The Return of the King (1980 TV Movie) User Reviews (65)

Frodo of the Nine Fingers ....and the Ring of DOOOOOOOOMM!!!

[CelluloidRehab · 7/10 · 14 January 2005]

This is an animated version of Tolkien's Return of the King and parts of the Hobbit. It is not overly accurate nor thorough, but it is still quite memorable and enjoyable.

The movie starts with Bilbo's 129th birthday celebration. The guest list includes Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Elrond and Gandolf. The Minstrel of Gondor comes out and proceeds to sing. From there we are treated to flashbacks. First a flashback of events from the Hobbit, followed by events from Fellowship of the Ring and Two Towers. The story picks up during Sam's rescue of Frodo from the tower. We are treated to the Battle of Gondor, Frodo & Sam's trip to Mount Doom (through the lands of Mordor) and the Battle at the Black Gate.

This movie is mostly a patchwork of elements from the novel. There are some good voice talents being used. First and foremost is John Huston as Gandalf (and the narrator). One can also recognize Roddy McDowall as the voice of Samwise Gamgee. The voice of Gollum is also memorably done by Brother Theodore. These three characterizations (and voices) along with the music is what makes this movie truly memorable. The music is just so wonderful. I fondly remember my childhood watching this movie, in syndication on television during the mid to late 80's, and being simply captivated. It is quite evident that the target audience for this movie is children. While this movie is not perfect, it definitely opened the door for me to read the books and learn more. I highly recommend this movie to everyone.

-Celluloid Rehab

"Where there's a whip, there's a way!"

[rengl392 · 5/10 · 28 February 2005]

Ten minutes less singing replaced with actual development of the story would have made this mediocre animated version of Tolkien's classic at least somewhat similar to the actual story. As it is, we get a lot of tired, dull hippy tunes and a story that moves slower than molases, and a neglect of a number of critical events from the book. Generally inferior to the Bakshi "Lord of the Rings" and definitely inferior to Peter Jackson's stunning special editions. ("Do you not know death when you see it?!") Still, mildly amusing, and there's always that groovy "Where there's a whip..." Calypso-disco may yet be the strongest weapon in Mordor's arsenal!

Not that bad, but more of a mixed reception from me

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 3 March 2013]

I personally really liked Rankin/Bass' The Hobbit, so I was hoping that their Return of the King would be as good. I will be honest in saying that, although expecting something like Peter Jackson's stunning epic was a tall order, I was a little disappointed judging it on its own terms and in comparing it to Rankin/Bass' Hobbit adaptation. I wouldn't go as far to say that any asset is truly dire, but everything got too much of a mixed reception from me.

Animation: I personally did like the background art. Some were lacking in finesse but most did look very pretty. The colours have times when they're luscious but others when they're rather flat and dull-looking. But it was the character designs where the animation fell down hardest on. Not all of them are bad, Gandalf and Aragorn actually look pretty good. I can see the intent in trying to give Gollum the frog-like appearance he's described as, at the same time though in that effort they took the description to extremes. Of the character designs, which generally were quite ugly-looking if I was to be honest, Pippin, Merry and the ring-wraiths fared the worst.

Music: In terms of songs, there are a couple that stood out, Frodo of Nine Fingers and especially Where There's a Whip were the standouts. The lyrics do a decent job in retaining the poetry of the prose of the book, and some of the scoring has some whimsy. Too much of the music though is done in a style that doesn't fit with the tone of the story and perhaps too late 70s-early 80s. Some of it is catchy, some also is a little lacking in life.

Dialogue: Most of it is not too bad actually, there are some intelligent and thoughtful lines that maintain the spirit of the dialogue of the book. Not all of it however flows very well, coming across as stilted and cheesy instead.

Story: There are moments that do work. Aragorn's Coronation Procession was rousing and moving in equal measure. Sam's temptation has a thrilling sense of foreboding and Eowyn's encounter with the ring-wraith likewise. Conversely it ties with the pacing as the film's biggest failing. Too much of it, due to how much was left out, jumps around and while the essence of fantasy and adventure is there a lot of it feels too choppy and confused. The characters are great but the length and pacing doesn't allow us to care for them properly. Important characters and plot strands are either left out or are over in a matter of seconds(that is including that that explains the whole point of the title) which adds to the confused nature of the narrative.

Pacing: This was a mix as well, but rather than being an asset that was either good or bad or a bit of both, this was the area where it was a mess that was taken to either extreme. Most of the storytelling is rather pedestrian, further bogged down by the inclusion of dream sequences that while interesting in some instances felt too much after a while. The sprawling and choppy nature of how the story was told also gives some scenes and transitions a rushed feeling.

