Jonas-4
Joined Mar 2001
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges5
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews12
Jonas-4's rating
I really enjoyed the first installment of the Lord of the Rings. It worked on just about every level, and was as good of an adaptation as I could have imagined. I saw the midnight showing and have watched it three more times on DVD since, and it has yet to get old. I liked The Two Towers, but less so. I was tired when I saw it at midnight, for one. Two, there were far too many changes to the book for my liking. Three, it suffered from being the middle part of the trilogy. There was a pervasive air of desperation throughout the whole movie; and without any major changes in setting, plot or character to offset that, the movie suffered. I liked it overall, but watched it just once on DVD and did not enjoy it anymore.
I think I will like The Two Towers more now. One gets the sense when watching Return of the King that Peter Jackson (like J.R.R. Tolkein did) views the Lord of the Rings as one work, one film. One that will not be complete until we have the extended DVDs in our living rooms and we can watch them all sequentially (all eleven hours of it). If anyone was disappointed with any individual installment of the trilogy, as I was, I recommend holding your judgment until it can be experienced as a homogenous whole.
That said, Return of the King works on its own, provided you remember the other two films vividly. The battle scenes are more epic than ever, truly awe inspiring. Frodo and Sam are given a lot more to do in this one; their journey had all of the interesting stuff saved up for the last film, and it feels a lot more like the book for them. Merry and Pippin finally have something to do other than act like idiots, and it brings forth some great performances. The characters of Legolas and Gimli, alas, are reduced to pure comic relief and action, but I suppose sacrifices had to be made. Disappointing nonetheless. Gandalf seems a lot more human in this film, as opposed to the grandoise pomp of his character in The Two Towers.
The plot rolls along very well, and the scenes last just the right amount of time. You may have heard that the end is too long, and it is. Keep in mind though, that the people saying this were in uncomfortable chairs at four in the morning. More importantly, as a conclusion to the film, it is too long. As a conclusion to the series, it is the right length, further cementing the idea that all of this is irrelevant until we can experience The Lord of the Rings as one film. I'll be waiting until then, but make sure you see this in the theater once, to experience the grand battles in their big-screen glory.
I think I will like The Two Towers more now. One gets the sense when watching Return of the King that Peter Jackson (like J.R.R. Tolkein did) views the Lord of the Rings as one work, one film. One that will not be complete until we have the extended DVDs in our living rooms and we can watch them all sequentially (all eleven hours of it). If anyone was disappointed with any individual installment of the trilogy, as I was, I recommend holding your judgment until it can be experienced as a homogenous whole.
That said, Return of the King works on its own, provided you remember the other two films vividly. The battle scenes are more epic than ever, truly awe inspiring. Frodo and Sam are given a lot more to do in this one; their journey had all of the interesting stuff saved up for the last film, and it feels a lot more like the book for them. Merry and Pippin finally have something to do other than act like idiots, and it brings forth some great performances. The characters of Legolas and Gimli, alas, are reduced to pure comic relief and action, but I suppose sacrifices had to be made. Disappointing nonetheless. Gandalf seems a lot more human in this film, as opposed to the grandoise pomp of his character in The Two Towers.
The plot rolls along very well, and the scenes last just the right amount of time. You may have heard that the end is too long, and it is. Keep in mind though, that the people saying this were in uncomfortable chairs at four in the morning. More importantly, as a conclusion to the film, it is too long. As a conclusion to the series, it is the right length, further cementing the idea that all of this is irrelevant until we can experience The Lord of the Rings as one film. I'll be waiting until then, but make sure you see this in the theater once, to experience the grand battles in their big-screen glory.
Keep in mind as I write that I grew up with the Lord of the Rings. So I suppose I am another one of these "fan boys" that loved it to death simply because it's any nerd's wet dream to see the books come to life.
However, the books were flawed greatly. Basis of all modern fantasy or not, Tolkien rambles, and is not the most intriguing writer of his generation, contrary to what many say.
That said, Peter Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring is a brilliant movie. Gone are long, dragging scenes from the novel, like the one in Mirkwood. Even without such excess baggage, the film still runs 3 hours, which means that enough of the novel is retained to satisfy all but the most rabid fans.
But let me skip the know-it-all perspective and get down to what you want to know. The fight scenes are wonderfully choreographed, the acting ranges from acceptable to great, the special effects are good, the film's pacing is excellent considering its length, and yes, every important scene in the book is preserved and represented well. Certain things are explained numerous times so as to get the casual fans to understand; others are not explained enough, but overall I had no problem with how much history was divulged. Keep in mind that I read the books. I cannot tell you if a virgin-Tolkeinite would understand this film fully.
I suppose the most impressive thing about Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring is the pervading feeling of desperation and abject terror. Most movies are content to tell you that the characters are scared of something. The Fellowship of the Ring draws you in and frightens you too. There were scenes when my muscles were clenched throughout, hoping desperately that my heroes would escape, despite technically already knowing what happens. The orcs and other evil forces are mostly convincing. The power of the ring, shown in various scenes throughout the movie, is downright terrifying. Those with children be warned: this movie is not to be confused with Harry Potter. The epic, seemingly hopeless battle between good and evil is likely to much for many small children to handle.
Overall, The Fellowship of the Ring is a very faithful adaptation of the novel. After the movie was over I was already giddy with anticipation of the next installment. You'd better believe that before that happens, I will see The Fellowship of the Ring again, and perhaps read through the books a third time if I have a chance. A thrilling epic, I rate this a 9/10.
However, the books were flawed greatly. Basis of all modern fantasy or not, Tolkien rambles, and is not the most intriguing writer of his generation, contrary to what many say.
That said, Peter Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring is a brilliant movie. Gone are long, dragging scenes from the novel, like the one in Mirkwood. Even without such excess baggage, the film still runs 3 hours, which means that enough of the novel is retained to satisfy all but the most rabid fans.
But let me skip the know-it-all perspective and get down to what you want to know. The fight scenes are wonderfully choreographed, the acting ranges from acceptable to great, the special effects are good, the film's pacing is excellent considering its length, and yes, every important scene in the book is preserved and represented well. Certain things are explained numerous times so as to get the casual fans to understand; others are not explained enough, but overall I had no problem with how much history was divulged. Keep in mind that I read the books. I cannot tell you if a virgin-Tolkeinite would understand this film fully.
I suppose the most impressive thing about Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring is the pervading feeling of desperation and abject terror. Most movies are content to tell you that the characters are scared of something. The Fellowship of the Ring draws you in and frightens you too. There were scenes when my muscles were clenched throughout, hoping desperately that my heroes would escape, despite technically already knowing what happens. The orcs and other evil forces are mostly convincing. The power of the ring, shown in various scenes throughout the movie, is downright terrifying. Those with children be warned: this movie is not to be confused with Harry Potter. The epic, seemingly hopeless battle between good and evil is likely to much for many small children to handle.
Overall, The Fellowship of the Ring is a very faithful adaptation of the novel. After the movie was over I was already giddy with anticipation of the next installment. You'd better believe that before that happens, I will see The Fellowship of the Ring again, and perhaps read through the books a third time if I have a chance. A thrilling epic, I rate this a 9/10.
Not the best WrestleMania ever in terms of actual wrestling quality, but what true fan doesn't love to see all their favorite guys battle it out in a tournament for the richest prize in the game? Jake Roberts vs. Rick Rude and Ted DiBiase vs. Randy Savage were both arguable classics, with a few more real good matches in the first round. The only problem is that there were a few too many matches, which meant that none of them were very long. Still, a very unique and memorable event.