This movie, and trilogy in general, is a cinematic (and literary) masterpiece, and simply refuses to get old. I love this movie so much it's become a tradition to watch the Lord of the Rings series at least once a year! It's just as good as Christmas
Add a Review
-
venividiamavi-v7 August 2019
-
jamiedphilips23 December 2015I'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! -
diffguy2 November 2020The greatest tragedy of the human race is that they will never make a better movie than Return of the King.
-
auuwws28 September 2020Best movie in the trilogy and sealed in the best possible way
-
After finishing my 100th (give or take) time watching the entire trilogy I'd figured a review was long overdue. There are no words for what i feel about this trilogy. It's beyond anything i can explain. The closest word would be perfection, but that doesn't even do it justice.
I was 11 when the first movie came out, and i fell in love with the franchise immediately. Everything i did revolved around the fantasy universe as this franchise was the first big thing i truly fell in love with. I have pictures of elves on my walls and dragon statues on my shelfs. I have Sting hanging on my wall and my key chain for my car keys is the One Ring. My wife has the evening star and she wore it at our wedding. Lord of the rings has made me to who i am today and i feel privileged to have such a masterpiece be created in my short span on this earth!
I love Fellowship of the Ring and Two Towers, but Return of the King is the final piece that brings everything together. I'm usually a pretty tough guy, and i rarely get emotional but the last hour is hard for me to sit through without shedding a tear. No matter how many times i watch the franchise i always get emotional. "My friends. You bow to no one!" gets me every time!
The last thing I'd like to ad is that i feel like I'm a part of the journey. I feel sorta empty after watching it. I feel like all of the hobbits when they come back home and drinks their first pints at The Green Dragon. It's one of the movies where i sit through the end credits and just think. This is a good thing. You know a movie is extraordinary if it makes you empty after you've watched it! -
OttoVonB22 November 2006All 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... -
terrylarosa11 February 2022Nothing even comes close and I may well not see it personally topped. Every single scene is magnificent. The acting is superb as is the direction, script, hauntingly beautiful music, cinematography and the incredible battles; especially the hour long battle on the Pellenor Fields and Minas Tirith. The characters are some of the greatest ever created and to root for. The movie is simply perfection from beginning to end and the 4 hour version is just as majestic. There's not a single negative thing I can say about a movie that deserves all it's nominated Oscars. My family and I watched it 4 times in its first 12 days of release. A joyous experience every time. Magnificent!!!!!!
-
GuyCC17 December 2003Peter 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. -
Derek23716 March 2005Obviously, 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 -
TheLittleSongbird9 March 2011I 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 -
fearfulofspiders25 August 2008The 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. -
canuck4uall16 January 2004The third installment of the Lord of the Rings was a good movie, however, I had many problems with the character development and acting in the movie. Sean Astin and Elijah Wood, (the only two exceptions,) played the roles of Frodo and Samwise admirably. Even with some of the adaptations from Peter Jackson's interpretation of the books, the story is still intriguing. However, none of the other characters in the remaining part of the fellowship suffered no more than 3 seconds of any kind of acting at a time, as nearly all the dialogue from the book is erased. And at the ending sequence, when Frodo wakes up, the cheerful scenes drag on forever, when Peter Jackson could have saved it by cutting off half the slow motion and instead, showing the last parts of the book with the burning & enslavement of the shire, and the uprising that followed. All in all, it was a good movie. Cinematic, epic, and, above all, bloody.
-
internetgarbage17 December 2003This movie was disappointing. As the third and final piece to the LOTR trilogy, this film took a step back from the previous two. I commend Peter Jackson's work on "The Fellowship..." and "The Two Towers" as great spectacles in modern film, however, "The Return of the King" will go down as the weakest link in this trilogy.
Some problems I had with this movie is the reoccurring patterns that we have already seen in the previous two movies. Just when it seems as though all hope is lost for the "good" guys, some swooping x-factor comes in and helps and saves the day. And come-on...how in the world is anyone supposed to beat ghosts. I feel this was a poor interpretation from the book.
And how many more times do we need to see Frodo about to give up, and then Sam giving a pep-talk to keep his spirits up. We've seen this scene about 20 times already in the previous two movies.