Voice acting: There are some standouts, John Huston embodies Gandalf in a noble and distinguished vocal performance. Brother Theodore is appropriately sinister, and while Gollum here doesn't have enough pathos he does succeed in giving some anyway. Paul Frees is very chilling in his own unique way, and Roddy MacDowell is appropriately loyal as Sam. I was mixed on Orson Bean. I liked his Bilbo in The Hobbit, and he clearly tries hard and has some likable moments, but generally I found his Frodo too over-earnest, not helped by the fact that Frodo comes across as too idealistic in how he is written. Others don't fare very well at all. Casey Kasem's voice is jarring(no offence to him but it was too much Shaggy and not enough Merry), Don Messick sounds as though his voice was recorded inside a filter and Glen Yarbrough has a voice that will go either way with viewers, I personally found his rather bleating sound here a little too hard to take.

Overall, neither awful or great. Everything however is too much of a mixed bag for me. 5/10 Bethany Cox

It's So Easy Not To Try

[parkerr86302 · 6 January 2008]

Having recently seen this version for the first time in a number of years, I can see its faults, but many of the reviewers here are way too hard on it. Tolkien's masterful trilogy was unfilmable in live action before the advent of CGI, but fans were clamoring for film versions anyway, and then hated them when they arrived. Oy veh! While this Rankin/Bass version was not as good as their THE HOBBIT, I still found it to be quite entertaining on its own level, as long as you don't compare it to Peter Jackson's impeccable epics. The voice cast was great, and it was quite ambitious for Rankin/Bass, known chiefly for their animated Christmas specials.

This film's haters should listen to the lyrics of one of Glenn Yarbrough's---It Is So Easy Not To Try. Rankin/Bass tried, and Tolkien fans who have expressed outrage over this would have been angrier if no one had tried back then. Everyone here needs to take a chill pill.

The Ascent of the Animated King

[pirate1_power · 7/10 · 4 February 2005]

It was the first time that Rankin/Bass had dared to take on a two-hour special. But, having plunged into Tolkien's Middle-earth once before, it was a challenge they could pull off with the expertise R/B fans had always expected of them. Hence, The Return of the King: A Story of the Hobbits, to give the film its full title.

One wonders, I'm sure, what inspired Romeo Muller to change Bilbo's age from "eleventy-one," as Tolkien wrote the number, to one hundred and twenty-nine. Still, it was a thrill having most of "The Hobbit"'s vocal contributors back: Orson Bean, John Huston, Theodore, Paul Frees, Don Messick, Glenn Yarbrough --- and adding Casey Kasem, Theodore Bikel and Sonny Melendrez to the mix, too --- to take us on the journey that Ralph Bakshi should have finished, but didn't.

Many are the tales told about how Bakshi was only given enough financing to see us through most of The Fellowship of the Ring and approximately the first half of The Two Towers. When it became apparent, though, that the second Bakshi Ring movie would never come to pass, that made it possible for the folks at Rankin/Bass to seize a golden opportunity. And this they did, as we know by now, with a vengeance. Playing the story straight, as they did with "The Hobbit," the R/B team set out to take all the best elements from Return of the King and begin the film in flashback, with Bilbo's 129th birthday party, as he, Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Gandalf and Elrond look back at the good times and excellent adventures that culminated in the end of the Third Age of Middle-earth ..... and with it, in Gandalf's words, "the beginning of the New Age of Man."

Again, as I did with Peter Jackson's version, I will dispense with a plot synopsis, assuming that you are already familiar with the legend without having to hear me tell it to you. Among the several strange moments that one does not notice about Rankin/Bass' Return of the King occurs during the sequence in which Gollum battles Frodo for control of the One Ring of Power. In a move considered unprecedented at the time of its original showing, Rankin/Bass decided to depict this climactic showdown graphically. The closeup of Frodo's just bitten hand shaking as though it were an earthquake monitor was, for its time, the most horrifying scene R/B's animators had ever attempted. To this day, one shudders in surprise that this scene was even cleared by ABC's censors!

In place of Tolkien's original songs, Maury Laws and Jules Bass save the day again (assisted partially by Bernard Hoffer, who would later write the score cues and theme songs for R/B's classic 80s series, Thundercats, Silverhawks and The Comic Strip). "It's So Easy Not to Try," "Small Things," "Retreat!", "Where There's a Whip, There's a Way" and "The Ballad of Frodo of the Nine Fingers and the Ring of Doom" are all singable, they help the story along (indeed, in the case of "Where There's a Whip, There's a Way," it has the proverbial great beat you can dance to --- or, one presumes, torture your enemies with!) .... and they're songs you can believe in!

