Jonas-4 Reviews

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

Fitting end to the trilogy

[9/10 · 17 December 2003]

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.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

A faithful, excellent adaptation

[10/10 · 19 December 2001]

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.

WrestleMania IV (1988 TV Special)

A wrestling fans WrestleMania

[7/10 · 28 October 2001]

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.

WrestleMania 2 (1986 TV Special)

A terrible PPV

[2/10 · 28 October 2001]

This was the worst Wrestlemania in history. The only good matches were Ricky Steamboat vs. Hercules Hernandez, and the tag title match between the British Bulldogs and the Dream Team (this one bordered on classic). Everything else was either poor or awful. The idea of having three host cities was unnecessary, confusing and messed up the fluidity of the show. The celebrity guests were terrible on commentary, especially Susan Saint James.

If you're interested in the mid 80's WWF, you're better renting or buying Wrestlemania 3, or just about any other PPV for that matter.

Unbreakable (2000)

An intriguing movie.

[8/10 · 28 June 2001]

M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable is an intriguing movie in nearly every aspect. That is not to say that it is a good movie in every aspect.

My main problem with the film is that too often Shyamalan used "interesting" camera angles. Whether or not they added something to the film is arguable, but they were certainly distracting. One part that comes to mind is when an entire scene is viewed through the reflection off a TV. When watching the scene I was no longer paying attention to what the characters were saying. Instead I was just wondering why in the hell Shyamalan decided to use that shot. Anything that distracts a viewer from a film like that cannot be good.

The only other complaint I have with the movie is the lack of life in it. All the actors are directed to act troubled, however in doing so Bruce Willis comes across as disturbed. Since I cannot see inside the heads of the characters I am left feeling alienated as these characters deal with their issues inside their own minds. And yes, the movie is slowly paced. I never lost interest, but I can see how someone with a shorter attention span could do so very quickly with this movie. The plot was stretched out just a bit too much.

But perhaps I am being nit-picky. I enjoyed Unbreakable overall. It posed some interesting questions (are you taking the right path in life?; how many strange occurances can your mind dismiss?). As for the twist at the end, I did not see it coming, and I thought it finished the movie wonderfully.

And here comes the dreaded but inevitable comparisson to the Sixth Sense. Unbreakable was just too similar to Shyamalan's previous effort: both are slowly paced supernatural thrillers starring Bruce Willis with a thick, dark atmosphere and a huge swerve at the end. The only positive part of that is that Like the Sixth Sense, I did not see the twist at the end coming, which means I was able to think back about everything I saw in the movie and slap myself on the forehead shouting, "Doh, I'm an idiot!"

For that feeling alone (a rarity in today's film world) this movie is worth seeing. However I was hoping for a bit more after the fantastic Sixth Sense. I was hoping for something a little different.

Quiz Show (1994)

An above average movie made great by incredible performances.

[10/10 · 4 March 2001]

There isn't much to the plot of Quiz Show. A government agent goes on a quest to prove that executives of the TV quiz show "Twenty-One" fed their contestants the answers (which, of course, they did). Thus chaos insues as this affects the lives of many people.

This otherwise average movie is made great by unforgettable performances by John Turturro as the nerdy quiz show contestant Herbie Stempel and by Rob Morrow as the congressional oversight commitee worker Dick Goodwinn. David Paymer ads his character acting expertise as the man behind the scandal, while Ralph Fiennes does a fine job as Charles Van Doren, a respected educator who also cheats on the quiz show.

This movie is very slow-paced, and may leave those who didn't live during the time period wondering what the big deal is; but if you want to see some great performances and a terrific script, see Quiz Show.

Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000)

Ugh.

[3/10 · 28 October 2000]

My, what a showcase of terrible movie making. Every film student should see this movie just so that they know what NOT to do.

First of all, the script (I use that term loosely) was terrible. The story seemed like a set-up for another story, never really developing itself. Furthermore, the entire movie is interrupted by annoying "flash forwards" that seem to serve little purpose other than giving away the ending.

The characters are completely undeveloped. The gothic chick, the guide, and the witch are all nothing more than stereotypes; while the other two characters don't have definitive personalities. This might have something to do with the fact that we are never properly introduced to the characters, as we meet them all within a minute.

The acting is certainly not the worst I have ever seen, but it is definitely not good either. Then again, it is hard to tell how good an actor is when they are given only stilted dialogue to speak.

Overall, this movie is fairly disappointing. I was expecting a bad movie, and I got just that. The only redeeming quality is that you are never really sure if what is going on is real or not...which can be a good thing, but not when you base the entire movie on that concept. Not recommended at all.

Mallrats (1995)

Defining film of a generation

[6/10 · 15 January 2000]

There are so few films that have adequately displayed the life of today's (or is it yesterday's?) slackers. Mallrats does this perfectly, while remaining hilarious all the while. Critics dismissed this film as Kevin Smith 'selling out.' Why is this? Because it had a happy ending? Since when were happy endings evidence of a bad film? Mallrats is by far Smith's funniest film, even if it isn't considered his best. Jason Lee gives an inspired performance, but Jeremy London does little more than avoid ruining the movie.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Pretty good.

[6/10 · 19 May 1999]

***

This movie, after it all, is pretty good. It is visually astounding, incredibly exciting, and sometimes, annoying. The movie has many aspects put in so that children under 12 will enjoy it more, although I doubt that they did. The children that are immature enough to laugh at the idiocy of Jar Jar Binks(an insanely irritating, unnecessary character) probably will be too distracted by the bright colors and shiny things to actually listen to the dialogue. The story is uneven. It seems unsure of what it wants to focus on, Anakin or the invasion, so it unsuccessfully attempts to connect the two. Now, this is just a set-up movie and I have hopes that Episodes 2 & 3 will be great. This hope is due in part to the fact that the finale of the movie was great. After watching for two hours, I finally cared what happened to Obi-Wan and the rest. I won't reveal the ending, but let's just say it was awesome. Since, however, few scenes of the invasion were shown, I found myself not caring about what happened to the people of Naboo. The jedis were exciting and Darth Maul (not used enough!) was great. It seems as if I've bashed it a lot, but the movie was pretty good.

October Sky (1999)

Pretty good

[8/10 · 14 February 1999]

I saw a sneak preview on Feb. 14, expecting a great movie, because of the critical raves. That's usually a bad thing to do going into a movie, but in this case, it didn't take from the movie at all. It was a good film, but not great. Sort of a cross between Stand By Me and any film about defying parents (take your pick). I can't say the acting was anything great, but the story was relatively captivating and the screenplay was good. Don't go out of your way to catch this movie, but see it if you have the time.

Patch Adams (1998)

Don't see it.

[4/10 · 14 February 1999]

* * I went into this movie expecting some of the usual Robin Williams gags and "touching" sentiment, but instead I got tripe. The first hour of this movie seems to be an excuse for childish, not very funny humor. This is followed by an hour of preachy speeches on how our medical system is wrong. I'll admit, I did laugh sometimes and did agree with Dr. Adams on some things, but overall, the script was terrible and the overall presentation was pretty bad.

Rounders (1998)

Good overall, great cast

[9/10 · 14 February 1999]

* * * I can only say 2 words after watching this movie- great cast. The entire cast was in top notch form, especially Edward Norton and John Tuturro. Although the movie was not great, deep and provocative, it was thoroughly entertaining and attempted avoiding being typical Hollywood. The characters were real and again- great cast.