3,335 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
Unprecedented.
GuyCC17 December 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Peter Jackson has done it. He has created an all-encompassing epic saga of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings books, and after coming away from the final chapter, how does this rate not only as a film on its own, but as a part of the whole?

Perfect.

I've never seen a series like this. A trilogy of movies created with such love and care and utter perfection of craft that you can't help but walk away and wonder how did Peter Jackson make this possible? I have always loved the original "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones" series for their epic storytelling, and just for just fitting in as a great moment in cinema. This should be, will be, remembered with as much revered fondness for generations to come. They do not make films like these anymore.

As a stand alone film, it picks up immediately where "Two Towers" ends, so brush up before seeing it. I've read the books, and the anticipation of seeing some of the more profound moments in this film made me kind of view it with a rushed sense of perspective. I wanted to make sure everything in this film was done "right". And when it happened, it was. I will need to see this again to enjoy everything on a more casual level.

The cast comes through once more. The musical score retains its beauty, elegance and power. The special effects, notably Gollum again, are nothing less than breathtaking, and simply move the story along. The battles are monumentally huge and exciting. There are some liberties taken with the story, especially during the end with the homecoming, and yet, everything that needed to be covered regarding the main characters was handled. After the greatest moment of the series resolves itself, the story provided a breather. And gives a good-bye to friends seen on screen for the last three years. It was truly a bittersweet feeling in realizing that there will be no "Rings" movie in 2004. I will miss this talented group of actors.

As with the first two, the film is very long, but goes by without you ever truly realizing it. This film is so much more than a simple "fantasy" epic. It's a story about strength of character, friendship, loyalty and love. And while every member of the Fellowship has their part to play, I finally understood why some critics have said this series is a story about Sam. It's his unwavering resolve that led the quest to its victory. Sean Astin is a true credit for adding the inspirational heart to this epic. As as far as the ending goes, they ended it the way that it had to be ended. Jackson ended this film the way it should have been.

I will miss looking forward to a new "Rings" movie, but these movies provide hope that high-quality films can still be made without special effects taking over a story, bathroom humor, or a "Top 40" soundtrack. George Lucas could learn a lot from these films about how not to alienate the fanbase.

Each film has earned a "10" from me for the last two years, which for me to give is a rarity. This one, however, is as equally deserving as its two predecessors. The Academy had better not look over this film for "Best Picture" of 2003. To do so would be greatly disrespectful of the craft and care that anyone involved with these films put into them.
1,029 out of 1,225 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
They saved the best for last
Derek23716 March 2005
Obviously, I'm aware of the fact that the Lord of the Rings trilogy is actually one giant movie, but since it was released in parts, that's how I'm judging them. The Return Of The King is the final chapter, and since it is the climax and resolution of the epic journey, it has a little more intensity and urgency than the previous installments.

At this point everyone has come to know and love all of the characters, and the stakes have become tremendously high. Kingdoms are at their knees, and the only two characters who can save the day are getting weaker and weaker. The tension was very high in this episode and I can honestly say that out of all 3 this was the only one that had me on the edge of my seat. There were many memorable scenes (one of my favourites including the part with the giant spider)that made this the classic that it is sure to stay for decades to come.

This is the longest of the series, mostly because of the ending that seems to last a while. This was a good ending, and I can see why Frodo did what he did. He, and us the audience, have gone through an incredible ordeal and I think we needed that 20 minute linger. When the battle is over, and the celebrations have ended, there is a sad emptiness felt. The films spanned over 3 years, there have been the extended cuts of course, but after that, it's all over. Peter Jackson gave us an ending that was both appropriate and admirable.

These were some amazing movies and this one in particular is the best, in my opinion. As whole, the Lord Of The Rings is a phenomenon. An absolute phenomenon. Much more than just movies. They have a universal appeal and have touched the hearts and imaginations of millions. I'm one of them.

Sorry if I'm being all fanboyish and kissing this movie's ass, but I really admire it. It may not be among my personal favourites but generally this seems to be the movie event of the century. There will never be another Lord of the Rings film, and that's a bit depressing.

My rating: 10/10
522 out of 618 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not only the best of the "Lord of the Rings" series, but sets a new standard of epic filmmaking.
danlongino16 December 2003
Saying that this film starts where `Two Towers' left off is somewhat misleading, for the film starts a great distance from the walls of Helm's Deep. `Return of the King' opens with a flashback of Smeagol (Andy Serkis) obtaining the one ring of power and an origin of his deterioration into the creature Gollum. This opening recaptures an emphasis that was somewhat lost within the epic battles of `Two Towers,' at that's the ring. The first installment, `The Fellowship of the Ring,' provided heaps of exposition on the ring's importance and influence, and in `Return of the King,' we see it pay off, big time.

After the armies of Isengard have been defeated due to an allegiance between Theoden (Bernard Hill), the king of Rohan, and the elves, the main threat to middle earth is now concentrated in the kingdom of Mordor, controlled by the dark lord Sauron. Sauron has turned his eye towards the realm of Gondor, the last free kingdom of men, and the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellan) must warn Denethor (John Noble), Steward of Gondor of the impending attack, while Aragorn (Viggo Mortenson), heir to the throne of Gondor, and Theoden gather men to aid against the armies of Mordor. The dark lord Sauron needs only to regain the one ring of power to conquer all of middle earth, and two hobbits, Frodo (Elijah Wood) the ring-bearer and Sam (Sean Astin), must continue their journey, directed by Gollum, to Mount Doom, the only place where the ring can be destroyed. Got all that? If not, you need to bone up on your `Lord of the Rings' before expecting to follow this film.

Since all three epics were filmed simultaneously, each individually has the feel of being part of a larger picture - except for this one. `The Return of the King' is just too big, the most epic of a set of epic films. Now that director Peter Jackson has brilliantly constructed the characters and plotlines throughout the first two films, he puts them to use.

All of the characters have their best moments within this film. The pair of mischievous hobbits, Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd), are no longer the tree ornaments they were from `Two Towers,' but are split-up, and take their characters in completely new directions. Aragorn, played with an unmatched sense of honor by Viggo Mortenson, is about to meet his destiny as the future king of all men, while Andy Serkis continues his expert portrayal of Gollum (Serkis' provided not only the voice of Gollum, but also assisted during production by acting out the scenes of the computer-generated character with his fellow actors).

However, the real acting triumph of the film is Elijah Wood as Frodo Baggins. He continues his descent into corruption with an incredible talent that many could not pull off. Wood's performance is so critical to the film because it determines the ring's power to corrupt, which, needless to say, is absolute.

The first two films established Jackson as an incredible visionary, shooting vast landscapes from his native New Zealand. With `Return of the King,' Jackson really gets a chance to show off. With, hands down, the most beautiful visuals of the trilogy, Jackson makes `Return of the King' a gorgeous feast for the eyes, while never resorting to McG level over-the-topness. Jackson stays very grounded in his characters, not letting the effects tell the story, but only assist the wonderful dialogue and characters. Think of `Return' as a mix of `Fellowship' and `Two Towers,' with enough action and character development worthy of ending a film event of this magnitude.

The bottom line, fans of the films will not be disappointed. Hardcore Tolkien lovers might be upset by plot changes and interpretations made by Jackson and the other writers, however, it is unrealistic to expect a completely true adaptation of the novels, being that film is an entirely different medium. Despite the alterations, Jackson consistently stays true to the major themes and ideas from the original text, while adding some of the finest filmmaking ever put to screen. `The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King' is one of the most finely tuned and cinematically perfect films ever made. Not only the best of the trilogy, but a crowning achievement in epic filmmaking.
803 out of 977 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Brilliant Conclusion
eiratan17 December 2003
As a movie watcher, I tend to become bored with the constant, overdone, overdrawn, underplayed, overdramatized performance and production quality of most Hollywood films. It's a trait that in recent years has sadly driven me away from most big budget American films. A decent idea will become mangled by the money making machine that is Hollywood, hoping to pump the most raw cash they can out of it before it drops dead in the street.

We all saw the catastophre of a failure that arose from the Matrix Franchise. Such immense hype and professed genius only made the failure all the more poignant for those of us that really wanted and expected more from the franchise.