But no one sequence in the film is as deeply powerful visually as Aragorn's Coronation Procession, set to the film's title song. Here's something you didn't know: For one short panning scene, the animators went to Jerusalem, where they shot live-action footage of people cheering. The footage was then studied and brilliantly rotoscoped, so that it actually looks like there are citizens of Minas Tirith cheering on the coming of their King!

Once again, we see that the Rankin/Bass team were second to none in their constant efforts to share with their audiences adventures unlike anything they had previously experienced. And because they were the only production entity that had pioneered the "dramatic animated television special," they could take this type of story and put it into the context that was its rightful due.

This, then, was the power behind The Return of the King --- a simple, straightforward saga that would not bow to the attitudes of so-called sensationalism, but would nevertheless be the only Tolkien adventure that one could truly believe in.

And then, as the world knows by now, came a man named Peter Jackson. But that, again as they say, is another story.........

Another fun, cute way of telling the story.

[whizkids · 7/10 · 21 June 2004]

This is another good animation. Unlike what Bakshi tried to do which was try and make a blockbuster out of a cartoon LOTR, Rankin and Bass just tried and make a nice cartoon that kids can enjoy, and it wound up being excellent.

If you read my review on the Hobbit, then you know that the artistry lacks a little. Though, Aragorn looked pretty decent. My only real complaint here is that (spoiler here) Frodo puts on the Ring halfway through the story, when Theoden dies. Although, I suppose it would have been difficult to have it on the correct timeframe since they kind of skipped some stuff that happened in line with the other characters. Also, there is a noteable lack of Gimli and Legolas in here. But then, we might not have wanted to see Legolas since in the Hobbit, they portrayed Elves with blue skin, very long ears and pointy fingers. But on a high note, they did show the reason why Denethor went mad, and that was something PJ hasn't done.

In a nutshell, very nicely done, kids'll like it and so will their parents. Like I said with the Hobbit. if you see it on the shelf in a store pick it up. You might be surprised.

ECCH!!!

[Jonas190 · 4/10 · 27 January 2003]

I bought this movie. I had never seen it, but I figured since it had the "Return of the King" name it would be decent. I was horribly mistaken. I have tried to watch this movie about 3 times. Every single time I have fallen asleep only to be woken up by terrible music. IF you must see this film, rent it. Do not buy it. Save yourself from the torment of actually owning this movie.

Why is it so bad?

1) Terrible music sung by a guy with a terrible voice.

2) Really doesn't follow what happened in the book (I know that sometimes movies cant follow a book exactly, but this movie doesn't even attempt to do so). 3) The music was terrible. 4) Very bad animation. Speed Racer has better animation.

5) Bad music. 6) Did I mention the horrendous dialogue? Sam has around 15 minutes straight of dialogue that makes almost no sense. 7) I really hope I mentioned the horrific music.

Those are only 7 of the many reasons I have for not liking this movie. It really is not deserving of having any name that deals with any of J.R.R. Tolkiens works. This movie is a scar for anything that deals with Lord of the Rings.

Bad, but too Charming

[josephellis · 6/10 · 13 April 2021]

Lots of plot holes and missing charcaters and no context but the music, animation, voice acting, art style, and it's flairs make it too charming to hate on. Easily one of the best So Bad Its Good type of film.

Horrible Hatchet Job of Tolkien's Masterpiece

[louiepatti · 1/10 · 9 March 2005]

When Rankin and Bass unveiled their version of Tolkien's "The Hobbit" in 1977, it was a charming if abbreviated made-for-television animated film that was fun and even a bit scary. Their voice casting choices were fine, especially Richard Boone, whose cancer-rasped voice brought the dragon Smaug to life, and Theodore as the creepy and loathsome Gollum, who evoked fear and disgust but little pity. In 1978, Ralph Bakshi attempted to bring the first half of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy to the big screen in his lushly animated epic. Unfortunately, his big-budget film flopped, much to the disappointment of Tolkien's fans, and Bakshi would be unable to make his sequel. In an effort to finish off the unfinished series, Rankin and Bass tried to make their own version to satisfy the audience who wanted to see closure. It was and remains an unmitigated disaster.