The main battle scene in this movie does not compare to the other main battle scenes from the previous two movies also.
I usually don't complain about long movies, but this movie was ridiculously long at almost 3.5 hours. All-in-all it was still a decent movie but the worst out of the trilogy.
7/10 -
athgeo21 January 2019It is the best movie I can remember I've watched while I was a kid!
-
danlongino16 December 2003Saying 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. -
Hitchcoc16 March 2006I am in awe of the knowledge of some of the reviewers. I've been disappointed with virtually every film version of a beloved book that I have seen. I have not studied "The Lord of the Rings" though I have read the trilogy twice and parts several times. I know what a scholar Tolkien was and admire his work in linguistics as well as storytelling. The two entities do not need to cross over. If one really wanted to make the book you would have about two hours of poetry and a 56 hour movie. Movie-making is, unfortunately, forced to play by different rules. First of all, this film could not have been made until now. Imagine people dressed as trees. Remember those old Superman serials where whenever the Man of Steel flies, he becomes animated. Now that is genuinely bad. What Peter Jackson did here will be his legacy; had he died the day the film was complete, he would go down in film history. Everything is set up. The ring must be returned. Frodo is drunk with power and is latched on by the forces of evil. Those continuing the quest must face the ultimate and some do. Gollum is in the way, using his wiles to drive the ring back to him. The visual magnificence of Mount Doom and Mordor are unbelievable. One thing that is never mentioned is the incredible acting of most of the characters. Jackson may be a master of spectacle, but Frodo's character is a mass of impulses and expressions. He believes he is going to die and is afraid. Do you see a little bit of Christianity mixed in here? I'm not going down that road because, of course, the Bible is an epic too and has its own story. This is a movie about how friendship, loyalty, and sacrifice will out against evil. The evil is so remarkable and so oppressive.
I can't begin to talk in the terms of other reviewers, but I do need to make sure that I weigh in on this film and the other two because this is a product of our society that we can all be proud of. -
Frodo and Sam continue their desperate journey to destroy the ring, Gollum has his eyes very much on the prize, knowing they cannot possibly get past Sauron's army, Aragorn creates a diversion.
Surely this is a contender for the greatest film of all time, I can think of nothing negative to say, it's everything you want in a movie and more. Action packed, intriguing, funny and several scenes that will pull a few years from your eyes.
The greatest battle scenes of all time, they are as relentless as they are breathtaking, if you like action, this is the film for you.
There isn't a single lull, at no point does it ever dip, it doesn't matter which character the focus is on, it captivates, that opening sequence with Gollum was off the scale, as was the final, epic battle.
I will only watch the extended version, as I find Christopher Lee's absence in the theatrical cut unforgivable, I know it's about four hours long, but that doesn't matter, you lose all sense of time in the wonder and brilliance.
McKellen, Mortensen, Wood, everyone associated, incredible.
This film truly is one of the best ever made.
10/10. -
eiratan17 December 2003As 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. -
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.
-
carlos-grant28 March 2012This movie and the whole trilogy deserves all the praise it has received.
I had been worried about seeing it because of how much Peter Jackson re-wrote "Two Towers" and presented scenes that undermined some of Tolkien's fundamental ideas. This time, Jackson followed Tolkien more closely and the worst that can be claimed are sins of omission. It's a real shame we didn't get to see Christopher Lee in this move; he totally rocked in the previous films. Telling us to wait for the "extended" version isn't right. Maybe Jackson should have foregone one of the too many endings in ROTK to give Lee some film time. That said, all the elements that worked in the previous movies were absolutely glorious in this film. The one new thing that I would add to so much that has already been written is that big kudos must go to the great Tolkien artists Alan Lee and John Howe whose artistry shaped so much of the imagery from the first moments of FOTR to the final scenes of ROTK. This historic trilogy would not have been the same without them. The LOTR enterprise has clearly been a great labor of love from all who worked on it over the years, and this final installment was a crowning achievement. -
mstomaso30 November 2007Just 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. -
Leofwine_draca19 August 2016Finally, the last movie in the series. Finally, Peter Jackson makes his intentions clear. Now we realise that the first two movies in this series were just the build up to this epic of a film. A masterful masterpiece, a flawless work of cinema whose only fault is that it seems too short. I don't have much to say about this; I don't want to spoil anything. But this is the big one. It completely blows the other two great movies out of the water. Suddenly, everything is more adult, more dramatic, and ten times the emotion. You could call it an emotional roller-coaster ride; certainly Jackson touches the nerves and heart-strings on more than one occasion.