That all being said, I must say that The Lord of the Rings is an amazingly powerful visual experience. Not even just a visual experience. Peter Jackson has crafted one of the finest written pieces of our era into THE quintessential epic. He supplements the brilliant storytelling of JRR Tolkien with one of the most awe-inspiring collection of films ever created.

The 7 hours of film that leads up to the Return of the King is only precursor though, when you sit and watch this film. It's just plain brilliance. Everything about the film is wonderful. The manner in which Jackson has arranged the scenes, detracting slightly from the original flow of the novel really helps to keep the suspense strong in all three story branches. The Tolkien humor is intact perfectly and the gallantry and just plain coolness of these heroes is plain amazing. (Check out Legolas in the BIG battle) It's all just too much for words.

If one were to gripe, and I suppose there will never be a film made that one cannot find a point at which to grip, it is painfully long running time here. I personally believe that this is the only way such a film could be made, true to the source material and completely engrossing, but I found myself more worried about the pain in my posterior than the emotional final minutes after 4 hours (including ads and previews) that I had spent in a cramped seat. As such, this will be all the better (at least for me) when it's release on DVD (can't wait for the extended...get to see the Sauroman scenes that they cut out).

As a film though, this is amazing. A true lasting legacy in story telling and now cinema. Bravo Mr. Jackson.
573 out of 718 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The first great cinematic masterpiece of the twenty-first century.
JamesHitchcock4 February 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I am, I admit, an unlikely convert to the religion of Tolkienism. I have never read the books, having, I thought, been put off them for life by the sort of obsessive freaks who read them when I was at school. (One classmate, then aged about sixteen, told me with great pride that he had read the whole of 'The Lord of the Rings' at least fifty times). I also have never been a great admirer of the 'sword and sorcery' school of fantasy writing or film-making; indeed, some of this genre (mostly those starring the current governor of California) struck me as being among the worst films ever made. I was, however, persuaded to see the first in the trilogy, 'The Fellowship of the Ring', by its overwhelmingly positive reception from the critics, and was quickly won over by the scope of Peter Jackson's vision. I had been expecting some twee tale of elves, gnomes and fairies; what I experienced was a genuine epic (in the true sense of that overused word). Ever since December 2001, I have been waiting for parts two and three of the trilogy to be released. Neither has disappointed me. The story of 'The Lord of the Rings' is too complex to be told in a review such as this. Suffice it to say that it revolves around a magic ring which will give its possessor immense power. The power-hungry Dark Lord Sauron (a figure who is never actually seen on screen) desires to obtain the ring in order to dominate Middle Earth. His enemies, led by the wizard Gandalf, are seeking to destroy the ring, which can only be used for evil purposes, not for good. At the beginning of the final part of the trilogy, Sauron's forces are massing for an attack on the kingdom of Gondor. The film relates the story of the conflict which follows, and this leads to some of the most spectacular battle sequences I have seen, even more impressive than those in 'The Two Towers'. Inevitably, the film makes much use of computer-generated effects, but unlike many films dominated by special effects, plot and character are not neglected. The acting is uniformly good, and in some cases outstanding. Special mentions must also go to the camera-work, which made the best possible use of the magnificent New Zealand scenery, and to Howard Shore's memorable musical score. So, looking forward to the Oscar ceremony, I have no doubt that this should be the best film and that Peter Jackson, who has amply fulfilled the promise shown in the excellent 'Heavenly Creatures', should be best director. Best Actor? I would find it difficult to decide between the competing claims of Sir Ian McKellen, who brings wisdom, kindliness and the required touch of steel to his portrait of Gandalf, and of Elijah Wood, who plays the brave and resourceful hobbit Frodo to whom falls the dangerous task of ensuring the ring's destruction. Best Supporting Actor? My own nomination would be for Sean Astin, as Frodo's loyal companion Sam, but several others might have claims, notably Viggo Mortensen or Bernard Hill. Is this the best movie ever made, as some of its admirers have claimed? Possibly not- that is, after all, a very large claim to make. I have no doubt, however, that the trilogy as a whole is the first great cinematic masterpiece of the twenty-first century. It has certainly inspired me to start reading Tolkien's original novels. 10/10.
592 out of 756 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A monumental film
Chris_Docker17 December 2003
Feeling weary and battle-worn, I have just staggered out of the cinema after three and a half hours of special effects creatures fighting other special effects creatures. I had taken refreshments but barely touched them - probably because the film I had watched is one of the most mesmerising, evocative, inspiring, and awesome I have witnessed of any big adventure epic. Not to mention superb ensemble acting, moods that shift effortlessly between mediaeval battles of colossal proportions and convincing bloodshed, beauty and wonderment, fantastic natural and artificial landscapes and cityscapes, touches of humour, well-paced dramatic tension, and human bonding that is moving enough to just let you dry your eyes as the unassuming credits flash by.

Return of the King is the greatest of the Tolkien trilogy by New Zealand director Peter Jackson. Although I've seen the other two and read the book, I felt it would also stand alone well enough for people who hadn't done either.

The storytelling is much more professional that the first one - which maybe laboured to introduce so much information - or the second one - which has little let up from the tension of long battle scenes. In Return of the King, there is an emotional sting at the start, as we watch the transformation of Gollum from warm, fun-loving guy to murderous, mutated wretch. The movie then moves deftly between different segments of the story - the sadness of the lovely soft-focus Liv Tyler as fated Arwen whose travails and woman's love succeeds in having the Sword that was Broken mended, the comradeship of Sam and Frodo (Sean Astin & Elijah Wood) that is tested to the limits, the strong commanding presence of Gandalf (Ian McKellen) who keeps an eye on things whilst turning in an Oscar-worthy performance, the ingenious and very varied battle scenes, and the mythical cities of that rise out of the screen and provide key plot elements.

This is a fairy story of human endeavour, the defeating of power cliques and the triumph of the human spirit that could almost be compared to Wagner's Gotterdammerung. It is a fairy story without any sugary sweetness, a fairy story the likes of which hasn't been told so well before, and is even unlikely to be done so well in the future. The haunting scream of the Nasgul stays with you, the physical attractions are not airbrushed, and the battles are about as far from pantomime characters waving wooden swords as you can get. The ingenious monsters keep you on the edge of your seat. The whole narrative maintains the spirit (if not archival, detailed accuracy) of the original and makes you want to read the book (or read the book again!)

The worst I can say about it is that it is maybe a tad long - but not that you'd notice . . .
298 out of 383 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Part 3: It's Not Really the Thought that Counts
mstomaso30 November 2007
Just as Peter Jackson felt that LOTR had to be made as one large, three-part, cinematic piece, I decided to write my IMDb review of all three movies as a single, multi-part essay. Click on my screen-name and hit "Chronological" to view my reviews of the Fellowship and Two Towers. I make no guarantees about the quality and consistence of my review, but I do guarantee that these three films offer very high and very consistent quality from beginning to end. The acting, cinematography, art, and direction simply can not be beat.

Which of the three movies is my favorite varies with my mood – and the same holds true for Tolkien's books. When I am immersed in the story, ROTK is my favorite. When I simply want to have fun with the whole experience, I love Fellowship. And when I want something intense, evocative and thoughtful, I go for the Two Towers.

Frodo, Sam and Golem are on their way to Mount Doom and their bodies, nerves, and relationships have borne the greatest burden on middle earth. The rest of the fellowship is rallying to the defense of Minas Tirith, and preparing for even more deadly battles to come.

The heroism and romance are incredibly moving - when was the last time you saw an entire audience leaving a theater after a fantasy movie rubbing their eyes? The sets are breathtaking - even moreso than in the previous two films.

The casting and acting are superb.

The film delivers at every level and is the jewel in the trilogy's well-earned crown.

Return of the King offers a resolution of all of the major story arcs in LOTR. As with the classic Tolkien trilogy, however, you may be able to predict some of what will occur, but never all of it and you'll never guess how you will get there. The same fatalistic and paradoxically unpredictable feeling of Tolkien's grand plots is present throughout ROTK especially. The major theme in ROTK, however, is the varied ways and means of heroism – both intentional and unintended, and Tolkien's examination of sacrifice and heroism is as inspiring as it is subtle. Amazingly, it all comes through in the films.