Why is this cartoon so awful? Well, the answer lies mainly in the word "cartoon". Unlike The Hobbit, which featured beautifully painted scenery that evoked delicate watercolors and ethereal linework, which had so evidently been crafted with loving care and cast with thought to matching characters to actors, The Return of the King had all the earmarks of having been hastily cobbled together. It wasn't so much an animated homage to a great writer's work as a hatchet job. A huge chunk of the events in Tolkien's books were missing between where Bakshi's fairly faithful rendition ended and this abomination began. The drawings were slapped together and were often repetitious and ugly. Voice actors from the first film returned and some of them worked: Orson Bean was fine as Frodo, Theodore was again great as Gollum, Theodore Bikel did a fine job as Aragorn, and Roddy McDowall was wonderful as Samwise Gamgee. The rest were abysmal. Instead of hiring actors to do the characters, cartoon voice actors such as Don Messick (Scooby-Doo) and Casey Kasem (Shaggy) were cast. It was downright painful to hear a Nazgull being done by Scooby Doo through a distortion filter. Many characters integral to Tolkien's story were cast away: Where was Gimli? Faromir? Any of the elves (other than Elrond) such as Legolas or Glorfindel? How about the Army of the Dead or Sauroman? Merry and Pippin didn't develop as characters; Gollum remained merely vile, as if Bakshi's attempts to show this tortured being's strangely noble and pathetic side never happened. The dialog was stilted and sometimes unintentionally hilarious ("As the flag's standard broke the wind. . ."). It was awful beneath description from beginning to end, appearing to be a shameless attempt to cash in on the hopes of frustrated fans who'd wanted the second animated movie made.

That, of course, was the entire problem. This cartoon was, despite its trappings and claims, just a cartoon, less charming by far than The Hobbit and far less noble than Bakshi's film. Both of those were honest attempts at creating art, and each succeeded in its limited way until swept aside by Peter Jackson, who finally gave Tolkien's opus the treatment it deserved. The two earlier films merit a place of honor for trying to achieve cinematic beauty. Rankin and Bass's The Return of the King deserves to simply be forgotten.

Did the Best Job the Could With the Material They Had. Decent Movie

[michael_the_nermal · 6/10 · 11 June 2006]

This movie is unfairly maligned as a cheesy adaptation. It is much closer to Tolkien's book than the big-budget live-action movie. Rankin-Bass did an admirable job attempting to piece together the final third of The Lord of the Rings without the first 2/3 of the plot as a back story. The animation is actually quite good for a made-for-TV movie. Since the book was so thick with plot and action, the movie's limited time and treatment seems rushed, and sometimes makes little sense unless you had read the previous two Lord of the Rings books. As was mentioned before, this movie includes important scenes from the novel that were left out of Peter Jackson's movie, making the Rankin-Bass version a relatively faithful adaptation. Keep in mind it was made for TV by an animation studio known for making cheesy Christmas and Easter specials. Tolkien's novel, while intended for young readers, was much darker in tone than anything Rankin-Bass had done. This studio did one hell of job translating the themes and dark tones from the book into a made-for-TV cartoon movie.

I can tolerate the folksy songs. If you don't like sappy folk ballads, then this movie is not for you. This movie is full of 'em. I personally enjoyed "Where There's a Whip, There's a Way." Don't know why, but it's a catchy song. Rankin-Bass wants to explore the notion that the Orcs are not pure evil, which is fine by me, and that they have feelings too. It was done a little sappily, but at least it was an attempt at depth which I appreciated.

Oh, I must mention the voices. John Huston is divine as Gandalf the Wizard; he has a magisterial voice that lends credence to the role. Orson Bean and Roddy McDowall are decent as the hobbit heroes. Brother Theodore, the famed performance artist, is excellent as the villain Gollum. I actually preferred Theodore's demented, crazed voice to the hisses of Andy Serkis. The Lord of the Nazgul has a cheesy robot voice, as filtered through a voice changing machine, but for a little kid, that can be quite intimidating. The Mouth of Sauron is one creepy dude, drawn with the same kind of skill Rankin Bass brought to their fantasy cartoons. Some may think the animation sucks, but I dug it. If you actually enjoyed the animation here, watch another good Rankin-Bass movie, "Flight of Dragons."

How can this be so bad when The Hobbit was so good?

[natt-2 · 4/10 · 17 March 2005]

I will ignore the obviously superior films by Peter Jackson when evaluating this low-budget cartoon.

So ... I think that the team behind this had a success with The Hobbit, even though the animation was horrible. Orcs do not look like toads, Elrond does not have a goatie and stars around his head, gollum does not look like a fish etc. (even if it got worse here when the skeletor-nazguls showed up) Still, The Hobbit (1977) worked in my mind (I gave it an 8 vote here), Glenn's songs were great there, the voices were very good, the story was a children's story, my 4-yr old girl loves it (I saw it for the first time just a month ago). So, The Hobbit was great.

How can this fail so miserably? Of course, the whole idea of omitting almost everything in The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers does not work very well. Who is this Aragorn dude who is made king? We feel nothing for him. Galadriel? Whatever. Theoden? Some guy who falls from a horse and dies. He should have had a better horse. Eowyn? Some random girl who gets lucky.