The centrepiece of the film is the battle for Minas Tirith, a huge war scene which features amazing special effects unlike anything ever seen before. An army of 300,000 riders on the heroes who defend their city with courage and spirit. Dragons fly down from the sky, huge boulders are tossed back and forth, and an army of trolls and oliphants are sent in to obliterate the heroes. Everything is dark and gruesome; Jackson reveals his origins by including many graphic and gruesome deaths which somehow make the 12A certificate a bit of a joke. Men are decapitated, crushed, impaled, and burnt. Heads fly over city walls and the viewer just sits and gapes at the magnificence of it all.
The casting is excellent. Ian McKellen and Viggo Mortensen come into their own. Billy Boyd is given serious stuff to deal with now, not just comic relief: his singing over the death of the soldiers is extremely moving and a stand against all generals who sit back and send their men to certain death. Miranda Otto comes into her own. The new character of Denethor is great, just as in the book. Legolas and Gimli are still there, although on the sidelines as always. But the real emotion comes from Elijah Wood and Sean Astin: this pair are brilliant, and their final journey to Mount Doom will bring tears to anybody's eyes through the heartache involved. Gollum is a force to be reckoned with this time and cannot be forgotten.
After the slow build-up of the initial hour, things explode in cinematic heaven. The battles are amazing, topped by the arrival of the ghost army, sheer brilliance. Shelob is a wonderful special effect and extremely frightening. There is so much to love and thankfully the powerhouse ending doesn't disappoint. The only problem with this film is that it properly ends about 30 minutes before the credits, and Jackson fills the final 30 minutes with endless mawkish sentimentality which becomes truly sickening. Sadly, it doesn't spoil what's come before; I just tune out at this part. -
kiwikwi17 December 2003Not surprisingly, a lot of good plot had been removed from the story, and a lot of bad plot inserted. This is hardly news; the same happened to the two predecessors. Much was lost by skipping "The Scouring of the Shire". The computer graphics are well-done but rarely convincing, and Gollum's only task is to provide comic relief. Most of the audience seemed to find him quite funny. I was just bored.
Tolkien's books told a great story basically about the weakness of men (and other races), and the importance of not fighting alone. The best example being the events on the edge of Mount Doom. Tolkien made a strong point in that nobody is perfect, neither perfectly good nor perfectly evil.
The film completely ignores this and simplifies things to pure black and white. There's good, and there's evil, with nothing in-between , no shades of grey.
And that I think is sad.
All that being said, the film has a few but important qualities, and that's the great camera work, the excellent acting and the stunning scenery - CG-scenery too.
The rest of the CG is not that interesting, except for Shelob the spider who really makes up for it. The sound of a whole cinema audience simultaneously gasping in horror as ... Well, I won't spoil for those who haven't read the books. But wow. So, in the end, despite all its flaws, I recommend seeing this film. But go see it now, on the big screen. It won't be worth your time on TV. -
hosr229 December 2003I went to see ROTK for the 2nd time yesterday and aside from the myriad of minor flaws, want to concentrate on major issues surrounding Jackson's character development.
ARAGORN is the first big problem. In the book he is both a ranger from the north, but also a man destined to be king. He knows who he is, and he has an expectation of that destiny. Likewise in the book he has 'spiritual' awareness. Aragorn is descended, not merely from men, but from Numenor: so he already has in him some of the blood of the Elves. Now Jackson gives all foresight to the Elves - making the men merely, men. But the whole point is that the-man-born-to-be-king has the spiritual awareness of the great kings of old. Thus, in book II at the river it is Aragorn, not Legolas (as in Jackson's version), who is aware of a shadow growing in his heart. And, more significantly, it is Aragorn who in the book takes the palantir by his right (Gandalf actually bows to give it to him). Gandalf counsels him not to use it, but Aragorn knows who he is. So he looks in the palantir and shows Sauron the sword. He challenges Sauron, and then wrenches the palantir away from the Eye to use as HE wills, not as Sauron wills. In so doing he sees the black fleet, and so knows the threat. That's why he takes the path of the dead. And when he goes under the Dimholt he REALLY summons the dead. The exchange in the film between Aragorn and the Geoffrey-Rush-Pirates-of-the-Caribbean-look-alike ghost is feeble in the film. In the book Aragorn does not doubt who he is: he calls them, not barters with them.