Even more than the previous two films, Jackson and his writers took liberties with the story-line. Like the others, however, this serves the film better than simple adaptation from one medium to another. By reordering some of the chronology and adding scenes and plot devices which are consistent with Tolkien's world and characterizations, the film-makers actually do a better job of preserving the concepts and themes of the story than they could have with a pure adaptation. The lengthy epilogue in Tolkien's book is greatly reduced, reordered, and somewhat changed in order to work in the film. Some parts actually appear very early in ROTK. And some aspects of Tolkien's epilogue are disclosed in the Two Towers, though not directly depicted. But all of the really important components of the epilogue are, at least strongly implied if not well illustrated in ROTK.
82 out of 103 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Five out of five decapitated orcs
eviltimmy20 December 2003
This is the final movie in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and certainly doesn't disappoint like some other trilogies *coughMatrixcough*. The three films had their principal shooting all done at the same time, which lowers their overall costs and keeps a good sense of continuity for the films.

The special effects, first of all, are excellent. While there's a few little things (a reversed shot with smoke flowing back into chimneys and occasional lighting that's a bit off), by and large they're excellent. The most impressive thing about them is the sheer scale. This isn't a small or simple scene; it often includes thousands of digital characters combined with filmed actors and action, sweeping landscapes, and dozens of things happening at once. This is a good reason to see it in theatres; even on DVD, there's little details that you can only catch when it's on a massive screen.

The filming is good, although there are a few evidences of digital smoothing and cutting that can nag at the mind and eyes of a picky movie-goer. There are a few interesting shots, but most are fairly plain and straight on, getting the point across without being dazzling. New Zealand's landscapes provide a great backdrop for everything going on, and there really are some beautiful places, especially up in the mountains. I hear land prices are quite good, what with the orcs warring and everything, so you may want to look into real estate purchases now.

Sound has been said to make 75% of the emotional impact of any production. This is a loud 75%. All the sound effects are very well pulled off, sound appropriate, and are generally loud. The Nazgul screeching was bordering on painful, but in a good way. Most everything has a distinct sound, and it's rare that anything feels out of place. In some of the battles, the roof of the theatre was shaking. The soundtrack fits the movie well, and Howard Shore has done an excellent job, as with the last two films in the series.

Performances all around were good, but Sean Astin as Sam and Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn really dominated the film. They performed their roles perfectly, and came away giving a good picture of the characters. Elijah Wood seemed to be stuck with the same terrified expression on his face through most of the movie, almost Max Payne-style, and it grew old quickly. Ian McKellen, the ever-wise white wizard, had a fair bit of dialogue which he delivered well; my only complaint is he had too much in the way of wistful sayings leading to scene changes. Orlando Bloom, favorite of young teenage girls everywhere, had a few more action sequences (which got cheers from the aforementioned girls) which were quite well pulled off, but his acting wasn't much tested by this film. John Rhys-Davies continued with Gimli's joking performance; he's really too amusing to take seriously, but does a good job at it.

For the old Tolkien fans, this movie stays quite close to the book, although they did have to omit some portions, most notably the taking and retaking of the Shire and the time spent in the Halls of Healing in Minas Tirith. Hopefully some of this will show up in the Extended Edition on DVD. Shelob's attack was left until this film, and much of the time spent in Mordor was shortened for the sake of pacing, and it was a good decision.

My favorite scene would have to be the battle at Minas Tirith. The incredible scope of the battle, with the special effects, sounds, and many close-ups of pieces of the action, make for an exciting scene. The visual effects especially are stunning; the 'oliphaunts' play a big part in the action, and they're entirely created by computer. There's also some wide shots with tens of thousands of digital characters marching on the field of battle, and even the individual actions have the masses warring as a backdrop. It's worth your movie-going dollar simply to watch this on a large screen. It was also intermingled with some smaller events inside Minas Tirith, so it's not pure battle for the whole of the scene, and it keeps it from being dreary or heavy-handed.

Overall, this is a movie well worth watching, and even paying to see in a theatre. I'd recommend against bringing small children, as there are some scary images, and they'd also be a distraction during the final movie in what will probably remain the series of the decade. Not a particularly great date movie, either...this is a real, bring-your-friends big movie. Five out of five decapitated orcs (and trust me, there were a lot more than that).
331 out of 441 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Pretty much outstanding
TheLittleSongbird9 March 2011
I admit it, I love all three Lord of the Rings films. People may say Return of the King is the best of the trilogy, some may say it is the worst. I personally think Two Towers is the best for its scope and better exploration of some of the characters, but while it is still great Return of the King is better than Fellowship of the Ring.

My only slight disappointment is the ending, it does feel overlong and bloated for me, almost as if there was more than one ending filmed. That said, what does make the ending at least watchable for me is the way it is shot, the marvellous score and the performance of Gollum.

Despite this minor discrepancy, Return of the King is extremely good and in my view one of the better Best Picture winners last decade. Peter Jackson's direction is very impressive here, and the scope is massive and just dazzling to watch. All three films of the trilogy are very well made, but Return of the King defines the term epic. The cinematography is mind-blowing, the scenery is superb, the costumes and make-up are well tailored, the effects are superb and don't distract too much and the lighting is authentic.

The score is phenomenal. Fellowship of the Ring had some ethereal, rousing, haunting and charming themes, whereas Two Towers was somewhat darker and more complex. Return of the King merges these together and the result is a perfect mixture of charm, darkness, etherality and complexity. The story is compelling with themes of friendship, strength and loyalty, the screenplay is well-written and literate and while the film is very long the three hours or so fly by seamlessly. The characters are engaging, Aragorn is even more interesting here than he is in the previous films while Gollum continues to steal every scene he appears in.

The acting is very good. Orlando Bloom(who I can find dashing yet uncharismatic and bland) and John Rhys-Davies are given less to do but do carry their parts very well, and Elijah Wood is likable enough. Sean Astin captures Sam perfectly and provides the heart of the picture, and Viggo Mortenssen is at his charismatic best here. Ian McKellen is perfectly cast, while the design of Gollum is still superb and Andy Serkis is equally phenomenal. I was slightly disappointed by the lack of any Sarauman, but I was more than I was satisfied with the final result.

All in all, an outstanding entry to a great trilogy. 10/10 Bethany Cox
37 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
My objective and unhyped view? Stunning. Simply stunning.
bob the moo25 December 2003
Frodo and Sam continue their quest to destroy the ring, led by the untrustworthy Gollum. Meanwhile the rest of the Fellowship prepare for another battle to hold a human city against an onslaught of orcs.

If you check my other reviews you will note that I wasn't a massive fan of the first two films - I loved them, but was not blind to their faults. However, let me just lay my cards out here, I was totally blown away by this film. For the vast majority (and more of that later) the narrative flowed really well where the other two films had struggled to really keep consistent. Here the various strands work well together and, while characters have only brief times to tell stories, on the whole it manages it well. I got the feeling that the film really let rip - it knew this was the ending and it did feel that everything came together in a collection of noise and energy which really made it feel like the final part of a trilogy rather than just a stand alone film.

The one area where the film really stutters (and actually caused people to leave the cinema in annoying numbers) is ironically the place where Jackson is true to the book, and that's the final 20 minutes. There is a clear scene where the film ends, however it then runs for another 20 minutes - which is a mix of scenes that all fade out like they were the end. To Joe Public (ie me!) I would have been happy not to have all the loose ends tied up in the way the book does it - the film should have ended on a high (with the King being crowned etc) but instead it seems to crawl to an end in a way that is not in line with the momentum of the film (if not the whole trilogy!) This problem is minor on the grand scheme of things, but I would rather have left the cinema on my high than be made to wonder `when's this ending? Is this the end now? Oh, maybe this is it now?' - but I do understand why it was done this way.

