The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King Reviews

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

Many times the third film of a Trilogy is considered the WORST. This was the exact opposite. This is (to me anyway) the greatest third film EVER. No, Return of the Jedi or the third Hobbit or Toy Story 3 does not measure up to The Return of the King. It is not too often you cheer a character dies, but when Gollum did, it felt that way!

'Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King' is the classic masterpiece of the three 'Lord of the Rings' films! I didn't care much for 'Fellowship of the Ring' but I really loved 'Two Towers' but this? This was better than both of them! Although every hour is brilliant, the last 10 minutes feature too many endings when they should've stuck with two.

As the best fantasy movie ever, 'The Return of the King' has everything you could ever want - great visual style, acting, writing, directing and music! It's better than any 'Harry Potter' movie! It's also far scarier than the other two 'Lord of the Rings' movies! Forget 'Love Actually', 'The Return of the King' is the king of 2003 cinema!

The Lord of the Rings is a somewhat dull trilogy. The Fellowship of the Ring had enough exciting moments to warrant a recommendation, but The Two Towers was inexcusably boring. The final chapter in the trilogy, while still being tedious in parts, is by far the most entertaining.

The plot has not changed in this third installment. Frodo and Sam are trying to get to the land of Mordor to destroy the ring with the (supposed) help of Gollum.

The film's opening is the strongest opening of the entire series. We see Gollum as a hobbit (his name was Smeagol) fishing, when his friend finds a ring in the river. The two fight, and it ultimately ends in Smeagol strangling his "friend." We see years pass as Smeagol slowly transforms into the Gollum. The transformation is grotesque, and to some, maybe even nauseating, but it's wonderfully creepy and truly enjoyable.

Gollum continues to be the most interesting character. With the dark side of him winning over the good side, Gollum begins to get Frodo to think Sam is his enemy. The psychological parts of the first have nothing on these.

The Return of the King is by far the most dark of the three films. Unfortunately, the ending feels way too happy. After the darkness of the film, I was expecting an appropriately tragic ending. Alas, it feels happy in a forced sort of way. And the ending is certainly not assisted by an unnecessary 30 minute epilogue.

The Return of the King is not devoid of dull moments, but it's comparatively faster paced than the other two. There is more action than the other two, though much of it isn't very exciting. The best action segment (and quite possibly my favorite segment of the series) involves Frodo being deceived by Gollum and lured into the layer of a humongous spider. I do have a very slight fear of spiders, so this was especially scary for me, but in a good way. This makes up the most thrilling part of the film, with the possible exception being a fight between Frodo and Gollum near the end for the ring.

There really isn't anything to be said regarding the acting, score or special effects that I haven't already covered in my reviews of the other two Lord of the Ring films. Everything is excellent.

The Lord of the Rings will not go down as my favorite trilogy, or even my second favorite. But this satisfying conclusion makes me look at the trilogy in a more positive light. Through all the flaws of the series, and even this particular series, I suppose it has been pretty epic.

After the galloping intelligence displayed in the first two parts of ''The Lord of the Rings'' trilogy, your fear may be that the director, Peter Jackson, would become cautious and unimaginative with the last episode, ''The Return of the King.'' Look at what ''The Matrix'' did to the Wachowski brothers; the last two were like action movies made for CNBC.

But Mr. Jackson crushes any such fear. His ''King'' is a meticulous and prodigious vision made by a director who was not hamstrung by heavy use of computer special-effects imagery. A sequence in which a number of signal fires are lighted on a stretch of mountain ranges simultaneously is a towering moment; it has the majesty that every studio's opening logo shot sprains itself striving to achieve.

Mr. Jackson does take his time, but he's not sloughing off here. Rather he is building toward a more than solid conclusion. The grandiloquence that sustained the second installment, ''The Two Towers,'' with its pounding and operatic martial fury -- a movie that actually created a state of siege and left audiences hanging -- can be found here.

Yet by its end ''King'' glides to the gentle bonhomie that opened the ''Rings'' movies, with an epilogue that is tinged with regret. It's been a long time since a commercially oriented film with the scale of ''King'' ended with such an enduring and heartbreaking coda: ''You can't go back. Some wounds don't heal.'' It's an epic about the price of triumph, a subversive victory itself in a large-scale pop action film.

The closest thing to a recap of the previous films, ''The Fellowship of the Rings'' and ''Towers,'' this picture supplies is showing Gollum (Andy Serkis) as a regular hobbit -- Smeagol -- before he was subsumed by his appetite for the glittering One Ring and transformed into a larval creature that looks like the worm Smeagol is shown putting on a hook. It's the One Ring that the hobbit Frodo (Elijah Wood) has to transport to Mordor and destroy it there.