Now Aragorn's action here is part of a much larger cohesion in Tolkien that is entirely absent in Jackson. As a result we're left with a desperately anti-climactic coronation. Why? There's simply been no character development of Aragorn. He's been denuded of a sense of who he is.
SAURON is the next big problem. It's true that in the book he is mostly referred to as the Eye. But he also has personality. In the film, apart from the opening sequence to film I (which was brilliant) all we have is a plasma lamp sometime searchlight. Since in the book Gandalf has told Frodo that 'Sauron is taking shape again' why on earth didn't Jackson then develop Sauron from the figure in film I? In the book, we are told of Sauron's gnawing doubt. We hear of reports about 'spies' entering Mordor. We know that he is consumed by fear of the upstart heir of Elendil. None of this is developed in the film. (And the Ring seems to lose power on entering Mordor, not gain it!) Result? There was no sense of elation at the fall of Barad'dur.
Now this is a serious theological error that I suspect Tolkien would have detested. Personify good, and you must also personify evil. Tolkien's epic was all about those forces being personified: and how you discern them. Sauron is a personification of evil. He's not actually the worst - that belongs to Morgoth (of whom the Balrog is a servant). Whilst Tolkien rightly loathed allegory, he nonetheless never would have countenanced such a weak and ineffectual portrayal of the enemy. The whole point, and if this isn't obvious in the world today then Jackson is even less astute than I imagined, is that evil in many guises takes human form.
OTHERS
The same lack of characterisation in Aragorn and Sauron goes on with many of the others. Notable exceptions are GANDALF and SARUMAN (both well acted). Jackson made a mistake in cutting Saruman out of III having made so much of him in I and II (more than the book). ARWEN is drippy throughout. EOWYN is changed in the film. Miranda Otto was excellent. But Jackson plays up the love between her and Aragorn so much that we are left wondering how Eowyn is apparently beatifically happy to see him with Arwen. On the subject of Eowyn it's such a shame Jackson didn't do the slaying of the witch-king better. In the book the battlefield pauses - a cloud goes up and everyone in Minas Tirith is happy. It's one of the truly great moments, lost by Jackson. The reports even leak back to the orcs in the tower above Shelob's lair so that Sam and Frodo hear that 'No.1. has been done in'.
As for the HOBBITS . I think this may be a question of preference. Personally I think Sean Astin's acting as SAM is execrable, but some like it. For me, the simple gardener becomes a mini-philosopher and I find his soliloquy both at the end of film II in Osgiliath (to which they never go in the book) and on the mountain (twice) truly toe-curlingly dreadful: pap I'm afraid. And, oh dear, we even veered towards Titanic-music-moments at the end of film I and again on the mountain. BILBO was fine until the end. Yes, we know he ages fast now he's lost the ring, but the Salieri-style prosthetics are poor. Jackson loves the slow-motion work so much that we have to endure some particularly dreadful sequences with the Hobbits (most notably the already infamous bed scene) and at the end (where I really thought Frodo was going to give Sam a full-on smacker!). A similarly tacky piece of directing occurs when the elves appear - the soft focus lens is deployed with 'celtic' singing. Argh - this is kindergarten film production.
I expect the film will garner the Oscars ceremony. But I hope some people in Tinsel town have the courage to acknowledge that whilst some of the visuals are outstanding (though many are not - e.g. the oliphaunt descent by Legolas, the Merrick-style leader of the orcs, and the Army of the dead), the film is not actually very good.
Peter - I'm afraid you've let us, and J.R.R. Tolkien, down.