The cast, as they have been all the way, are excellent. Wood's Frodo changes well during this film while Astin is touching in his portrayal of unerring friendship. Bloom and Rhys-Davis had less to do but came into their own during the battle scenes - adding both action and the odd comic touch (`that still counts as one' being accepted by the audience as a chance to break the tension). Mortensen is the title character and serves it well, with McKellen also continuing his strong role. I could list through the whole cast but I will stick with noting two things. Firstly, both Monaghan and Boyd had bigger and more meaningful roles and rose to them well. Secondly I continue with my belief from the second film that Serkis is the stand out actor of the trilogy. His Gollum is so much more than an effect - he is tragic, fearsome, hateful and funny. Praise of course goes to the special effects for making this character tell so much with an expression but to pretend that the work of the actor is secondary to the character (as opposed the look) is foolish. He deserved one for Two Towers so I hope an Oscar goes his way. It was a shame to not have screen time for Lee but the film works well without him and it was a brave move by the editors.

The special effects do not stand out - and that's a compliment. Even in state of the art movies of late I have been aware that I could be watching a video game. Here I only occasionally noticed that things were clear computer effects, even though the majority of the film was! This is how they SHOULD be used - not as a draw in their own right but as part of the film. Whether it be the massive battle scenes that are spectacular or the animated spider or just the fact that I forget that Gollum is only an effect, I cannot fault it's use of effects or the sheer visual feast that is this film.

I have tried not to gush because there will be plenty of others to do that without me joining them, but it is hard to really fault this film. It is the strongest of the trilogy and brings it all together really well, it is an emotional event more than a film and, if Jackson needs 20 minutes of slow closure to finish it to his satisfaction then I can give him that in return for all the hours of wonderful cinema that he has given me.
360 out of 487 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Summary: Film and extended DVD versions
harry_tk_yung13 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS***

Over the years, I've read Lord of the Rings four times. During the holiday season of 2003/4, I watched Return of the King four times. While I embraced ROTK as the third part of a dream come true, I was not totally happy, left wondering why so many things vital were missing. The 4-hour extended DVD version explains a lot.

My biggest beef was on so much missing about Aragon, and I found most of them in the DVD. One of the vital elements in the Fellowship's strategy is to draw Sauron's eye away from Frodo, and here Aragon's role is crucial. The "last debate" in the movie is totally inadequate in explaining the suicidal march to the Black gate but the DVD makes it very clear, with the additional scene of Aragon revealing himself to Sauron though the Palantir. He is the bait that Sauron cannot resist.

Another important aspect is that Aragon comes into the city of Minas Tirith first and foremost as a HEALER, not as a king. The kingship comes afterwards. This is again brought out in the additional scenes in the DVD, although still missing a lot of details from the book.

Still disappointing, even for the DVD, is that so little is given to the story of Eowyn and Faramir. The dialogue through which they come to accept each other could very well be the most beautiful in the entire book. The few shots in the DVD that trace the development of their relationship are far from adequate, although that's a least a slight improvement from the film version.

Another disappointment is Aragon's arrival at the Pelennor Fields, which is hopelessly lame compared with the original treatment in the book: amidst the despair of the Rohan and Gondor soldiers in witnessing the approaching black ships, Aragon's standard suddenly unfurls at the main mast: "There flowered a White Tree, and that was for Gondor; but seven stars were about it, and a high crown above it, the signs of Elendil that no lord had borne for years beyond count. And the stars flamed in the sunlight, for they were wrought of gems by Arwen daughter of Elrond; and the crown was bright in the morning, for it was wrought of mithril gold."

The treatment of Gandalf's confrontation of the Witch King in the DVD departs from the book, in which the two are locked in a face off, then Rohan's horns are heard and the Witch King swings around and leaves. What in heaven's name is in Peter Jackson's mind when he had Gandalf's staff broken by the Witch King. But this did explain a mystery that has been bugging me for a year – why Gandalf had to snatch a spear from the guard when he saved Faramir from the pyre of Denethor.

Enough on the DVD.I shall be remiss if I do not pay tribute to Peter Jackson for the wonderful film he and his dedicated crew have created.

Most inspired is the lighting of the beacons to summon help from Rohan. In the book, this is observed by Pippin in the ride to Minas Tirith. To satisfy Pippin's curiosity, Gandalf explains the background to him in a somewhat factual manner. Jackson turns this into one of the most exciting moments in the film, with aesthetically superb shots of the 13 beacons (yes, I counted them) being lit up in succession, accompanied by beautifully rousing music score, culminating in Theoden's heroic utterance of "Rohan will answer". Watching this has to be among the most uplifting moments one can experience in a cinema.

Most poignant is the Faramir's suicidal attempt to retake Osgilaith, under the orders of an unloving father. Starting from the soldiers of Gondor filing out of Minas Tirith in what looks almost like a funeral march to the letting loose of the swarm of arrows by the orcs in Osgilaith, every image of this scene is so hauntingly heartrending. It reminds me of John Woo's favourite scenes, although here, the music is Pipppin's actual singing rather than adapted background music, rendering the tragic mood even more devastating.

Directly opposite in mood is Rohan's charge in the Battle of Pelennor Fields. Even if this mission is, in a way, equally suicidal, the spirit is sky high, radiating dauntless heroism and lust for battle. This scene also reminds me of the legendary battle scene in Spartacus (1960) which is universally recognised as the model in depiction of battle strategies. Rohan's charge in Pelennor Field, no the other hand, exemplifies heroism unsurpassed.

Although ROTK is first and foremost the King's story, we should not forget, in the overall scheme of things, the ring bearers (no typo here because Frodo did acknowledge Sam as a fellow ring bearer in the end of the book). Elijah Wood and Sean Astin (particularly Astin) have played their roles to perfection. Towards the end of the quest, when Frodo's strength was almost fully spent, to hear Sam say "I cannot carry it (the ring) for you, Mr. Frodo, but I can carry you" and not be moved, one will have to be a hopelessly and irreversibly hardened cynic. The background music, incidentally, is "Into the west".

It is certainly a good sign that the general audience worldwide has reacted favourably to the long aftermath following the destruction of the ring, indicated that their capacity to appreciate has not been impaired by the proliferation of Hollywood style slam-bang endings. Viggo Mortensen's line to the Hobbits "My friends, you bow to no one" is delivered with sincerity and conviction. The final scene at the Grey Havens is graceful, touching, stylish. However, there is one shot that I must mention: Galadriel's final enigmatic, alluring, half-smiling glance at Frodo before she disappears into the ship. Cate Blanchett is among the most versatile actresses around today and in LOTR, she is Galadriel incarnate.
262 out of 351 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Supreme Motion Picture of All Time...
fearfulofspiders25 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King is by far the most moving, inspirational and epic of the three parts in Peter Jackson's take on Tolkien's fantasy masterpiece. After proving that this trilogy can carry the weight of a truly enormous body of text with The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, Jackson has shown that nothing is impossible anymore when being brought to film, and that fantasy can be surreal, but grounded to reality.

I saw this film at 8:00 PM, and missed school the following day -- exactly similar to The Two Towers when it was released. After seeing The Return of the King I was speechless. Never before had a film made such an impact on me as this conclusion did, and now with it completed, The Lord of the Rings is truly the best of the best.

Jackson has treated this trilogy as one film, following to Tolkien's linear time-line, and not the way the books were written, which makes this a film that flows and never loses track of pacing. The dialogue is emotional, be it the speech between Gandalf and Pippin before the gates of Minas Tirith, or inspirational, such as the rousing deliveries by Theoden and Aragorn. The vast emotion makes this a film for the ages. Following our heroes adventure since film one, we have grown compassion for each and everyone of them. Sam's devotion to Frodo is something that can inspire, and the eu-catastrophe is fully used here once again, because just as it seems that all hope has been lost, it shines through the void and victory is achieved. If one were to fear that the ending would feel like there was no closure, then have none, because The Return of the King has a 20-minute denouement that goes as far as four-years into the future, and the ending on the shores of the Grey Havens brought me to tears.

The special effects are nothing short of amazing. The blend of miniatures/bigatures and CGI is believable beyond comprehension, and the addition of New Zealand locales adds something beyond some peoples' wildest dreams. The level of detail on Minas Tirith is something no one has ever seen before, the massive armies sunder speakers as war erupts, and we see the Mumakil and the Fell Beasts in full fruition, as hinted in The Two Towers. What could've seem fatal, as cinematic history has shown before, is the introduction of Shelob the spider. The special effects team has created the most memorable spider in film history. She terrifies and drops jaws at the realism of such a beast.