Glenn's songs are also worse in this one, including only two numbers I really liked (Frodo of Nine Fingers and Where there's a whip). The folksongs seems much better suited to the children story in The Hobbit.

I gave this a 4 ... only because it is still Tolkien somewhere there in the background. It is still the battle of Pelennor fields (and they don't show it just like dots as they did in the battle of five armies). Perhaps I am being too kind to the film.

And whoever decided to make Sam a Christian? That was just plain weird.

Having said that, the film works best when it deviates from the original story, as with the singing orcs and the dream sequence with the waving orcs or when Sam conquers Mordor.

This film is only for the die-hard Tolkien fanatics who just have to see it. I don't think I will even show it to my daughter.

Not meant to be consumed by the general public, but a delicacy nonetheless

[morgan-great-the · 9/10 · 9 July 2012]

In the wake of Peter Jackson's incredibly successful Tolkien series, this movie tends to get a lot of flak. Yet in some regards, I actually prefer this version, and I'll explain why:

The difference of opinion is basically generational and dependent on what the viewer is looking for. If you are hooked on stunning visuals and "epic" proportions in every estimable regard, there is no denying that Peter Jackson's films are better.

While this film deviates from the plot in several instances--no doubt a consequence of condensing so much material into an hour-and-a-half--it does maintain some of the better quotes from the books; keep in mind that these lines are delivered in the style in which they were written, not watered down the way some of the most powerful quotes are in more modern versions.

Combine this with a cast of amazing voice actors (Brother Theodore is the best, creepiest Gollum, hands down; Paul Frees orc voices are chilling; Roddy McDowall and Orson Bean do incredible things; and, of course, John Huston; I am not familiar with the actor that plays Denethor, but I love that performance as well) and you've got what is basically an Elizabethan drama with watercolor backgrounds and animation.

The other major reason why people dislike this film, and again it was a creative choice, is the inclusion of songs. Peter Jackson made films for adults; these animated films are intended for children. I admit that the ratio of song to plot can get tedious in this film, but the reasoning is noble. If you've ever read The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings, you know it is absolutely packed with poetry. I am sure it was this film's intent to preserve this feeling while at the same time emulating the musical style which has been popular with children's programming for years.

In conclusion, people often criticize this film on matters of taste rather than actual merit. If you enjoy animation and well-written dialogue, this is definitely worth a look.

Best Non-Tolkien Song Ever to Grace an Adaptation

[Dr-He-Who-Remains · 7/10 · 15 February 2024]

I have fond memories of watching this film as a kid. This was pre-2000s so Peter Jackson's Trilogy didn't exist yet. This movie, The Hobbit movie (made by the same people), and the movie Ralph Bakshi made, were the only movie versions of Tolkien's world available to me in my childhood.

I got that there were some differences between the books and the movies (my dad read the books to me as a kid), like the Black Riders looking like banshees, and not including Legolas or Gimli. But as I go older the differences became more apparent. Most of the main story is there, but it tends to exclude most non-Hobbit characters and condenses the overall story a bit.

Despite the departures from the source material, I really enjoyed how they depicted the temptation of the Ring. They did a better job (in my opinion) of showing how the Ring corrupts people's minds, that inner battle of the psyche, than the more outward portrayal in Peter Jackson's films.

John Huston will always be my favorite voice for Gandalf.

The battle between Eowyn and the Witch-King is actually more book accurate than in the Peter Jackson films. I really like this scene in the movie, and just how cool they made Eowyn here, despite her barely having any screen time.

I also really liked the Orcs. They look so creepy and menacing. The "Where the Wild Things Are" vibes are very strong. Also, the best non-Tolkien song to ever grace an adaptation is by far "Where There's A Whip There's A Way." This alone gives this movie a special place in my heart. It captures the miserable nature of the Orcs so well, striking the perfect balance of campy-ness, family friendly, yet diabolical tone, that makes villain songs so iconic. There are other great songs too that will forever live rent free in my head.

Not the Best Tolkien adaptation, but an excellent movie. Especially for younger audiences. It is a bit creepy, but way more kid friendly that the intense Peter Jackson films.

same ol thing as the hobbit

[furryguy · 1/10 · 14 January 1999]

i enjoyed reading the books more than watching the same tired old animation by rankin bass...fine for kiddies but still below par animation...why they went back to this low grade animation after ralph bakshis fantastic animation in the lord of the rings beats me. and the voice-overs were done by the same people from the hobbit..i think they were way below the voice-overs in the lord of the rings movie .. the hobbit was neat in its time but the return of the king is an unfair adaptation of the remaining 11/2 books ...i heard they are making a live action version of the lord of the rings in 3 parts i hope they use generated effects for some of the characters because midgets arent the same as hobbits ...i look forward to seeing all 3 movies

good considering the time crunch

[VoodooChicken · 15 October 2003]

I really LIKED the whip song!!!

