by Billy Russell, Staff Writer

When Jurassic Park, the original, came out, it was the summer I was about to turn seven years old. It was the perfect time for me. What seven year old doesn’t love dinosaurs? And Jurassic Park introduced me to new (albeit exaggerated and fictionalized versions of) dinosaurs I never knew existed.

The second one, The Lost World: Jurassic Park came out when I was 11. I was a pre-teen and the movie’s bizarre, ugly cynicism was embraced by me. It was like we had both aged four years at that point and met each other.

Now, when Jurassic Park III came out, yet four more years later after that, by then I was 15. I was a teenager. I didn’t give a shit about dinosaurs anymore. I was learning how to be a shitty snob who sneered his nose at popular things. I skipped out on it entirely. I didn’t wind up seeing it until years later, thought it was very meh, very fine, and didn’t have any need or desire to see it again until now, its 20th anniversary, to revisit it, its time and place, and see how it holds up in the original trilogy of films.

Whereas Jurassic Park is a timeless classic, Jurassic Park III feels very specific to its early 2000s period, even more specifically to early 2000s Universal Pictures who was proudly cranking out B-movies with a budget. You had this, The Mummy Returns and the beginning of the Fast & Furious franchise. Jurassic Park III feels more at home with those titles than it does with Jurassic Park. It’s more solidly a monster movie than the original. The animals no longer behave like animals who eat when hungry or attack when they feel threatened, they’re monsters who seek out our human characters and wish to murder them. They’re plot devices. They’re meant to pop up just when things are going okay, to say, “Boo!” and maybe munch on someone if the story allows it.

It is definitely an improvement over the second installment, which to me feels as strange in its darker setting as Temple of Doom did for me. I understand sequels venturing into darker territory and exploring those themes (it works great for Empire Strikes Back and Majora’s Mask), but it just doesn’t work with the wonderment and fantasy of real-life dinosaurs returned to life. The Lost World is a mess, with shitty characters behaving shittily, elaborate set-pieces that don’t mean anything or go anywhere, and a whole climax in San Diego that doesn’t work. I understand Spielberg was trying to make his own version of King Kong, but it doesn’t feel like an extension of what came before it, it feels like a clumsy addition to a house built without a permit.

Jurassic Park III returns the wonder, characters who are mostly likable people and when the screaming starts, it doesn’t stop. It’s full-throttle the entire time. It’s nowhere near as good as the original and it’s a sight better than the one right before it. Joe Johnston took over directorial duties for Steven Spielberg and he’s no stranger to popcorn flicks. I’m a big fan of some of his work. He’s a hired gun, and when he hits, he hits. When he misses, oh well, he’ll try again.

Some elements of JPIII work better than others. I like that it seems to be a happy marriage between he first and second movie. I like that it combines the awe of the original with the crumbling, isolated labs of the second one. It has this post-apocalyptic feel to it. I do like that it’s proudly a B-movie, this is very much like a movie that would have a “!” at the end of it if it were released in the 1950s.

But there’s no reason why the special effects are as bad this time around. It’s a B-movie in feel, but in budget, it cost damn near $100 million. It cost more than both of its predecessors, but it looks worse. Some of the creature re-designs are baffling. Adding feathers to the raptors, cartoonish red shading to the brachiosaurus… it makes them look goofy. And deciding that the T-rex was no longer the big bad, but instead a new dinosaur, the spinosaurus, another strange decision. The spinosaurus is 20% bigger but about half as cool. It looks lame and it has no personality. The T-rex works because we already know it by the time we meet it officially--it’s a hunter, Grant says.

The original Jurassic Park trilogy has been filled with highs and lows. The original, I love as much today as I did when I was a kid. The second, I admire for its effort--Spielberg swung for the fences and man, did he miss. The third is a genuinely fun outing with some clever action and is mercifully short. In between bursts of running and hiding, though, there are quiet moments between characters that work. William H. Macy and Tea Leoni play a divorced couple working through their emotions as they look for their missing son. Sam Neill even has some room for growth in this picture after the first one, finding new ways to come to terms with himself in a world that doesn’t quite make sense.

But Jurassic World, I will never understand. I’m perfectly fine with an overblown CGI picture not being for me, but Jurassic World has a cruelty to it that confuses me. It’s not smart enough to be as cynical as it is. It needs to earn that world-wariness. It’s every bit as dumb as JPIII without any of the pathos. It has nothing interesting to say about growing as humans, it just takes everything that’s been said before and says it again in a stupider, angrier way.

So, for all the shit Jurassic Park III gets, it at least succeeds at what it’s trying to be.