The tension for the siege on Minas Tirith is so highly anticipated, that the filmmakers have completely satisfied every expectation to how epic it could've been. The scope is just extraordinary. The battle of the Pelennor Fields is so huge in the book, yet it has been fully realized in Jackson's film. The final stand at the Black Gate is so emotional involving, it's hard to think that any action could top what was previously seen, but it is done so with vision beyond imagination.

Howard Shore's music is also some of the most impressive and beautiful orchestration ever done for film. Besting its predecessors, The Return of the King's score is pure genius. From the new theme for Gondor, to the moving Into the West, Shore's composition sweeps and soars. Now that each of the three films' complete recordings have been released, I strongly urge a fan of the music to buy them, because they really are the best of the best.

The acting even surpasses the first two, having the evolution of each character add to the dramatic effect, be it the loss of a life, or the triumph over evil. Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn is like a Godsend. Sean Astin steals nearly every scene he is in as Sam, making us hope he helps Frodo get rid of the Ring of Power. Once again, Andy Serkis provides a stirring and great performance as Smeagol/Gollum. The full weight of the Ring is realized in this film, and Elijah Wood makes us see his struggle like the Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers only hinted upon.

Overall, The Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King is remarkable. The battles are amazing, never making the film drag, and always heightening the tension. From the acting to the sound editing, this film delivers in what it promises, and that is the supreme motion picture of our lifetime, and many more years to come.
36 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
All Good Things come to an End!
OttoVonB22 November 2006
All the threads of Tolkien's magnum opus come together in the most elegant of fashions in the final part of Peter Jackson's adaptation. Humanity makes a last stand at Minas Tirith, the Hobbits travel through Mordor, our heroes try to by time for Frodo to complete his mission and the Evil Sauron gets tired of the whole game and lashes out with all his might and fury.

"Return of the King" is 4 hours of payoff, a third act in a gigantic epic rather than a mere film of its own. As such it is intensely dramatic and dynamic and you can very much sense that though peter Jackson spared no effort on the previous episodes, this is clearly his favorite. the film floats by at a thunderous pace, taking us through unforgettable moments such as the battle of Minas Tirith itself, a marvel of seamless animation and epic film-making, it demands to be seen, as it has too many jaw-dropping moments to choose from. The quieter character moments keep gaining in potency and the full weight of the stakes and their heartbreaking consequences is never in doubt.

The cast of these films have played their parts to perfection and again Jackson deserves overall credit for choosing actors that so perfectly match Tlolkien's creations: Ian McKellen and Christopher Lee are their own usually excellent selves, and the hobbits remain endearing, but of all the uniformly great cast, the true standouts are Viggo Mortensen and David Wenham as the tragic Faramir, whose relationship with his brutish father is the most traumatic of the film. Jackson pushes them even further by having them sing at a few key moments (a practice employed to powerful effect by Tolkien in the books), a daring undertaking that works wonders. And though he may offer one ending too many, he does have the decency to show off each surviving character with the appropriate screen time and respect.

Now that the trilogy is complete, it can be viewed as one big film, as it should be. After 8 years, Jackson has done the impossible: he has taken Tolkien's huge legend and made films that stand on their own and have revolutionized film-making, setting the new benchmark for cinematic epics. Changes have been made to Tolkien's source novels, but they make for better, more fluid films, more faithful in spirit to Tolkien's myth than anyone had the right to hope for.

A masterpiece, whether as part of a bigger whole or on its own. Well deserving of all the high praise thrown at it, and then some...
20 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The greatest epic ever made
Monotreme0227 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is, hands down, among the most spectacular and magnificent films of all time.

A short run-down of the plot: After the battle of Helm's Deep and Saruman's imprisonment in his tower Orthanc, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli and Gandalf re-group with Merry and Pippin in Isengard. There they learn that the army of Sauron is planning a full-scale attack on the largest city of men - Minas Tirith in Gondor. Gandalf and Pippin ride to Minas Tirith to warn Denethor, the steward of Gondor, of the threat from Mordor. Defenses are built up as the army of Sauron marches across the Pelennor Fields towards Minas Tirith. A distress call is sent to Rohan, still recovering from Helm's Deep. Rohan manage to muster a large army, and set out for Minas Tirith, but the battle has already begun. In the meantime, we continue with Sam and Frodo on their quest to destroy the One Ring.

A major achievement of this epic film is the character development. Gollum becomes more cunning and sneaky than ever, and manages to turn Frodo against Sam, who is desperately trying his best to get his old Frodo back. Merry and Pippin are no longer just a source of comic relief, both of them prove themselves worthy as they are split up for the final battle. We learn about the true bravery and potential of hobbits as Merry helps cut down the Witch King. Eowyn also proves herself in the film, as she defies her uncle and sets out to Pelennor fields with the other Rohirrim, and eventually destroys the Witch King, and makes a very feminist remark while doing so. We learn to loathe Denethor because of his hatred of his last remaining son, Faramir, who really hasn't done anything wrong. The peak of our hatred for Denethor is reached in the scene where he tells Faramir that he would have preferred it if he had died instead of Boromir, his brother. And then, right after that, Denethor sends Faramir into certain suicide, and Faramir immediately accepts the mission he is appointed to, in a final attempt to please his father. And of course, Aragorn learns to accept his fate as the true king of men.

In fact, the character development is so powerful that we actually participate in the character's feelings. We FEEL Frodo's exhaustion and agony as he literally drags himself across Mordor. We feel Sam's pain as Frodo is turned against him. And, just briefly, we participate in Gollum's triumph as he finally gets the One Ring. We are actually happy for Gollum and just for a brief moment, Frodo becomes the bad guy as he tries to take the ring back. All in all, Return of the King contains the most moving, emotional and touching scenes in the entire trilogy, and some of the best acting, especially from Sean Astin (Sam), Elijah Wood (Frodo), Ian McKellen (Gandalf), John Noble (Denethor, he is very successful in adding depth to his character), Miranda Otto (Eowyn), and of course, Andy Serkis (Smeagol, and top-notch at it, just like in The Two Towers).

The battle of Pelennor fields may be THE most spectacular and epic sequence in film history. Unlike Helm's Deep, Pelennor Fields shows the true cleverness of Sauron's army. Orcs are not the only participants; trolls are heavily used in the battle, as warriors and as beasts of burden. The nazgul are very significant in the battle, and while the Witch King didn't actually lead the battle as he did in the book, the nine ringwraiths and their fell beasts still play a key part and do lots of damage in the battle. We see just how powerful the nazgul really are. And of course, the men from the south and their massive oliphaunts play a significant part. While in Helm's Deep we felt triumphant, in Pelennor fields we only feel the triumph briefly, as the Rohirrim make their charge into the horde of orcs and trolls. The triumph in Pelennor Fields almost immediately dissolves, as the Rohirrim are trampled down by the oliphaunts. The battle is won, but we're not happy, we're grieved for all the destruction, all the losses. It's a totally different feeling than Helm's Deep, and makes this battle all the more superior.

Return of the King features the most magnificent visuals in the entire trilogy. Whether they are of Minas Tirith, Pelennor Fields and Osgiliath, Mordor and the slopes of Mt. Doom or the climb to Shelob's cave near Minas Morgul, Peter Jackson really shows us the true impact of these landscapes and images.

Many people may complain about the changes in the movie, especially the significant cut of Saruman from the end, but you must realize that if they would have featured the whole part with Saruman the movie would have continued another hour and a half. Don't fret; Peter Jackson said the scenes will all appear in the extended version of the film. The ending is long enough as it is, and the film continues at least another half an hour after the Ring is no more. The hobbits return to the shire, and Sam marries Rosie. Aragorn meets his fate and is crowned king, and is finally reunited with Arwen. And of course, one of the most moving scenes in the movie, in which Frodo gets on the last ship to the Undying lands with Bilbo, Gandalf, and the last of the elves (Galadriel and Elrond to name a few), and must part with his three hobbit friends for good.

