User reviews

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

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!

The greatest tragedy of the human race is that they will never make a better movie than Return of the King.

Best movie in the trilogy and sealed in the best possible way

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...

Nothing 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!!!!!!

Wonderful on every level. Love the characters and special effects. One of the biggest, most massive battle scenes ever put on the silver screen. A great end to a monumental epic.

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

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

I can't believe this movie won so many Oscars. Sure it was technically sound and all but damn was it boring. This is one of the few movies I have been tempted to walk out of. The last movie I walked out of was Spawn if that gives you any idea how little I enjoyed this movie. Its not that I don't have the attention span, some of my favorite movies are "7 Samurai" and "The Great Escape". I think we have all been brainwashed or maybe just starved for a good fantasy movie to come along.

Anyways, for all the technical achievements and production value I give it 6/10.

Please don't make "The Hobbit".

I loved the first two LOTR films, and was keyed up almost beyond endurance to see ROTK the first week it opened. When the film was over, I was stunned by the depth of disappointment I was feeling. In fact, I went back and watched the movie again a few days later; I could not believe that it really had been as bad as I'd experienced. The fault must have been mine, I thought; I'd been too wound up to really take it in. With a cooler head, I'd be able to enjoy it and the magic would work again, as it had with the previous two movies. Alas, no. The movie was just as bad as I'd thought, and it somehow managed to posthumously poison my pleasure in the other two movies as well. I've never been able to enjoy any of them since.

I came to really hate Peter Jackson, especially after watching all the "making of" interviews on the dvds. I believe he is an undisciplined, self-indulgent egomaniac, and these characteristics progressively took over as the film series continued. Fellowship of the Ring was the best of the lot, and I feel it's because it was a gamble. Now that the series is over, people forget that before FOTR premiered, there was no guarantee that the film would be a success. LOTR was a notoriously difficult book to adapt, and many worried that it couldn't be done. In that atmosphere, Jackson and his co-writers were at their most deferential to the original Tolkien text, and almost humble in their approach to such a daunting task.

After FOTR was a big success, they became more confident in their own skills, and felt bold enough to try a little rewriting for The Two Towers, even while assuring fans that it was only a little strategic reorganizing, and the original story would be preserved in ROTK. By that point, however, Jackson was so deluded by the sycophantic flattery that surrounded him on all sides, he was convinced that the fans would adoringly accept anything he filmed, simply because it was the product of such a genius. ROTK could not contain both Tolkien's story and Jackson's ego, and guess which won in the end? The story flopped all over the place, with Saruman's storyline simply chopped off and left unresolved, while Jackson wasted time indulging in invented scenes back in Rohan, when the story should have moved decisively to Gondor. That, however, was not the part of the story that interested him, so we had to have more loving photography of carved dark wood beams and animal-skin rugs, plus a vastly overdrawn love connection between Eowyn and Aragorn. When Jackson finally had to tear himself away from this romantic Viking paradise and turn to Gondor, he revenged himself on the story by turning Gondor into a sterile, dead cement city, full of cowards and idiots.

Worst of all, I felt that by ROTK Jackson was even getting sloppy on what had been a trademark of the films until then - set design and scale. For a scene where Gandalf and Pippin are on a balcony, looking towards Minas Morgul, he had both actors on the same set, with Pippin merely kneeling at the balcony, while Gandalf towered over him. However, the brain can quite clearly calculate that the scale of the balcony in relation to the bodies of both characters is wrong - in FOTR, Jackson would have built a larger-scale model of the balcony for Pippin, to keep up the illusion that he was a smaller figure in a setting made for people of Gandalf's size. This time, he couldn't be bothered, as if he felt that he'd paid his dues being accurate in the first two movies, and now he should be free to play around and have fun.

That was amply demonstrated with the stupid green goblins, the endless battle scenes, the noise, the shaking camera, and the labored "humour" in every Gimli scene. What annoyed me the most, however, was that Jackson seemed to have no grasp of what Tolkien thought was important. In the movie, only the "stars" are able to act (and yes, that includes the Hobbits), whereas Tolkien showed that nobility, courage and heroism are EVERYONE's business. In the books, the individual soldiers of Gondor had personalities, felt connected to the greater cause, and debated how best they could do their duty. In Jackson's movies, Aragorn and Gandalf do all the fighting, while crowds of women blubber helplessly and soldiers blunder about uselessly. This is why his removal of the Scouring of the Shire was both execrable and inevitable. Jackson can't recognize any drama in ordinary people in ordinary settings facing crisis and either failing or rising to the occasion - to him, the Shire is just dumb peasants who were too stupid not to leave home for adventure, and there's nothing more to be expected of them. Tolkien's whole theme was that adventure and crisis are NOT the sole property of noble heroes, but that it can touch anyone, and how we react when it does is as important as Aragorn's struggle with Sauron or Denethor's descent into madness.