Considering this was a made-for-TV ANIMATED movie back in 1980, Rankin-Bass did an okay job trying to make amends for Ralph Bakshi's failure. R-B was hired to take the entire finale of LOTR and squeeze it down to under 90 minutes suitable for TV. By comparison, Peter Jackson spent over 90 million to make a 3 1/2 hour movie with a PG-13 rating.

R-B made some tough, hard, and brave decisions to pick what would stay, what would go, and what needed to be changed. Purists should stick with the books, but when you consider that Tolkien himself couldn't tell his whole story within the book and had to include appendices, it really isn't necessary to include every minute detail on TV.

The book spent over 100 pages just wrapping up all the "lose ends" after the ring was destroyed. The quest for the ring was the main plot, not dealing with Saruman, not resolving Aragorn's and Arwen's love, not even dealing with Legolas' and Gimli's bond. While these plots didn't make it to the movie and that's a shame, they are not essential to the main story.

I'm not saying the movie was GREAT. I still chuckle when I think that the actual RETURNING OF THE KING took a five second cameo, I stand by Rankin-Bass if only to pick up Ralph Bakshi's pieces, even in vain.

Horrible disgusting music (like the 1977 Hobbit), but slightly better afterall

[melobiotic · 6/10 · 4 December 2018]

Slightly better than the Hobbit adaptation of the same director.

The first part of the movie was not good, with a lot of inner dialogue of Sam and no action. Then I think it gets a little better.

Minas Tirith is quite good for me. I missed the Scouring of the shire in the end though. And also there is no mention about the human ghost army led by Aragorn. No elves either (but if they would be the green freaks of the hobbit it's better so). And in the beggining I hoped to see Shelob the spider... but they skipped that part.

What else... Oh, how to forget about the music! So many annoying and disgusting songs!! They try to explain the power of the ring with stupid songs. They only make you want to kill yourself. They ruin all the movie.

If you are a Tolkien fan I think you should see it. Maybe not non-stop, but maybe 20 minutes a day, just to avoid killing yourself because of the songs.

Dreadful mistake

[darren shan · 1/10 · 12 November 2001]

Ahead of the upcoming release of what will hopefully be the definitive film version of the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, Warner Bros has released the original 3 Tolkien films: The Hobbit, The Lord Of The Rings, and The Return Of The King. <p>The Hobbit was simple but quite good; The LOTR (made by an entirely different set of film-makers) seriously flawed but ambitious; but this, the little-seen finale, is simply atrocious. Intended to wrap up the story-lines of the incomplete Ralph Bakshi version of The LOTR, it fails because for some unfathomable reason it omits a HUGE chunk of the storyline following the point where Bakshi's film quit. i.e. The LOTR film finished about halfway through the trilogy, but this starts at about the three-quarters mark of the story! Thus, it makes no sense whatsoever most of the time. Those who've read the books will know what's going on, but those who haven't -- even those who've seen the first 2 movies -- won't have a clue!! <p>As if the incomprehensible jumping-on point wasn't bad enough, we're also subjected to some truly horrendous songs, bad dialogue, poor pacing, very basic animation, etc. Truly a waste of time -- don't let that time be YOURS!! The other 2 films are worth a look (as average as they are), but this will only frustrate and depress you. I'd rather have lunch with Sauron than sit through this again!!!

This is actually painful to watch...

[myopichobbit29 · 1/10 · 16 April 2005]

First of all, I'd like to express how much I love The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Tolkien was a genius. Peter Jackson did a great job on the films, I think. But Rankin-Bass, however, did not.

SPOILERS

The thing that bothered me a lot in this movie was the music. It was annoying, and ends up getting stuck in your head. Right now I'm trying to get rid of the one about Frodo's Nine Fingers. The animation is awful. There were also several elements of the story that bothered me, in animation, and in plot. For example, why did Elrond have a beard? Elves don't have beards. They are clean-shaven, always. Why did Merry and Pippin meet on the Pelenor DURING the battle? Where are Legolas and Gimli? What's with Denethor? The orcs looked much too top-heavy to be able to walk. The Nazgul were terrible. (They were on flying horses.) Denethor was bad, as well, as he just looked like a crazy old man with a back problem. He didn't look strong at all, as he was portrayed in the books and the recent film by Peter Jackson. Gollum looked as if he were pregnant, and sounded like a guy clearing his throat. And Sam's frequent exclamations of, "Oh, my God!" and "Lord, help me!" were not true to the books. (Although Tolkien was a Christian and so am I, the phrases should not have been in the movie.) And the battering ram, Grond? The thing looked as if strangely colored drool was coming out of its mouth rather than fire.

