Boobirt Stylish but barely mediocre overall

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Carlos King Seeing Jaws 3-D makes me wonder if I was too harsh on Jaws 2. I recently reviewed Jaws 2 and criticized its sloppy and poor storytelling and pacing, but nonetheless thought it had moments of good film-making, especially in its action set-pieces - so you had a decent, albeit not exceptional movie. Well, the third Jaws movie makes Jaws 2 look like Jaws. Jaws 3-D is a movie that, to my astonishment, makes me feel nothing. Well almost nothing. The only emotion that stirred inside me during its entire one hour and forty minutes... was embarrassment for this "amateur hour." I was mildly interested in seeing the movie because it seemed to be the last Jaws movie with the crew of the previous movies working on it. Longtime Spielberg production designer Joe Alves directed, as he was a second unit director on the previous movies and played a part in getting them to look good. Jaws 3-D was also the last Jaws screenplay penned by Carl Gottlieb. Gottlieb, who contributed to the screenplay of Jaws and largely wrote Jaws 2, had shown some competency in staging suspenseful scenes and allowing moments for characters to breathe and develop. I am not sure if they were under strain from studio executives, but it is clear watching Jaws 3-D why Alves never directed again, and why Gottlieb's writing career more or less fizzled out after this movie. Characters, such as the two Brody sons, have little character and less to do. There's no meaningful exchanges between the brothers or other Sea World workers, or the park owner (an enjoyably slimy performance by Lou Gosset), or the Australian... hunter? photographer? Even Jaws 2 managed to have moments where people acted (even if that was rare). Here everyone goes through the motions. Dennis Quaid gets his paycheck. Sean Brody, played indistinctly by John Putch, has a... uh, character arc where he's afraid of the water, but gets over it because a hot chick offers to bang him by the beach. I guess that's character development. But he leaves the movie two-thirds of the way through, severing one more connection with the series' cast and history that we have grown attached to. Now, I am always for movies, especially genre/franchise flicks bucking convention and cleverly moving past their forebears, but without good writing or characters, all those efforts are worthless. Jaws 2 didn't have a particularly strong script, so it leaned on the setting of Amity Island, and some familiar faces to make up the deficit. Jaws 3-D thought it could lean on the setting of Sea World and the presence of other sea creatures like dolphins, orca, and the like. The outcome is a total dud, and cynical misjudge of what will keep the audience engaged. The setting is totally wasted - see Deep Blue Sea to see a film that at least tries to take advantage of its location in an underwater observatory. Making an amusement park the site of widespread bloodshed and chaos has immediate potential (see: Jurassic Park), but Universal did not seem to want to spend the money fleshing the premise out, so what is left is a real cheap production: extending from the sets all the way to the marquis attraction - the shark itself.The shark has never looked so bad. Jaws 2 showed off a shark that was in some ways superior to the original, and the resultant construction allowed for some inventive and fun action scenes from the director and crew. In Jaws 3-D the shark was stiff, mostly motionless, and seemed to have consisted of a single model that was capable of opening its mouth and wiggling a little bit. The action scenes were mundane and executed in a dull manner and lacked the dynamic camera movements and smart cuts of the previous movie. Instead, we have "fin chases something in the water" scenes, mixed with some laughable "shark-torpedo" moments where the shark slowly inches towards something to attack. The film's other effects are likewise poor. The optical shots and overlays were so so shoddy that you wonder how anyone signed off on them, other than slimy producers looking for a quick buck. They say that while making Jaws Spielberg called the SFX crew the "special defects department." He had no clue how good he had it. Here's a rule for creature movies. If you can't show the monster all the time, at least have a good writing/actors. If you can't have good writing/characters, than at least keep the thing short and moving so my time isn't wasted. Jaws 3-D wastes your time and feels longer than its 1hr40min length because it lacks a good monster, good performances or writing, and has a terminally slow pace riddled with filler. Jaws 2 had me pining for more shark scenes. When compared to Jaws 3-D, Jaws 2 feels like non-stop shark tail slapping you in your groin. The movie tries to pull of some cheap jump-scares and gross-outs, but the make-up and special effects are c-movie grade and incredibly silly. Worse still, they are spread out so far and few that they are less like exclamation points than they are a dull rapping on the TV screen to make sure you are still awake. Is there anything positive about Jaws 3-D? Surprisingly, yes! The music, composed by Alan Parker is fun, adventurous, and well-suited to the action. While leaning on the score of John Williams, it nonetheless manages to achieve its own sound and feels fresh and enjoyable. Mr. Parker deserves a commendation for doing the best he could with a bad source. It's a shame he seemed to retreat largely into made-for-TV movies after this, never getting a huge Hollywood movie to sink his teeth into again.In summation: this movie definitely feels like the death-knell for this "franchise." There wasn't even enough happening to offer a "so bad it's good" experience! Despite having a few of the original hands working on it, the movie demonstrated that they lacked the skill, the time, or the artistic freedom to bring about something worthwhile. I'll give it to the crew of Jaws 2: they tried to make a good movie, they just didn't really succeed. The makers of Jaws 3-D didn't even try!