It is the best movie I can remember I've watched while I was a kid!

I 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.

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.

This movie made me love Cinema. Some movies mades you love that genre, this made me love Cinema. It's not perfect since there are no perfect movies actually. But this one is the Achievement of being the closest to the perfect for me.

This movie is the best movie of the all time for me, clearly. I just gained my Cinema love with this movie. And I watched more than a thousand movies. I watched so many directors from so many countries. My cinema taste changed too much since my first watch of this movie. But this movie is still the best for me, not even a single movie reached to it's level. This is why I think the movie is the best movie of the future also. I don't think my thoughts will ever change.

This movie is not about the war of men and orcs or any other peoples. This movie about the insignificant people versus the worlds biggest thread ever. That thread is actually unbeatable.

"You did not seriously think that a hobbit could contend with the will of Sauron? There are none who can. Against the power of Mordor there can be no victory."

• Saruman

"Hobbits really are amazing creatures. You can learn all that there is to know about their ways in a month, and yet after a hundred years they can still surprise you at a pinch."

• Gandalf

Both dialogues from the first movie. One of them telling us evil side is unbeatable and the other one tells we have a Hobbit. Brilliant and the most effective storyline. And they adapted it amazingly well!

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.

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.

I suppose that someone, sometime, may tell the story more accurately but I doubt very much that it will ever be told better. Nothing could ever replace the books for pure escapism but Peter Jackson has managed to evoke both the feel and texture of Tolkien's masterwork without pandering, too much, to clichéd Hollywood extravagance. The cast are superb (if Sir Ian Mckellen is remembered for nothing else other than Gandalf I feel sure he would not complain), the cinematography stunning and the pace, even over the 8/9 hours for the whole trilogy is matchless. For those who have read the books (as I have for many years) I would suggest watching once to get all of the niggling storyline changes/omissions out of your system then just watch as a pure, wonderous, unadulterated piece of epic, EPIC cinema. I'm sure I will love it forever.

Though certainly an improvement upon the second film in this already classic trilogy, I must say I am shocked that of all the incredible films I could name right off the top of my head that could be sitting in the fifth position in IMDb's list of Top 250 Highest Rated Films, this is the one that's sitting there. I know I'm quite tardy in my viewing of this movie, and I've known of its sky-high praise for the four or five years it's been in release, and I thought that even though the subject matter, as I explained in my reviews of the preceding two Lord of the Rings films, is not my cup of tea, I would see what everyone else sees in these movies. I was very fond of the first one, I was grateful when I saw the ending credits of the second one, and though I found myself entertained more than the second one by the third one, I was even more grateful when the final credits arrived. I will start with what I liked: The battle sequences in this film were much better than the ones in its predecessor. I thought the second film's battles were lame and this time around, they had a lot of intensity, and I found myself drawn in. Where I found myself riveted was during the climax, the fate of the ring to be determined on a coarse cliff over molting lava, and everything unexpected happens and all of the present characters in the scene have tension that finally culminates and releases, and I finally truly found myself caring about the ring, even if it doesn't make sense that Shalob can stink Frodo through a supposedly impermeable vest.

But now, let's get down to brass tacks about the denouement. I have never seen a movie that ends as many times as The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. After awhile, I was counting the "final" scenes. Counting! Then, I found myself shocked that I had given up on counting. Who counts endings to one movie? I cannot stand a badly paced film. I've always thought of directors like Peter Jackson as directors who are particularly good at keeping a brisk pace, no matter how long the movie is. But, not only do his endings lag in this single film, but they are plagued further by two horrible things: 1) Every time one ending closes, it fades out and the screen remains black for several seconds. Then it fades up again, having fooled you and the interest that causes you to stay with a film to the end has left. This happens every-single-time-the-movie-makes-you-think-it's-ending. 2) After awhile, this series of endings becomes intensely contrived and meaningless. We don't need to see most of the things that happen! And if Jackson still wants us to see what happens to these characters, as these things must in J.R.R. Tolkien's novel, he should pace it better so that it does not feel stretched, tacked on, or contrived. Perfect way to achieve this: Get rid of the deceptive fade-outs!

