Jurassic Park 3 (Film): Critique 2/2

*****SPOILERS*****

 

 

References and Humour

 

This film has a few references to the first film, presumably to capture some of the magic. Just little details for the audience to recognise. (There are also some references to the second film, such as lucky bags.)

In the first film, the t-rex saves the characters from raptors. Hence the audience might expect the t-rex to save them from the Spinosaurus. It does this for a brief moment by distracting the Spinosaurs. The t-rex dying means this solution isn’t permanent, hence the filmmakers simultaneously confirmed and denied our expectations.

In the first film, Grant only agrees to go with Hammond because Hammond promised funding for Grant’s dig. The same happened in this film when the Kirbys offered Grant funding.

In this film and the first, they look through piles of dinosaur faeces. (Both piles look to be similar heights, too.) They’re searching for different things, differentiating them during a comparison.

At the end of the first film, a pelican flies next to the helicopter alongside sad music. This is copied in this film, only the pelican is replaced by the pterosaur.

 

There was plenty of humour.

In reference with going to the dinosaur island, the guard says, “It will be a walk in the park.” Considering this phrase means ‘easy and problem-free’, this is shown to be completely false. Yet in the literal sense, they do walk on the property (and essentially storage) of Jurassic Park.

Billy is teaching a student the texture difference between rocks and fossils. Somehow, he managed to turn it into a flirting exercise.

Alan is asked, “Do you like computers?” to which he replies, “I like the abacus.”

Paul vividly describes a fishing trip that was a complete disaster. Then he says wistfully, “I miss fishing.” To miss something that failed so badly is in itself funny. But he misses fishing because of how awful their current experiences are on the dinosaur island, putting a normal fishing disaster into perspective.

Alan walks off and the guard tells the Kirbys, “We’ll look for your son… in the direction they’re going.”

 

 

Problems

 

There were a few odd moments.

Grant dreams of this film’s new design of male raptor. But Grant hasn’t seen a male raptor yet, so how could he perfectly dream of one?

A tall metal fence with wires was designed to keep the dinosaurs contained yet the Spinosaurus manages to breaks through. Yet the Spinosaurus couldn’t break down the wooden door of the observatory because of a few measly locks? This didn’t make sense.

The sound levels jumped all over the place in this film. It’s very annoying to keep on changing the volume. A film’s meant to be watched, not directly participated with.

 

The Kirbys behaved oddly.

The bar scene is really loud. That’s fine. But Grant and the Kirbys spoke really quietly. Yes, they wanted a private conversation, but people have to speak up to be heard over loud bar music. So to have a quiet conversation in this setting was daft.

Also, the Kirbys knew they wanted a private conversation. Why, then, did they choose a loud, public place? Not only is public the opposite of private, but having to shout risks other people overhearing, therefore making the conversation even more public. So the Kirbys’ setting choice makes no sense.

Amanda’s arm movements during and after her screams are too long super flail-y, as if she has no bones. It just doesn’t look quite right, as if she over-acted or the director had weird ideas.

 

Sometimes Eric’s behaviour doesn’t make sense. Not only for humans in general but in relation to him specifically (i.e. his intelligence).

Eric’s door is wide open, allowing broad daylight to come inside. Yet he switches on a lamp. He says the lamps are running out of power, so why would he use the lamps when he didn’t need to? He’s smart so he should definitely know better than to waste stuff. Even if he wasn’t smart, the fact that he’s survived so long by himself shows that he clearly has common sense: wasting energy when it’s not necessary goes against common sense.

Whilst it rains, Eric shouts for the others to come to him… but they were barely a few metres away. The rain wasn’t loud enough to warrant that volume. Is it perhaps interesting that Eric shouts over quiet rain whilst earlier his parents whispered beneath loud bar music?

 

There were pterosaur problems.

When Amanda crosses a bridge in the bird pen, there are sounds like pigeon wings. Now, pigeon wings are small and feathered. Size and texture affect wing sounds. So, for a pterosaur’s big, featherless wings to sound like a pigeon’s small, feathered wings is ridiculous.

The pterosaurs are contained within the bird pen. However, at the end of the second film, a pterosaur lands on a tree next to dinosaurs and there’s no cage in the sky. Both films happen on the same islands so the pterosaurs should be faced with the same living situations. Did a few somehow get free after the second movie? There could be a feasible explanation. But filmmakers need to explain something if it otherwise contradicts previous things.

 

 

Conclusion

 

This film was okay.

After how brilliant the first two films were, having a sequel like this was underwhelming. Maybe it would have been perceived better if it were an independent dinosaur movie, meaning it wouldn’t have to live up to expectations? Or perhaps riding the coattails of its predecessors was the only reason it did as well as it did?

The second film was so funny, thanks to Malcolm being the main character. In this film, serious Grant is the main character, changing the tone of the movie completely. That’s fine. Without some sort of comic relief character, though, this change in tone is far too dramatic. Yes, no funny character could fill the void of Malcolm, but it would have taken the edge off the drastic difference between films.

Still, the film isn’t bad. I definitely watch it and enjoy the good bits. The fire-water, the presentation of raptor intelligence, the short presence of the t-rex, the safe cage becoming drownsville: there were many frankly excellent decisions. Yet the constant bad decisions limit how much the good can be enjoyed.

I don’t hate Jurassic Park 3 but it’s definitely disappointing that it doesn’t live up to its predecessors.