The collaboration of actor and director -- Mr. Serkis and Mr. Jackson -- for Gollum is a frighteningly believable realization of computer imagery as performer. Gollum, whose phyllo-dough skin still masks his abrupt and fully felt changes of heart, is as emotionally rich a creation as any actor's work this year. A dialogue he has with his reflection in a pond courses with invective and self-disgust. All of Mr. Jackson's glib, funny pranks in ''Heavenly Creatures'' and ''The Frighteners'' -- in which we were never supposed to be sure what was going on -- prepared him for a dramatic application of those techniques here. (He also employs his haunted-house dexterity in a formidable sequence with a giant spider.)

Gollum's push-pull, divided between his hunger for the ring and his fears, makes him the most tragic figure in the movie. He preys on Frodo's weakened spirit, looking for the moment he can get the ring away and kill them both. The cursed ring pecks away at Frodo's humanity, as Gollum hammers away at the hobbit's remaining panes of will. The only thing keeping the wizened yet infantile goblin at bay is Frodo's loyal ally and sworn protector, Sam (Sean Astin). By making Gollum as integral a part of this tableau as Frodo and Sam, not only is there an important plot point at stake, but the movie is also frosted with misery.

That mournful note echoes as Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) and his forces ready for their assault on Sauron's forces, the orcs. Gandalf (Ian McKellen), in a voice sodden with mellow sadness, realizes that Frodo and Sam are on a suicide mission: ''There never was much hope. Just a false hope.'' Sir Ian's eyes move slowly, filled with mystery and pain.

There is a sacrificial cast to the entire endeavor. The dwarf warrior Gimli thrives on this fatalistic bent, and is given a wry heedlessness by John Rhys-Davies; his charm-offense basso rumble is also the voice of the lord of the forest, Treebeard. The pitilessly sure elf warrior Legolas (Orlando Bloom, whose physical élan fills out the role) observes ''a sleepless malice'' watching over them. The hobbit Pippin has a much bigger role in this battle, and Billy Boyd is up to it, allowing Pippin to mature.

Aragorn has the slinky swagger and dreamy stubble that make him look like a legend created by Tolkien, Sam Shepard and Ralph Lauren. Fortunately Mr. Mortensen also has a touch of modesty as an actor, which allows him to take up space as if he belongs in the center of the frame rather than battling the other performers for it.

Pippin's pal, Merry (Dominic Monaghan), joins the fight, too, pulled along by Eowyn (Miranda Otto, touchingly ferocious). Ms. Otto stakes a worthy claim for every moment of screen time, while poor Liv Tyler, as the elf princess Arwen, is limited to dialogue that sounds like a spoken portion of a Spinal Tap album. Cate Blanchett's Galadriel hardly appears at all, and Hugo Weaving, as the elf lord Elrond, arrives just in time to answer a trivia question. (Who is the best-known Australian actor to appear in the ''Matrix'' and ''Rings'' movies?)

The actors all look older than they did in ''Fellowship,'' and it fits the strategy of employing the same cast over an extended period for the films. This decision adds fresh dimension to the lingering sadness, as we can see some of the bloom worn out of their flesh and sadder, reddened eyes on all of them.

Their battle weariness is appropriate given whom they are up against. The orcs and their terrifying behemoths of burden have a surreal confidence in victory; they even turn the phrase ''Release the prisoners'' into a threat. Sauron's misshapen foot soldiers and their collection of mutated animal freaks look as if they've crawled out of the sewers of Love Canal looking for summer work.

''King,'' which opens round the country tomorrow, features more prognostication and exposition than its predecessors. Yet despite all of the setups required, Mr. Jackson maintains tension. In ''Towers,'' the director and his fellow screenwriters, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, secured a spiritual fidelity to the novel. In ''King'' they manage that and far more; the last third is especially condensed, and Aragon's role in the last battle is fleshed out. But the Tolkien search for purity is central to their ''King,'' too. And the movie isn't as exclusionary as the books' implicit Christian forcefulness, which made Middle Earth a re-creation of the Crusades.

''King'' is the product of impressive craft and energy. The ''sleepless malice'' is aligned with controlled chaos; the sizable exertion of concentration from Mr. Jackson is multiplied by his ''Rings'' team, including his cinematographer, Andrew Lesnie; composer, Howard Shore; production designer, Grant Major; and the battalion of other artisans responsible for the costumes, makeup and special effects.

It is evident that the grip of ''The Return of the King'' on Mr. Jackson is not unlike the grasp the One Ring exerts over Frodo: it's tough for him to let go, which is why the picture feels as if it has an excess of endings. But he can be forgiven. Why not allow him one last extra bow?

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.

After Fellowship Of The Ring and The Two Towers were huge successes and became almost instant landmarks of cinema, expectations were incredibly high for Return Of The King. The final film in the trilogy isn't only the best of the three but it's the most emotional, suspenseful, intense and even the most explosive. I mean, I thought that Fellowship Of The Ring and The Two Towers were perfect enough? They've saved the best till last and this became the most perfect film of all time in my opinion. I think the one thing that I appreciate the most about the whole trilogy (especially this one) is that despite that it is all fantasy and we all know it is not real but Peter Jackson and co have made it feel so real like we are in that war with Frodo, Gandalf, Sam, Aragorn etc.