I enjoyed The Fellowship of the Ring, and I suppose the last two films had their moments, but all I can say is that I am glad that I'm finished with this trilogy and that I don't have to worry about seeing them ever again.

Well, it's finally over: Peter Jackson's adaptation of J. R. R. Tolkien's mediocre epic concludes with *The Return of the King*, a 3-1/2-hour test of endurance. How many times can a movie show Elijah Wood's big blue eyes welling up with tragic tears? how many times do our heroes single-handedly dispatch thousands of evil creatures apiece during big battles? how many times do we have to endure the jokes from that hairy dwarf? how many times must Howard Shore's repetitive, sappy score rise to deafening levels whenever a minor character lies in a broken heap on the battlefield? how many times must director Jackson waste his wide screen photography with gigantic close-ups of the actors (I haven't seen so many BIG HEADS since the last Academy Awards broadcast)? how many times must we withstand grand, cartoon-animated armies? . . . and how many more times must we watch plot developments that contain virtually no suspense?? (What -- did you think the Dark Lord would win? that any of the main characters of the Fellowship would actually die?)

Apparently, many MORE times, because this 3-1/2-hour trudge is but the appetizer to the main course of the "Extended Edition", New Line's continuing money-grab that will reveal perhaps a FIVE-HOUR version of this movie alone. (Taken all together, *The Lord of the Rings* -- The Extended Version -- approaches the length of 14 hours, give or take.) Well, as P. T. Barnum once observed, There's a sucker born every minute, and New Line has found the suckers, who are not only willing to pay at the movie theater, but are also only too willing to fork out exorbitant amounts for "special editions" of movies that ought to have stood on their own -- AS RELEASED. A simple standard should obtain in a movie theater: what you're seeing on the screen should be what a director wants you to see. "Extended-edition DVD's" don't count, and especially should not be taken in consideration in reviews by either professional critics or by amateur reviewers at places like IMDb. I can already hear the defenders of the films demur, "But these movies would've been too long if Jackson didn't cut them into shorter versions!" But that's precisely my point. *The Lord of the Rings* remains an unfilmable book: it's too long; it's too unwieldy. As far as an adaptation is concerned, none -- not less -- would be more.

Which is not to say that there aren't any great filmic moments in *Return of the King*: the lighting of the watch-fires along the mountain ranges is pure cinema; the entire scene with Frodo and Sam fending off a giant spider in a cobwebby cave is terrific, providing the one suspenseful stretch in the entire movie; and Gollum remains a wonderful creation, a rare successful collaboration of technology and old-fashioned creative virtues. Taken as a whole, the movie is better than, say, *The Matrix* or other expensive Hollywood blockbusters of the "action-adventure" genre. But to say so is not to say much. The occasional high points don't constitute a comprehensive whole, or make Tolkien's saga any less silly. It's a book about magic rings, wizards, Dark Lords, and dwarfs, for God's sake. In *Return of the King*, there's a scene in Minas Tirith where the citizens watch a sad parade of soldiers go by: but it's comical, because everyone looks like refugees from a Renaissance Faire. It doesn't do to inflate this material to cosmic levels. Claims that Tolkien's fantasy was the greatest book of the 20th Century truly make my head spin: what, was *Ulysses* chopped liver? What was the second greatest book -- Stephen King's *The Stand*?

Pardon my long-windedness, but the very subject inspires it. I'll wrap by lamenting that one of the better elements in the first two installments, Christopher Lee as Saruman, was a victim of the cutting room floor. Even fans of this material might agree with me that any number of the scenes with Frodo and Sam blubbering at each other would've been better replaced with a coda to the Saruman plot-line. While others may say, "Well, he'll be in the Extended-Edition version," I'm sure that will be cold comfort to Mr. Lee. At least Saruman was a villain we could sink our teeth into: in *Return*, we must instead settle for that damned Eyeball atop that tower. Granted, in this film the Eyeball has developed the power to sort of roll about, rather like a lighthouse lamp, but it's still a pretty lame villain. Here, perhaps more than anywhere, Jackson reveals the limitations of his source material. In the book, as I recall, Sauron's Eyeball was really more of a psychological entity. Grasping for any straw, Jackson has made the Eyeball a concrete reality, so that we would have SOMETHING to identify as a villain. But don't fret: Sauron's Nose will doubtless turn up in the Extended Edition. In the meantime, sweet dreams, everyone.