All in all, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is one the most fine-tuned, cinematically perfect films ever made, it's absolutely flawless in every aspect. The Lord of the Rings trilogy as a whole is a spectacular achievement in film making history, and all three movies are together, without a doubt, the greatest epic ever made.
55 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The problem with imagination
OboeSaxIII22 January 2005
Overall, I am disappointed, though not surprised, by the negative criticism of this movie. Indeed, this criticism exceeds the offering of alternative viewpoints and the expression of other cinematic possibilities and sinks into the realm of bitter invective. So many armchair critics are currently competing with avid Tolkien, Jackson, and movie fans alike in order to espouse the "true" value of Peter Jackson's landmark movie trilogy. For it is a landmark event in cinema history based on its sheer size and careful attention, praise and evisceration apart. The issue that greatly irritates me and pushes me to write is that many of the negative reviewers on this website have such limited room in their imagination that they cannot conceive of a world outside their own narrow framework. I find that a most sad reality in light of the legacy of Tolkien, Jackson, and all good story-tellers -- to create, to engender, and to nourish the growth of any and all imaginative ventures.

The problem with imagination is that it is an individual event, a unique subjective experience that a single person experiences completely alone. Those who enter into the realm of Art, Fiction, Fantasy, and any degree of Story-telling agree (willingly or no) to take that personal act of creation and primal nature and share it with the community of human beings, each of whom has his or her own imaginative context. It is a bold act of sacrifice, self-confidence, and faith (spiritual, one could argue) to thrust the contents of one's subjective reality into (to borrow from Douglas Adams) the Whole Sort of General Mish Mash. People who do so deserve respect for the mere creative act, the ability to foist forward what they believe is true. From Homer to Bill O'Reilly, this concept of personal creation, what Tolkien called Sub-Creation, is the essence of modern human existence, and we owe it to each other to respect the right to creation history has granted us.

Therefore, in defense of both Tolkien (whom some on this website have maligned) and Jackson (whom many have maligned), I forward that both are imaginative creators in their own right, with different and completely acceptable offerings to the world. Those who cannot tolerate either for "mediocre writing" or "atrocious film-making" should offer forth their literary or cinematic offspring instead of cunningly-worded diatribes of their deep dissatisfaction with all that does not conform to their inner reality. Then, we few who believe in and trust the creative ability of all will be able to see how those critical inner realities (so authoritative in exposition) match up with the rest of our perceptions.

Tolkien was an enormously talented, intelligent, and imaginative man, one whose stories, though unpolished by experience, still managed to attract a worldwide audience and devoted following with their luster. Jackson's movies took the sheen and inherent value of Tolkien's stories and placed it in a visual medium, a place where fans of LOTR could witness and love the events and people they held so dear. Of course Tolkien's story is imperfect; of course Jackson's movies aren't as full as we wish them to be. Their great successes are that they still manage to capture our imagination, to move us, to take genuine truth and isolate it in a world outside our ken, a place where we see ourselves better against a foreign backdrop. Both have created and done so masterfully, with the intuitive grasp that is termed "genius." Tolkien would have had much at issue with Jackson's movies, where plot incongruities, lapsed character development, and visual splendor overshadow the philological and melancholic overtones of his book. Jackson admits he finds much at issue with Tolkien's book, including a lack of clear character motivation, extended and largely extraneous dialog, and heightened language not suited for Hollywood. But Tolkien, despite his perfectionist griping and loathing for any film version of his book, would respect Jackson for continuing the act of creation, for taking his modern-day mythology and spreading it to as many people as possible. Jackson has taken the beauty, the scope, the complexity, the richness, and the loss that permeate Middle-Earth and shared those leitmotifs with the world. Tolkien's characteristic "niggling" would have prevented any such attempt (even Jackson's), but in the end, his heritage lives on in beautifully conceived and executed films.

I do not ask others to stifle their opinions of this movie or any other. Indeed, continue to express the direst and bleakest of your frustrations with the creative power of others, as it may lead you to actually do some creation yourself. Remember though, that the great evils of history, from Satan to Hitler to Sauron, are never capable of creation -- only twisting, mutilating, mocking, deforming, and misapplying. Be open to the vision of others and what they have to offer, especially when that offering comes in the virtuosic shape of Tolkien's writing or Jackon's movies. Look for the True in the Secondary and how it manifests itself everywhere once you recognize it.

This movie receives a 10 from me because it not only maintains incredible faithfulness to Tolkien's themes (and yes, events may deviate in completely separate and dissimilar media) but it asks intelligent viewers to look deeper into the circumstances of its own creation and beauty. From the loyalty of Sam and the weight of epic history to the sacrifice of Arwen and the never-completely-won nature of war, Jackson's movies capture the essence and heart of Tolkien's tale, with the benefit of the director's own imaginative fruit as well. The world owes Mr. Jackson its gratitude, as he has created another world and another reality that so many can, do, and will cherish.

One final word: There are few who would not rather be wandering in a far green country rather than dwelling in their own Circles of the World.
69 out of 98 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An outstanding example of portrayal of a classic book
d.tolfree1 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Thousands of comments have been made on this outstanding production and there is little left to write that has not already been written or said. Again, not surprisingly at last night's 'Oscars', the third film in the trilogy took most of the awards. Like others I could give glowing comments about content, acting, production, direction, visual effects etc. but will instead, convey what I consider to be equally important; that is the realistic and accurate portrayal of a classic masterpiece of literature from one of the world's most imaginative authors. I have tried and failed three times to completely read the book and I enjoy reading, but feel that I could now do so and have a better understanding of the story - only because I know that Peter Jackson set out to retain accuracy of the story. Sometimes our own imagination lacks the ability to see exactly what the author intended and if a film can help that, then it only adds to the experience. By timely coincidence as I write this my computer screen saver has put up a picture of a mountain valley in New Zealand - it must know what is in my mind. That beautiful country was perhaps the ideal setting for the film with its mystical landscape punctuated with mountain valleys, rivers, forests and open spaces. It cannot be far from what may have been in Tolkien's own mind.

I would perhaps add one comment about content. Although there was much reliance on computer visualisation it was well-balanced by emotional acting like the characters Gollum and Gandalf. Although Gollum was a villain, I actually was made to feel sorry for him at the end. Too many potentially good films are spoilt by substituting acting for over indulgence in special effects. This is an art that the producers and directors of this film had exactly right.

I hope that the success of this trilogy will herald a new era in film-making of classical stories. Our literature has a wealth of candidates, and even ones that have been tried could be re-visited now that such experiences as Lord of the Rings have proved financially viable and immensely popular.
116 out of 177 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Breathtaking Conclusion To Cinema`s Greatest Fantasy Epic
Theo Robertson13 February 2004
Warning: Spoilers
It takes a miracle for me to go the cinema since smoking is banned in cinema chains but Peter Jackson is a miracle worker . How else would he be able to make me forget my filthy and disgusting nicotine addiction ? He made me forget all about cigarettes for three hours with THE TWO TOWERS and I knew that with RETURN OF THE KING he could make me forget all about ciggies for a record breaking three and a half hours . I booked my ticket for Rothesay winter gardens cinema and sat down to be enthralled

!!!!! SPOILERS !!!!!

I do conclude there are some people in the world who can`t see what the fuss is about with the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy . My parents seem slightly puzzled that their cynical critical son loves LOTR . It`s simply explained , these epic movies aren`t a childish fantasy , they`re like David Lean filming a Shakespeare play , but I do take onboard the criticism that the story structure of the movies can be irritating . FELLOWSHIP is very stop-start while the action intercutting in TTT can be annoying but ROTK has probably the best pace and structure of the three . ROTK starts with a sequence showing Smeagol murdering his friend in order to get the ring . This gives some needed backstory to Gollum . It also sets up its stall that it`s not a family film never mind a " childish fantasy " . In fact I predict that many of the children in Rothesay cinema will be having nightmares tonight due to the scenes with that horrible big spider , it made my skin crawl and the woman sitting next to me was gasping out loud as it prepared to cocoon poor Frodo , you should have seen the Q for the toilet after that scene which tells you how convincing the FX are in this movie , nothing appears CGI : Gollum isn`t computer generated he`s a living being and Peter Jackson doesn`t use camera trickery for fight scenes he uses million upon millions of extras . He is David Lean reincarnated . No he is David Lean AND Will Shakespeare reincarnated , look at the way the cast act their parts , it`s like they`re appearing in the greatest play of the bard . Their performances are superlative