I am going to admit that I can understand why some people dislike the franchise for them being too long but they should at least admit that it changed cinema, was filmed amazingly and the acting was top-notch. This may sound quite shocking but I am going to say it anyway because I just love the trilogy so much: I don't even think the extended versions are long enough! Then again, it is saying that or that there should be more Lord Of The Rings films but we do have the two Hobbit films (prequels to the trilogy) coming in 2012 and 2013 so still a bit more upcoming from Middle-Earth.


Sauron's forces have laid siege to Minas Tirith, the capital of Gondor, in their efforts to eliminate the race of men. The once-great kingdom, watched over by a fading steward, has never been in more desperate need of its king. But can Aragorn answer the call of his heritage and become what he was born to be? In no small measure, the fate of Middle-earth rests on his broad shoulders. With the final battle joined and the legions of darkness gathering, Gandalf urgently tries to rally Gondor's broken army to action. He is aided by Rohan's King Theoden, who unites his warriors for history's biggest test. Yet even with their courage and passionate loyalty, the forces of men--with Eowyn and Merry hidden among them--is no match for the enemies swarming against Gondor. Still, in the face of great losses, they charge forward into the battle of their lifetimes, tied together by their singular goal to keep Sauron distracted and give the Ring Bearer a chance to complete his quest. Their hopes rest with Frodo, a tiny but determined hobbit making a perilous trip across treacherous enemy lands to cast the One Ring into the fires of Mount Doom. The closer Frodo gets to his final destination, the heavier his burden becomes and the more he must rely on Samwise Gamgee. Gollum--and the Ring itself--will test Frodo's allegiances and, ultimately, his humanity.


The acting from Elijah Wood as Frodo Baggins was really good but not one of the best from the actors in the series. His acting was just like Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker in the original Star Wars trilogy. We journey with Frodo and the pain he suffers from the Ring and how easily led on he is by Gollum and we just think 'No! No! No, Frodo!' but I think the main character of that side of the story that goes through the most pain, has the most courage and in my opinion, is a stronger character: Samwise Gamgee. Sean Astin was certainly robbed of an Academy Award nomination for his outstanding performance! He perhaps didn't earn as much credit like some of the other actors did. Ian McKellen is obviously one of Britain's best actors but he shows once again that he is just perfect for Gandalf! He is definitely the best actor in the series and I can't wait to see him return as Gandalf for The Hobbit: Part I and The Hobbit: Part II. Andy Serkis was just amazing once again as Sméagol/Gollum. Andy and Ian were the best actors in the whole trilogy and I can't wait to see them both return again in the two Hobbit films.


Peter Jackson, you legend! Not only did he surprise us all with these landmarks of cinema but he also showed that just because it is fantasy, that doesn't mean it doesn't feel real as you watch it. I think this (and perhaps Star Wars) is the only franchise where I have felt the wrath of realism from film. Yeah, I did notice one or two bloopers but I still found it perfect! You deserved that Best Director Oscar more than any of the other directors nominated despite they did great jobs too. I just love the scripts for the whole trilogy anyway but this one especially was really special because on a lot of occasions, the scenes were almost like written in riddles and poems and it still wasn't flawed in the slightest.


Overall, The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King is an absolutely perfect film that I love in every single way. It was the best film of the 00s as well as, in my opinion, the best film of all time. I cannot wait for Peter Jackson to return to Middle-Earth with The Hobbit: Part I and The Hobbit: Part II (prequels to the trilogy) to bring us some more genius pieces of art, magic, entertainment and excitement.

A movie about a famous fantasy novel series that I've never read. And even though, I felt a bit lost through out certain plot elements, there was enough in this thickly layered tale of wizards, faeries, hobbits & bug-eyed emo moppets to allow me to loosely fill in the blanks to make at least, an over-all blanketed sense out of the whole damn thing.
And even though this was a great series, for me, this series suffered from what I always thought the problem would be of trying to condense such a full & detailed storyline into three movies. The story left the alot areas for the viewer to fill in, certain ideas seem to almost come out of nowhere since there was almost no room to introduce them & there was quite a lack of hatable villians in these movies (Gollum seem to come closest in this trilogy). Now don't get me wrong, they're kick-ass looking villians & their concepts are great, but because so much is trying to be fit in the limited space of the running times, it doesn't feel to me like anyone one can really jump up & down when the good guys ultimately beat 'em.
However, all of that is still just a minor quibble. Seeing dragons & giant spiders come to life in the manner that they were always meant to, magic being blasted with the power to awe, & giant sword & sorcery war scenes with a sweeping & mythological epic quality that used to be incomprehensible for the cinema in earlier years make up for any sacrifice that was made in order to be able to fit all this stuff onto the silver screen.
Over-all, I was just really happy & satisfied that to finally see a series of the fantasy genre being adapted onto film with the respect & effort of the highest quality.