tbm1185 I know most people think the last Jaws movie is terrible but, it is a classic compared to this one. There are so many issues with this one and I want to point out some of the highlights or low-lights depending on how you look at it.1. Obviously anybody watching this movie is watching it for the shark but, they could have at least attempted to give some attention to the characters and stories. The only time this movie has your interest at all is when the shark is present. It felt like all the actors/actresses were just going through the motions but, you can't blame them when you consider what they're working with.2. Why was so much of the movie almost pitch black? I realize that it wouldn't be realistic for it to bright underwater, especially at night but, enough light to actually see what is happening would've been nice. There are many scenes where you might as well close your eyes since you can't make anything out. That includes most of the final 10 or 15 minutes and a scene early on that is not even in the water.3. As I stated earlier, you are watching because of the shark but, you don't really see much of it and it's too dark to actually see it most of the time it is on screen.4. This is not so much a complaint as an observation. Watch for a special effect shot at the end that is so bad, it's hard to believe it made it into the movie even if it was a 3-D shot. It's the next to last 3-D shot if I remember correctly.

tdrish Jaws 3-D is exactly what you would expect...another atrocious sequel barreling down a needless franchise. Truth be told, Jaws 2 didn't even need to be made, Jaws was fine the way it was. Try telling that to a bunch of money hungry, quick cash grabbing freaks who got away with highway robbery. Oh, the film got its money back, but what's left behind? A legacy? Highly doubtful. Not to mention the story line is laughably unbelievable. It's a little late to be watching this in 3D, but if you want to settle in to watch a bad 80's flick, this is for you.

bigpapapumpct JAWS 3-D gets a lot of undeserved hate. The film isn't nearly as bad as most people seem to think it is. It's actually a fun and enjoyable piece of early 80s cinema. The score is great, mixing old themes with all new ones. It really fits the setting well. Most of the characters are likable, interesting, and just plain funny (which adds to the enjoyment of the film) and the story itself makes for a fine old- school monster movie. A lot of the underwater scenes are dark and grainy but that just goes to enhance the atmosphere and make it even more spooky. All of the actors play their parts well. Dennis Quaid is great as always. Lea Thomson, Louis Gossett Jr., John Putch, Simon MacCorkindale, and P. H. Moriarty all do a fine job. Bess Armstrong is probably the most annoying of the bunch but over time she's grown on me. I don't find her to be quite so bad anymore. Overall, nobody does a bad job. The first half of the film has the reputation of being boring because there is limited "shark action," but to me this is the best part. This is the period that sets the mood and allows us to get to know all of the characters and builds suspense toward the eventual encounter because we know the shark is trapped in the park. By the time the second half starts and the "shark action" really kicks into overdrive, everything has been established, the stakes have been raised, and it just makes it all the more interesting. A lot of the 3D effects look extremely corny, especially seeing them in 2D, but that just adds to the film's overall charm. Comparing it to today's slick, ultra-glossy, extremely fake looking CGI and I greatly prefer the old cheesy effects. At least they're unique and charming rather than lifeless and completely devoid of any emotion at all (like CGI). But of all the film's complaints, the effects seem to be what gets the most scorn, and I believe that to be the main reason why the film has the reputation it does. Most people can't seem to get past the peculiar effects. The shark itself doesn't look amazing, but I definitely prefer it to the shark from either 2 or 4. But at the end of the day, I guess the bottom line for all the effects is if you're specifically looking to criticize the film for it, you'll definitely have plenty to work with. But if you're able to just sit back and enjoy the film for what it is and look past its superficial flaws, you'll have an extremely fun and enjoyable experience. The key is to watch this film on its own and not right after the original or any of the others. Let's face it, the original JAWS is not only the best film in the franchise, it's the greatest shark movie ever made and one of the best films period of all time. Most films aren't going to measure up. The second film isn't terrible but it's definitely a major step down from the first and can be quite boring to get through, especially on repeat viewings. The fourth movie (Revenge) is a notoriously bad facepalm-inducing catastrophe of epic proportions. It literally killed off the franchise and isn't worth talking about beyond that. As a whole though, 1, 2, and 4 seem to be the real trilogy of this franchise (though I personally prefer it as 1, 2, 3). As is though, JAWS 3-D is the outlier in look, feel, and setting, but boy is it better for it. It's far and away better and more interesting than either sequel, by a long shot. It isn't boring and it certainly isn't awful. You just have to see it for what it is.... a fun, cheesy, 80s monster movie with uniquely odd effects. If you give it a chance, it may grow on you.