This was overall the worst adaptation of anything I have ever seen. It was, truly, painful to watch.

No, really, I was writhing in agony. Good thing the library rents out tapes for free.

One of the Worst Adaptations Laid Upon One's Eyes...

[fearfulofspiders · 4/10 · 27 August 2008]

The Hobbit gave a brief glimpse at what could be expected for this version of The Return of the King. What it really is, is one of the worst adaptations laid upon one's eyes. Absolutely dreadful.

The thing's that lost me were the asides made by some of the characters, especially the vision Sam has with and without the Ring -- he has a vision of playing with the Orcs in a merrier time than the current predicaments at hand... dear me, seriously?! Also, the time-line of this film is ALL OVER THE PLACE. Frodo's capturing is so rushed, that they had to reduce it to a few lines of dialogue voiced by Sam. The dialogue itself is cringe-worthy. For an example of complete over the top lines would be "Eowyn am I" or "You lost the very finger upon which it rode?!" As much as it is an interesting idea to use the events of the War of the Ring in flashback, its execution literally is execution. It's terrible the way they utilized the story into such a lackluster and unfaithful version of Tolkien's tale.

The acting is wretched. Credit which can go to the screenplay.

The music... makes one want to put a gun to their ear. It's completely sleep-inducing.

Overall, this is one terrible adaptation. Rivaling the equivalent of what the Sci-Fi Channel would've done had they adapted The Return of the King into an animated feature, Rankin Bass's version is one many people wish they could get out of their heads. This is one HUGE disappointment.

very good animated movie

[ryderstrong69 · 9/10 · 25 July 2010]

This was a great adaptation of the book. The songs and poems translated very well into the cartoon. People often like to put these movies up against the Peter Jackson films made decades later and of course movies made in the late 70s and early 80 with budgets under 4 million dollars wont be as good as live action films with budgets in the 100 million dollar range. That said for the time period it was a very good animated film that was enjoyable for kids and adults. The animation was good even by a lot of todays standards. This movie has also inspired a lot of people to go out and read the LOTR books. If you enjoy the books or even the Newer films you should check this movie out.

An attempt to finish Bashki's "Lord of the Rings" fails.

[Tirdun · 1/10 · 2 August 1999]

For whatever reason, somebody decided to finish Ralph Bashki's "Lord of the Rings" movie. The movie itself was awful, not to mention incomplete. There was supposed to be a conclusion movie, which was never made. For good reason. The primary failure of this movie was that it (A) Assumed you hadn't seen the first movie and (B) Assumed you had. Confused? Go see the movie, then you'll really be confused. The movie retells the entire plot of the "Lord of the Rings" in the form of a very long and confusing song which fails to either fully bring you up to speed on the plot or entertain you very much. The characters are then thrown headlong into a poorly animated rendition of the last book of the story, through a blazing and mainly incomprehensible series of events which make no sense unless you've either read the actual book, or are psychic and can pull plot points out of the aether. Regardless, the movie fails in its attempt to complete the story, which isn't surprising considering the quality of the first movie. Read the book.

Where There's a Whip....

[espeegee_2000 · 15 June 2002]

Although I quite enjoyed the Rankin-Bass kiddified version of `The Hobbit', this one just leaves something to be desired. All in all, it was just generally weak. Perhaps it was the huge gaps left out of the plot? The cheesy, twangy-wow-chicka rock music soundtrack? The Old-Western-state-the-obvious narration that won't stop yammering? Well, this family friendly rendition of the latter half of LOTR is still heaps better than the Bakshi 'Lord of the Rings', but isn't an amazing feat of filmmaking, either. The animation is choppy and TV quality, and the sound is awful. (though that's excusable, as it was a made for TV movie from 1980.) Everything else though, is passable.

Visually it isn't too bad, as everything is quite stylized and neat looking. Gandalf, in particular, looks quite good. But yes, it's oversimplified, and yes, it is filled with lots of corny songs. But wasn't the book filled with songs as well? Tolkien never mentioned anything about slap-bass or singing orcs, but actually including music helps in keeping with the original work. At least it should, in theory. Nice effort, anyway.

Biggest problems with this movie would have to be Merry and Pippin. Whereas in Ralph Bakshi's LOTR, they were actually tolerable - cute even. (Though that may be pushing it.) To Bakshi's credit, in his movie only one of the hobbits was mega-homely. However, in this version, both Merry AND Pippin have been given a severe thrashing with the ugly stick. Merry (same voice as Shaggy) has a face made from glued-together potatoes, and Pippin is an ape wearing clothes. His voice is like a piece of glass scraping against another piece of glass.

