching this fine family entertainment, only to be into reel 3 when the audio
track becomes Spanish, and English subtitles run for the rest of the movie. Ha, and they just replaced the reels
this weekend! The corker is that they were not telling the patrons about the mixup."

Talk about "Film Done Wrong"! Scratching a brand new print is bad enough, but the hundreds of audience members they cheated with the subtitled Spanish print will probably think twice about going to a theatre again to see a movie. What a lack of Showmanship in the name of greed.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 07-23-2001, 11:15 AM:

" ... nothing more than a remake of just about every monster movie that's ever been made."

Yeah, and A.I. is ruling the box office!

Jurassic Park (the first) was loud. The Lost World was good -- it brought back the monster movie. Jurassic Park III is the best! And it's just the right length for a summer movie -- 90 minutes of fun. The stadium theater I go to made sure that the print was clean and the DTS sounded crisp. All the more enjoyable to see on a hot summer's day.

See it -- it's GREAT!

Don A: Which chain runs the theater that got a print with Spanish reels? The Film-Tech crew ought to know if this chain ever bothers to pre-screen a print for defects.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-23-2001, 03:54 PM:

Wouldn't it be great if about 10 of us Film-Tech guys all went to watch a show at that theatre at the same time and went out to the lobby and complained to the manager en masse?!

Posted by Jonathan Worthing (Member # 803) on 07-30-2001, 04:30 AM:

This film was the Worst film I have seen in a long time.

It was the first time I have been to the cinema in a long time,
(As a paying customer) by the end of the film I wished it had been a lot longer.

When will Directors realise that the paying customer needs value for money in a film not some poor sequel.

***Surely there is more to life than special effects***

This film gets a mark from me.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 08-03-2001, 03:36 PM:

As I said in another thread, I started watching Jurassic Park III because I had gone into the wrong auditorium (adjacent to the one I was supposed to be in) by mistake. I decided to watch it, since I hadn't seen it. I quickly got tired of gory scenes and all the dinosaur attacks and 30 minutes into the movie, I got up and walked out on it and went into the auditorium I was supposed to be in. A good movie, after 30 minutes, should "hook" you and make you want to stay. This didn't. It made me want to leave. I don't like gore. That pretty much sums up my feelings on this movie (and others like it). The first "Jurassic Park" is the only one I've ever wanted to see more than once. I saw "Lost World" once and have never watched it again, even though I have the laserdisc and DVD. I didn't even want to see the third one ONCE!

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 08-07-2001, 09:42 AM:

Was okay as part of an outdoor "all-nighter" this past holiday weekend, but help me here. I didn't see JPII, but I don't remember
the first one being so gory, is the idea that the kids who were 9 & 10 then are now late-teens and WANT the gore?

And my solution for the abrupt ending is: Just when are mom and dad,
who basically kidnapped a bunch a people by writing fraudulent cheques and lying, which ends up KILLING 5 or 6 people just to save one kid (who they didn't know would be alive anyway), when do they get cuffed and hauled off to prison, oughta be 10-15 more minutes there............

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 09-02-2001, 03:32 AM:

>>I saw this movie last night at AMC Stonebriar in Frisco,Texas. Would you believe that the audience gave this movie a big amount of applause at the end.<<

Geez , those Texans, eh?

This is definately suffering from what I like to call 'Sequel-itis' and it's not showing any signs of healing up!

I especially liked the scene where the dinosaur (T-rex?) managed to 'sneak' up on them and they only knew he was there because they could hear a cell-phone ringing which was inside the T-rex's stomach in some poor suckers pocket. Of course, if a T-rex was walking up to me...that'd be the first thing I heard.

It is short, but it's plenty thanks very much. Next time, try shooting with a SCRIPT!

No wonder films don't last anymore... 2 good weeks (if you're lucky) and that's it! Only films with a half decent script have the legs to go the distance.

I've said it before... SCRIPT, SCRIPT, SCRIPT! Everything else is secondary. They should be ashamed of themselves starting shooting on an incomplete script. There should be multiple drafts before shooting gets anywhere near starting.

------------------
"There's so much I don't know about Astro-Physics...wish I'd read that book by that wheel chair guy" Homer Simpson