There are some flaws . I did mention the script gives background to Smeagol but the script - Like the other films in the trilogy - is somewhat uneven . John Noble`s character Denethor seems somewhat underwritten and I wasn`t sure what his motivation was . Also as everyone else has mentioned the false endings are very irritating . When Aragorn is crowned king and the screen faded to black the audience reached for their Jackets and bags then we`re shown another scene lasting several minutes which faded to a blaze of music. Everyone reached for their bags and jackets , then another scene which... It would have been better to have seen Aragorn crowned King and then seen Frodo sailing into the distance but I guess after the screenwriters have irritated us with the abrupt endings of the first two movies it`s somewhat traditional to irritate with the end of the trilogy . These faults I can forgive but there is an unforgivable cop out of having an army of the undead charging to save the race of men from the Orc army at the end . It didn`t ruin the movie for me but it just seems so lazy and contrived which stopped me from thinking it was the best movie in the trilogy , it`s not , FELLOWSHIP is . But still this is a masterpiece of cinema which like cigarettes left me breathless and satisfied and hopefully we`ll see it sweep the Oscar ceremony at last

As for the Oscars themselves I`m puzzled about a couple of things . Howard Shore`s score is beautiful and haunting but it`s far from original with much of the music in ROTK re-used from FELLOWSHIP ( The Gondor theme ) and TTT ( The Celtic music ) while the omissions are even more surprising . No nominations for any of the actors ! I know that all the great performances would cancel each other out but it`s shameful Andy Serkis wasn`t nominated as best supporting actor . Can anyone name a more unlikable baddie than Gollum in recent cinema ? Me neither and no nomination for cinematography ! I`ve no idea how John Lesnie`s camera was able to keep up with the action and he deserved at least a nomination so maybe we`ll see the third instalment robbed on Oscar night like FELLOWSHIP was . Even if it is that doesn`t stop me and millions of other film fans from recognising the genuis of Peter Jackson . I bow to you Sir
46 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
An epic ending
dkncd5 October 2007
"The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" is the third and final installment of Peter Jackson's adaptations of Tolkien's famous fantasy novels. Once again the makers of the film have taken care with the costumes, sets, scenery, models, CGI effects and Howard Shore's epic score to create a convincing depiction of Middle Earth.

Once again the cast delivers expert performances. John Noble joins the cast as Denethor and effectively makes him into a despicable and repugnant character. Three of the performances in the film were particularly memorable for me. Bernard Hill once again brings authority to the role of King Theoden and his inspiring presence on the battlefield left me in awe. Miranda Otto brings strength to the role of Eowyn and makes the character's best moments unforgettable. Ian McKellen once again brought his commanding presence as Gandalf to bear as he tried desperately to hold everything together.

This film follows the familiar format of the first two films in taking Tolkien's work and streamlining it to create a well-paced film. The famous battle at Minas Tirith is on an unprecedented scale and the best fantasy battle ever filmed. As with the first two films, I found the added scenes for the extended addition interesting, but they didn't add much above and beyond the already great theatre cut.
15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Jackson maintains the quality right to the very end.
WaMoZ25 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The Return of the King was possibly the most-anticipated film ever, the previous two installments of The Lord of the Rings having instantly ingrained themselves on the movie going public's consciousness. Personally, I held little fear that the film would fall victim to the dreaded cinematic condition of sequelitis and fail to live up to expectation. But only the actual release of the movie an agonising year after The Two Towers would remove this uncertainty, and fulfill my desire to see on the big screen the end of one of the great stories. As with The Fellowship of the Ring, I need not have concerned myself. As a spectacle, The Return of the King is by far the most impressive of Peter Jackson's landmark trilogy. Unfortunately, like TTT, it has flaws, but fortunately these are not fatal.

Jackson's great triumph is that even with all its CGI wonders, his film does not neglect its characters, in particular the relationships between Gandalf and Pippin, Eowyn and Theoden, and of course Frodo and Sam. Each resonates in the memory. Even in the midst of battle Jackson focuses on the people into which he has invested so much time and care. It's a shame Hollywood in general is blind to the possibility of overwhelming spectacle co-existing with the human element of cinema. The intercutting between the battle in front of the Black Gate and the desperate struggles at the Crack of Doom is just stunning, with the expressions on the faces of the each of the Fellowship members underlining what a tour-de-force of storytelling this movie is. The relationship of Frodo and Sam becomes the centrepiece of the movie more and more as it goes on. This is the way it should be, because their parting at the Grey Havens is the last act of the story. Jackson shows that his sensitivity to Tolkien is still there, in spite of the harsh verdicts of many who disapprove of the changes from book to film. Ironically, the clamour of "too many endings" by those who hadn't read the book demonstrates why the earlier changes had to be made.

A lot of story had to go into this movie, but this is necessary for the following reasons. In TTT there is a convenient pause in the story between Helm's Deep and the Isengard reunion. After Pippin looks into the Palantir the momentum is unbroken in the FotR movie until the end of the great battle inside and outside Minas Tirith. Thus, a great deal of TTT book narrative was still to be shown because the movie of TTT left out many of the last chapters. There was no place for the Voice of Saruman chapter at the end of TTT, because in cinematic terms it would have been too anticlimactic, but more about that later. Also, Jackson really has no option but to put Frodo's and Sam's fights with Shelob and the battles for Gondor at the same stage of the movie. This makes so much more sense than separating them and having to handle a buildup in tension, then the Shelob fight, then another tension buildup before the great battle for Gondor. The structure of the movie would have been too cumbersome. Anyway, when Tolkien's chronology in the appendices is read, you realise both events happen at nearly the same time.

The worst consequence of the packing of so much narrative into this movie is the underwritten character of Denethor. He is totally unsympathetic, which is a mistake, because in the book he is much more interesting. Jackson should have found a way to include Denethor's struggle with Sauron through the Palantir, because this is the real reason for Denethor's madness. In this film the cause is his grief over Boromir's death, which also partly explains his treatment of Faramir, but this sells the character of Denethor short. Not only that, but also the death of Denethor is perhaps Jackson's worst error of judgement. The fiery 100 yard dash and plunge over the edge is just ridiculous.

There is nothing "wrong" with the arrival of the Army of the Dead to win the battle, but its just not as stirring as the end of Helm's Deep battle. The high point of RotK's battles is the charge of the Rohirrim and their fight against the Mumakil (ie giant elephants), which tends to make the actual of end of the battle a let down. Wisely, Jackson does not focus on the green tide washing over Sauron's hordes, instead he cuts back to Miranda Otto's wonderfully passionate portrayal of Eowyn killing the Witch-King, then throws in the now-famous single-handed bringing down of a mumakil by who else? Legolas, of course.

No discussion of this movie should neglect the Extended Edition DVD. Possibly the greatest flaw in the theatrical version of RotK is the omission of the Voice of Saruman scene, and insertion of a silly, misleading line of Gandalf that Saruman had lost his power. But unfortunately, as with the omission of the sons of Denethor scene at Osgiliath in TTT, the scene breaks the flow of the movie too much, and given the three hour plus running time, this decision was understandable. As with TTT, Jackson is given a get out of jail card by the EE, on which Saruman's demise can be seen for the first time. I am sorry to say that I was not as generally impressed by the RotK EE as I was by the EEs of FotR and TTT. Jackson is too self-indulgent with Gimli's character. In the theatrical version of RotK I didn't mind these gags, but in the Paths of the Dead scene in particular I found that Gimli's antics spoiled the mood of horror and dread that should have been maintained. All of that being said, the EE still deserves the highest recommendation. It adds many important details, such as Eowyn and Faramir falling in love. The LotR movie experience is incomplete without it.
13 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Arguably the Greatest Film of All Time
grantbullert21 May 2018
"The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" is a film like no other. The massive scale is unparalled, yet it stays down to earth and doesn't forget about what the story is all about: our humble Fellowship who desire to bring an end to the evil of Sauron and his puppets.