Besides that though, this movie is bearable, watch-able even. There are some `so bad it's funny' moments, (especially some of the songs) but there are also moments when it's very loyal to the action/dialogue of the book. It's good and bad at the same time - hence so many mixed reviews. Probably kids would enjoy it more than an adult viewer, although even kids would agree that this version is pretty watered-down and lame. 5 / 10, tops.

Incomplete in every sense of the word

[Uberhamster · 1/10 · 28 May 2004]

In spite of what some of the other user comments state, this film, made for TV in 1980, has nothing to do with the never finished Lord of the Rings movie by Bahksi from 1978.

That is, nothing except that it tries to tell the rest of the story. Unfortunately Bahksi did exactly half of the story, so when the return of the king continues with the last, third part, some of the most important pieces of the story are missing.

Bahksi left most of the story intact but had such a bad result that he never finished the movie;

Peter Jackson had nicer pictures but he actually got an Oscar for torturing a great story into something much less;

The Rankin-Bass team managed to do both: they killed the story and it didn't even look good.

The voice-overs could have been good but they take far too much time and they are too pretentious. The 'cast' of cartoon characters? Sam looks like a potato, Bilbo like a granny, Elrond is a Christmas tree, the nazgûl are akin to skeletors, gollum is a toad. Only Aragorn looks like something decent. There are only two soldiers and only two orks, just cloned a lot until there is an army of the two of them.

And also there are some strange mistakes in the story logic, one example (NO SPOILER) that Frodo and Sam spend several days waiting for Aragorn to charge the Black Gate. And the songs... better not mentioned with one strange exception.

This movie will always come last with a great distance after all the other adaptations ever made of Tolkien's work.

The gulf between this and 1977's Hobbit is staggering.

[benjaminburt · 3/10 · 16 February 2020]

With a troubled production and a chasm of tonal difference, you can't really expect anything more from this film than what it is. From word 'go' it was doomed to fail.

I have a strong fondness for the prior animated feature, the Hobbit. Songs were well-incorporated, episodes of that grand book were well-translated to film, even if they were quite hokey or cheesy at times. Regardless, the Hobbit has timeless charm and is definitely worth your time.

Now, take that same formula, but instead of the vibrant, colorful scenes of the Hobbit, let's incorporate the desolate browns, greys, and reds of Return of the King. The film is just far worse to look at than the Hobbit. Songs were incorporated in the first film, so songs are present here, even though all the songs are significantly less memorable, oftentimes interrupting to the point of being disruptive.

Post-hoc reasoning and explanation are the bane of storytelling. If you want to foreshadow the confrontation of "Sauron's right -hand" and Eowyn, you have to set it up. You need to lead with "No man can harm him" and also inform the viewer beforehand of her plan. When she just shows up, and Merry is all like, "Oh, yeah, he're a little exposition about who she is, why she's here, and why you should care!" The same is true with Aragorn's appearance on the black fleet, and several other cases in the film. The story is thus disjointed and unsatisfying.

The fairytale / storybook tone employed by the 1977 Hobbit just does not fly in the epic, saga-ending world-ending scenes of Return of the King.

That being said, if you're interested in the movie, I'd say watch it. What are you doing with an hour and a half? It's got some unique portions of the books that weren't covered in Peter Jackson's film. The voice acting is good. "When there's a whip, there's a way" is the one pretty good song in the movie, and that's worth seeing. But on the whole, this film is not good.

Oh so horrible

[GoldenEye · 1/10 · 10 March 2003]

After I saw the animated version of Lord of the Rings by Ralph Bakshi, I was pretty upset. Now that I've seen the animated version of Return of the King, Bakshi's version seems like Oscar material compared to this drudgery.

I'm sure enough people have seen the new versions of Lord of the Rings to know that it's not impossible to make a good film adaptation of the books. However, it is mind-boggling to wonder how and why the people that made Return of the King couldn't come close to making it even remotely enjoyable. There is NO cohesion to the story, as the movie starts out with Frodo and company sitting around and talking about how glorious their victory was. WHAT victory? The movie just started! Then we see the hobbits running around Mordor without any understandable explanation to how they got there. Granted, I read the books and knew why, but you can't just leave the narration so open-ended like that.

I need to take this next paragraph to smash on the music alone. It is SO horrible. I wanted to smash myself for letting my ears be raped with such aural torture. The story has some made-up character called "the Minstrel of Gondor" sing most of the narration, and therefore we hear repeated lines such as "why does he have nine fingers??" on the soundtrack.

This is probably the most deplorable movie I've seen in a very long time. I would recommend it only to those who need to understand what a bad movie really is.

1-10 Scale Overall-2 Direction-2 Animation-3 Music-1 Story-4