My least favorite of the three - which still makes it a decent flick

Rating: 6/10 (20 November 2007)

I am a huge fan of Jurassic Park. If anything I enjoy the books more than I do the movies. And that it precisely what bothers me about this film.
The first point I would like to make against this film is that it starts out by getting preachy really fast. I'm sorry but I am with Peter Ludlow when he says (and it was actually Lew Dodgson who said the same line verbatim in the book) "an extinct animal that is brought back to life has no rights. It exists because we made it; we patented it, we own it.
My other beef is with two of the main characters Sarah Harding and Kelly. I could not think of two more inaccurate transitions from book to big-screen. Sarah Harding comes off as a bit of a hypocrite when, after she has just finished petting a baby stegosaurus, she insists that they are here to observe and document, not interact. That made no sense. And how does a gawky geeky white girl become a black gymnast? The absolute dumbest scene has to be when she uses her skills as a gymnast to knock a velociraptor through a window where it is impaled on a piece of re-bar. The slow swaggering strut that she uses just before she launches herself onto some conveniently placed bars is just revolting. Honestly, would a person act like that when facing down a three-hundred pound predator ready to eat them? Idiotic and poorly done human characters aside, the rest of the movie is excellent. The dinosaurs look even better than they did in the first film. And I don't care how campy the T-Rex attack in San Deigo is, or how much this deviates from the book, it is still one of my favorite Dino vs. Human sequences in cinema.
I would still recommend this movie as a dinosaur flick. It looks pretty and is still quite fun. You just have to close your eyes and stuff cotton into your ears whenever things get preachy or the characters open their mouths and stupid comes out.