-Analysis of Notable Work- *Writing/Directing: All paths cross in this epic conclusion of one of the greatest stories ever told. The mastery of the storytelling completely sets this film apart from almost all other franchises. There is so much depth and heart to each character that it doesn't matter who is on screen at the time. We are totally drawn in to the story. The pacing and tension building is phenomenal and is what makes this film a classic among the fantasy genre, and perhaps even a classic across all of cinema. Peter Jackson's astounding work is clearly visible once again in this epic tale. He has complete command over every aspect of his brilliant adaptation of Tolkien's master work. *Cinematography/Editing: Once again, the work of Andrew Lesnie continues to impress and awe. He brings such beauty and realism to Jackson's vision. Few cinematographers would be able to do what he has done for these films. Every shot is a beautiful work of art, but also an excellent piece of storytelling. The editing is incredible in this final installment. Tension and urgency rise as the film progresses. The blending of the images and soundscape, as well as music makes us feel as if we are in Middle-earth. *Dialogue/Acting: The urgency is also heightened due to the incredible dialogue. Speeches are more grand than they have ever been, conversations between main characters have so much weight to them. The delivery from the actors is what really sells it. There is so much passion coming from every actor in this film. Viggo Mortensen continues to impress. Sir Ian McKellen is as powerful as ever. Sean Astin delivers his best performance of his life. Every member of the cast is incredible and believable. There is not a single weak link in the cast. The heart that everyone put into these films is clearly visible, and it pays off in this epic conclusion. *Music/Sound: The soundtrack is second to none. Howard Shore proves he is a genius as he continues to build on the musical world he created through the past two films. The music is so essential in this cinematic world; it adds depth to every moment. The sound mixing, sound editing, and sound design are all marvelous. They suck the audience into the world and help grab and hold our attention all throughout the film. The atmosphere feels so undeniably real due to the soundscape. The work the sound designers and foley crew did is incredibly tedious and it shows. They created a masterpiece of sound. *Production Design/Special Effects: The set pieces and weapons, armor, make-up, and more are even more impressive in this film than the previous two. The work that Weta Workshop did is unprecedented and has not been matched since. Every prop and set has so much detail that it feels as real as anything we would see in the real world. The attention to detail in this film is second to none. The special effects, both practical and digital, are groundbreaking. The blending of CGI and real effects is seamless and is many years ahead of its time. This film should be the rule book for how to effectively create a massive film with multiple elements.

*Conclusion: "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" is a film that has paved the way for fantasy films and all films with a massive scale. It is a masterful work through every single aspect of film. No film before it has been so groundbreaking on so many levels or matched the level of mastery in every aspect of filmmaking. No film after it has quite lived up to the level of perfection this film has achieved. It is for these reasons that it deserves to be part of the discussion for the greatest film ever brought to screen.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
WubsTheFadger20 May 2018
Short and Simple Review by WubsTheFadger

The third and finale film in The Lord of the Rings series is the best. Peter Jackson left the best for last in this epic of all epics. The scale of the film is huge and the battles and set pieces are massive. This film is a masterpiece that needs to be experienced. The ending is touching and brought chills.

The acting is once again amazing. Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Orlando Bloom, Sean Astin, Cate Blanchett, Sean Bean, Billy Boyd, Ian Holm, Christopher Lee, Andy Serkis, John Rhys-Davies, Dominic Monaghan, Viggo Mortensen, Liv Tyler, Hugo Weaving, Bernard Hill, Bruce Hopkins, Brad Dourif, Miranda Otto, Karl Urban, and David Wenham are all amazing. I have to stress once again that they are also perfectly cast in this film.

The pacing and runtime is perfect.

The battles in this film are grand, spectacular, and massive.

Pros: Amazing story throughout all three films, a wonderful and touching ending, amazing acting, perfect casting, perfect pacing, a good runtime, and the battles are amazing

Cons: None at all

Overall Rating: 10
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A fantastic conclusion to a great trilogy
Tweekums19 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
After a brief prologue showing us how Sméagol came to get the ring and how he came to be the pitiful creature we know the film proper starts where The Two Towers left off; Sméagol is continuing with his plan to lure Frodo and Sam to their doom in Shelob's lair and Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli are reunited with Merry and Pippin at Isengard.

When Pippin looks into the palantír, a sort of dark crystal ball, he sees the city of Minas Tirith under attack, unfortunately he himself is seen by Sauron. Galdalf takes him to Minas Tirith when he rides there to warn of the impending attack while the others remain behind to raise an army large enough to assist in that coming battle.

I thought that the battle of Helm's Deep was impressive but it seems a mere skirmish compared to the battle of Minas Tirith, here there are thousands of Orcs supported by mercenaries mounted on gigantic elephant like creatures that are large enough to crush a man and his horse under their giant feet. All the time this battle rages Frodo and Sam are journeying deeper and deeper into the land of Mordor to Mount Doom in order to end Sauron's reign once and for all.

This is probably the best film of the trilogy, I can see why it raked in the awards, the only weakness was the epilogue once the quest was completed the film could have ended at the crowning of the king rather than going on to their return to the Shire... even though I'm aware that this was in the book. Peter Jackson did a fantastic job bringing such an epic story to the screen, he was of course assisted by a fantastic cast who really brought the characters to life.
15 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
"Put aside the Ranger, become who you were born to be."
classicsoncall25 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Weary beyond words, Hobbit companions Frodo and Sam continue their journey to destroy the One Ring, with the sinister Gollum still their guide. The film opens interestingly with Gollum's origin story, capturing his descent into depravity and madness, finding the ring in much the same manner in which he lost it. The ring has the power to affect it's bearer, and not for good.

With the battle of Helm's Deep over and Saruman's power gone, the attention focuses on the capital of Gondor, Minas Tirith. There the race of men must make a last stand before the growing might of an unseen enemy, while those visible are more of a threat than ever. "The Return of the King" in it's way is as much Aragorn's story as it is Frodo's; a reluctant noble struggling to find his destiny who comes to accept and eventually embrace it under the tutelage of the White Wizard Gandalf. The subtle subtext of Aragorn's relationship with Lady Arwen of the Elven realm leads to his triumph with no illusions for Eowyn, establishing a noble grace and dignity for the new King.

Upon my second viewing of the entire trilogy, I was surprised at how my attention was continually drawn to the character of Samwise Gamgee, Frodo's faithful companion. This in large part to the excellent portrayal by Sean Astin, showing a range of emotions throughout the film that proffered him as the most well developed character of the story. He's a loyal friend through thick and thin, understanding clearly that by the journey's near end, Frodo's mind may no longer be his own.

Gimli is another character to keep a close eye on for the understated humor John Rhys-Davies brings to the story. The personal competition he began with Legolas (Orlando Bloom) in "The Two Towers" finds comic resonance here; as Legolas brings down a rampaging olyphant on the Pelennor Fields, Gimli tempers his congratulations with "That still only counts as one" - marvelous!

With the One Ring destroyed, so is Sauron's awesome power, and a quest resolved for the fortunes of mankind. The film's multiple endings encapsulate just as many feelings in the viewer, those of loyalty, honor, love, sacrifice and friendship. As a unit, the Lord of the Rings Trilogy stand as probably the ultimate in cinematic adventure to this point in time. Truly, I can only make one suggestion to make the series even more poignant, that for a film that reveals the discovery of the One Ring by Bilbo Baggins, the basis for the adventure that begins in "The Hobbit".
15 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A change of my top 5 movies
intelboy17 January 2004
This movie is the best of everything, the charaters are the best with each other and their environment. You have to love the pros, as well as the antags. This movie as one reviewer once said of this movie, it is the best movie of this generation! The saddest part, it is the last movie. The only thing I have to say that was a downer, it needed more epic battles! So, my top 5 have now changed: 5=Scarface,4=Matrix,3=Lord of the Rings 3,2=Godfather,1=Citizen Kane.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
15 years on... Still the greatest
jamiedphilips23 December 2015
I've just re-watched The Lord of the Rings trilogy for the 1000th time tonight... nearly 15 years since the Fellowship of the Rings was released... I still haven't seen a movie that's better, nor close, to any of these three films. The casting is perfection as well as the incredible acting by everyone in the movie. I can still watch these movies back to back and not get bored. They are a light to this world and wouldn't be the same without them.

I miss the good old LOTR's days. The best movies ever created. The Return of the King was the best way to end a thrilling journey through middle earth!
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed