Rating: 
Summary: One movie to rule them all.
Review: Anyone who gives these movies anything below a 4 star rating has absolutely no taste in near perfection cinema. Also, anyone reviewing these movies without seeing the ones that came before it need a serious head examination. Do you really expect to jump into the story 6 hours ahead and think you'll know everything going on?This is not the standard sequel set. These movies are the lengths that they are so that they can portray as much of the story and director vision as possible. It wouldn't be as good if they followed the standard Hollywood flick time of 1:30-1:45 hour length. The dialogue would be chopped and cliched. This caps the final installment in the Lord of the Rings. As I'm sure thats been said before, this is all just one movie in 3 sections. It faithfully concludes with enough action to boot. I actually got goosebumps at the final battle when Theoden was rousing his troops on the hillside. All in all this is worth the buy... just look at the 700+ positive reviews.
Rating:
Summary: Simply amazing.
Review: This movie is the most stunningly beautiful film I have ever seen. I simply cannot get over how much love, care, painstaking detail for the costumes and sets went into making this movie what it is. What truly tugged at my heart strings was the amazing acting by Sean Astin during the part when Sam must pick the exhausted Frodo up and carries him all the way up the mountain and in the end where all four of the hobbits stand together as the newly crowned king and all of the wedding guests bow down before them. All of the emotions that make life worth living are all present in this spectacular film and I'm so very glad I've been lucky enough to see it on the big screen. Waiting to buy it on DVD has been painful but this movie is worth the wait!
Rating:
Summary: the review of the king
Review: I liked this movie so much I wanted to see it over and over again. If you haven't seen this movie I would highly recommend you seeing it. I liked this movie so much because it starts off right where the second one ends.And it has tons of action and the director couldn't of done a better job ending this last movie. This movie comes out the 25th of May so even if you haven't seen it buy it.
Rating: 
Summary: At Least It's Over
Review: I can accept a movie treatment compressing a book's dialog or leaving out scenes to make a story watchable in under three hours. We've all got to go the bathroom eventually, after all. What I can't understand is why Peter Jackson would actually *add* scenes and new fluff dialog to this already interminably long movie. We get scenes of Liv Tyler as Arwen emoting with her father Elrond, Gollum successfully driving a wedge between Frodo and Sam (Say it isn't so!), Aragorn et al. in a battle of words with the spirits of the mountains and on and on. And pretty much all the scenes from Tolkien's wonderful original are padded with useless new dialog. Someone out there is bound to say, "Jackson was just developing characters! He was exploring with them in new directions!" In many other movies, I could accept this. But if you are going to "explore" and "develop" the work of an author like Tolkien, you should ask yourself a couple of questions. Like, "Do I feel lucky?" But, more importantly, "Can my writers really write like Tolkien?" The dialog from the new scene with Arwen and Elrond sounded like it was written for "The Young and the Elvish," and the spot with Frodo and Sam breaking up was straight out of "As Middle Earth Turns." I almost expected Frodo to snarl, "If I can't have the ring, no one can!" The scene with Aragorn and the mountain spirits put more corn on the screen than you can find in the entire state of Iowa. The mountain spirits scene was dreadful in pretty much all other aspects as well. It looked just like Disney's Haunted Mansion. (I don't mean the movie. I mean the ride in Orlando.) And Jackson's "exploration" of Aragorn's character here is inexcusable. Tolkien's Aragorn had some trepidation about the task to which he was called, but he faced it through and through with manly courage. If Jackson's Aragorn had waffled any more, we would have had to douse the screen with maple syrup. Why Jackson gave this role to Viggo Mortensen instead of Woody Allen is beyond me. The real crime here is that, to make room for this fluff, Jackson had to leave out some of Tolkien's most powerful scenes. Gone is the final meeting of Gandalf and Saruman at Isengard. I figured Jackson would put that in as an excuse for more sceptre-fu like we saw in the first movie. Gone also is Gandalf confronting the Nazgul at the gate of Gondor. Given the apparent appetite of Jackson or his FX crew for "over the top", I thought they would be like kids in a candy store here. Maybe it was the PC reflex that led Jackson to give this scene to Eowyn the maid of Rohan. The dialog between her and the Nazgul is truly Shakespearean: Nazgul: "Do not come between a Nazgul and his prey! No man can kill me!"
Eowyn: "But I am no *man*."
(Cue music: Helen Reddy's "I Am Woman. Here Me Roar.") Missed most of all, the scouring of the Shire is completely gone. I know this scene would be a little slow for the typical targeted audience of big budget cinema, i.e. over caffienated teeny boppers, but it was integral to Tolkien's story of a world where magic was disappearing and men (and Hobbits) would have to learn to live by their wits and their courage. But back to the Nazgul, his helmet looked like something Sauron had jury-rigged to pick up illegal satellite TV. And his dialog, whether with Eowyn or with the Orcs under his command, was just stock action-movie bad-guy lines. ("I will break him!") But the real problem was that he just shouldn't have been given lines to say, or any close-ups either. Tolkien showed us the forces of evil almost always, to borrow a theological term, "from below." We hardly ever saw them "in themselves" but only as they were perceived by the frightened soldiers and hobbits. This left them shrouded in a dark cloud of mystery that made them all the more terrifying. The film's close-ups of the Nazgul and the orcs and so on exchanges the fear that can be generated by the imagination for cheap thrills at how great the movie's FX crew and costumers were. I have to hand it to Jackson, I was really surprised that he actually tried to give the movie's ending some of the same melancholy that we get in Tolkien's original. But, as with pretty much all the other scenes in the movie, it would have been so much more effective without the bad soap opera poetics that the writers felt compelled to add. There was one shaft of sunlight piercing the Mordorean darkness of this film: Sean Astin's Samwise Gamgee. Astin finally hits his stride in this last of the three LOTR movies. His portrayal of the simple, tough, goodhearted hobbit called to do things he knows are beyond him is in perfect tune with the Sam Gamgee Tolkien gave us. The Samwise he delivers really is the one that Tolkien created. I have to wonder if Jackson was furious with him. I have to give this crime of cinema at least one star for Sean Astin. It gets a second star because, since it ends pretty much the way Tolkien's book ended, and since there are no reports of Jackson giving into the pecuniary temptation to create a sequel, it implictly promises to be the last movie in this horrible series. (Please! Leave The Silmarillion alone!) The cloud of Mordor is dispersed. The suffering has ended. I just wish the Age of Men were dawning in big budget cinema, an age where writers and directors would have to rely on attracting audiences with emotion and imagination, instead of grabbing fast bucks from teeny boppers with FX magic.
Rating: 
Summary: 4 stars is enough, any more is not rational.
Review: I love it when people get so excited they scream "it's the best movie ever made"! Hey dipstick, have you SEEN every movie that's ever been made? No you didn't, so shut up. If you watched this movie without seeing the previous two you'd be as lost as a blind man in a dark room, looking for a black cat that isn't there. So how does that make it the best movie ever made? Just shut up, you're making my head ache. Oh yeah, and for youse guys that are pissed cause the director didn't carbon copy the books: Yeah, yeah, it's a great tale of classic literature, blah, blah, blah. Who the f(beep)k cares? Just shut up about the books. Books aren't movies. Books are always different and usually better. No one has to read anything to know the books are better-- that is, and always has been, the way it is. Just shut up and GET OVER IT. I liked Return of the King. Okay, I LIKED it. I didn't gush, all over myself when it was over or anything. I left the theater thinking "Pretty damn good", with the exception of Peter Jackson playing with my emotions by head-faking the ending about a million times. It fades to black, we clap, and a new scene opens, it fades to black, we clap thinking we can all go to the bathroom now, and a new scene opens. He does this a bunch of times, and I was ready to squeeze my whole 6'2" body into the projection booth and knock the projector over. In L.A. guys like me hope and pray for a friend like Samwise, cause most people wouldn't have come back for Frodo. I often wonder if the ring could have beaten Samwise like it beat Frodo, but it probably would, and we know Frodo wouldn't haul his fat ass up that mountain, so I'm glad it works out that way. I had a problem with the ghost army in the mountains. It was too convenient. Here we have the humans vastly outnumbered, and instead of coming up with something clever... oh, there HAPPENS to be a mountain full of ghosts, who will fight but HAPPEN to only answer to the king, and hey, it HAPPENS to be right on the way to the city we're marching to protect. And by the way, here's the king's old sword. It didn't sell on eBay, so here you go. Don't swing it too hard because it might shatter on impact, and we're leaving Middle Earth and we won't be around to fix it again. I didn't care for the little Hobbit singing while the fake King of Gondor stuffed his face worse than E.T. Why make a long movie longer with stuff like that? If the director wanted me to stop eating my popcorn, he succeeded. And I don't care for Aragorn's singing at the end either, and anyone who says they did are liars. I know a lot of people front, and act like they are open minded about stuff, when in fact it annoyed them as much as anyone. Stop fronting, and just shut up. Legolas didn't get enough play. I liked the play he did get, but there is not enough of the elf in Return of the King. Cool fighting, but the stuff in Fellowship and Two Towers was more interesting. Maybe it was that the big fight in Return of the King was close to the same kind of deal at Helmsdeep and wasn't as thrilling, though I thought the Elephants were wicked, and I like the Catapault sequence. The whole thing with Faramir and his Dad, was interesting, but why bother? Faramir did nothing but deliver news to Gandalf and get shot. To me, it was just more unnecessary stuff that got in the way of the main plot. The Witchking, who cannot be killed by man is killed by the blonde tough girl on the grounds that she is "no man". How clever. I imagine Thelma and Louise cheering from their graves in the Grand Canyon, but that was really lame. I have no problem with strong women heroes in movies, in fact that is sexy to me, but their excuse for her beating an adversary like the boss of Ring Wraiths was ham-handed, hackneyed and just plain weak. Yeah, I know that Merry helped, but I half expected Merry to do the killing, considering that Merry is in point of fact a f(beep)kin Hobbit, and if you're going to find a loophole in the proclamation "no man can kill me", I'd expect the Hobbit to do it, since Merry is no man, but a halfling. It makes sense doesn't it? And another thing, why are all the great villains being punked out in movies these days? I don't care if a girl beats the Witchking; I really don't, but quipping "I'm no man", and stabbing him in the face was weak. If I was the Witchking, and that little chick killed me, in the afterlife I'd float right into Sauron's face and say "What the f(beep)k was that all about?!" I don't think I am alone in believing that females fall under the category of "Man". That is unless women aren't human. Weak Peter, really damn weak. Arwen should have gotten on the damn boat. She slowed the movie to a crawl every time she stuck her pointy-eared head out. She served a purpose in Fellowship, but only served to make a slow movie slower and a long movie longer in the last two. And her voice gets to me, but that's just me. What the f(beep)k happened to Sarumon and Wormtounge? Do they just sit in that Tower guarded by trees for the rest of time? Why did Frodo have to leave Middle Earth with the rest of them, and how did his finger grow back after Gollum had bitten it off? Ah, these don't matter. The movie is fun in spite of my bitching. It's long, but worthy. It isn't "the Postman" or "Star Trek the Motion picture". It doesn't drag its ass too much. If you sat through the first two and came away from it happy, the same thing will happen with this one. Buy the DVD and fast forward through Arwen and the lame singing parts and you'll be okay. I liked it. I don't think it's the greatest movie ever made but no one can say that about any film, unless you're an elf or vampire and have lived to see every film ever made. There was some stiff competition in 2003, "Master and Commander", "The Last Samurai", "Cold Mountain" and "Pirates of the Carribean" and "Kill Bill vol. 1" to name a few. Return of the King was comparable, but I can't say better than them all. I think it earned its Oscar though and is well worth owning, if you have the first two.
Rating:
Summary: A pure classic! Emotional, exciting, One of a Kind Epic!
Review: I just loved the return of the king. I am a true and very pleased fan with Peter Jackson's Trilogy, especially The Return of the king. The Plot is that The final battle for middle earth is about to begin and The battle takes place in the fields of the pelennor and The black gates of Mordor. This movie was a great experience, everything was just perfect as it was! Mostly nothing was wrong with it! The script was beautiful, The Lord of the rings trilogy was written by J.R.R Tolkein, a fantastic story writer and the script for the actual movie was supurb! It flowed so well with the sorroundings and it was easy to understand and comprehend and still get the emotion with it. The battle scenes were THE BEST! I just loved every minute of it. The special effects were so real and so exciting! So action packed ( though sometimes it can go allitle far but we still enjoy it....). I have been a Enormous fan for The score music for the return of the king and the music fitted so well, there was a mixture of slow but beautiful and heroic and energetic which, with the film made your back tingle in happiness :).
The acting was what made the film connect with so many people. It was realistic, not corny. Their eyes, their facial expression, I could feel their emotion, therefore, I cried like a baby 4 times and other people cried too in the cinema. When I was in the theaters, people were so engaged with the film, they started to Cheer. Some people would think this would be annoying BUT! bevause we now it is so good.. why not join them???
Emotion, music acting and realism, story are the key things that all directors should take account for... The return of the king has done all of this and this is ultimatly one of the most perfect epic films ever made. I just loved this film. fabulous.
The dvd is not worth getting unless you want just the theatrical stuff and don't bother with the extras. There are many things that P.J left out in Return of the king and waiting for the extended edition is something I cannot wait sitting still.
Overall, I have said it before, FANTASTIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thankyou Peter Jackson, it has been a great three years and thankyou for the journey you took us, 5 Stars = 100%
Rating:
Summary: Its getting closer...
Review: The time is coming. May 25 is almost here. You better preorder it before it goes out of stock. Or this December the Extended Edition is coming out! I have heard that a lot was cut out of it too make it short enough forthe limit. Im getting both. :P
Rating:
Summary: So good that there's really no point in reviewing it...
Review: Return of the King did something that no other movie before it could do...it got me to see it in the theaters 8 times! By the time New Line was done with me I was bloated on Peter Jackson's epic finale to JRR Tolkien's epic story. The siege of Minas Tirith is incredible and it only gets better with the Battle at the Pelennor Fields. The story is fantastic and the film's visual effects sets Lord of the Rings apart from any other film. It is a film worthy of the oscars that it has won, and it shine above even the combined might of The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers. My advice? See this movie. Buy the DVD. Buy the extended DVD. What are you waiting for? You're still here? Go on and get this movie. You know you want to.
Rating:
Summary: The End of a great journey and the most epic trilogy
Review: Lord of the Rings: Return of the King is one of the best trilogies in history of film making measured to other great titles like Harry Potter, Scream, Lethal Weapon and many more. The movie revolves around the new king, Aragorn, who inherits the throane and goes to battle for middle earth while Frodo and Sam are busy on their way to the Black Gate to destroy the ring but not knowing that the villanous, Golem is behind them watching their every move, waiting to steal back the ring and kill them. The ents are once again featured as they fight against the sources of evil in Modor. A reunited group of heros take it to middle earth and fight the good fight to end the terror of the evil world that was inhabited by Warrlocks and demon. An award winning movie and the ending of a great saga, this movie is a must see. 10/10.
Rating: 
Summary: The weakest of the three
Review: It has been said that by many people, including , if i am not mistaken, the director that the return of the king would be the best of the three. But i think it is sadly the worsen if compare to previous two, though itself is not bad at all. The flow of the film is boring without coming to a peak as the fellowship of the ring and two towers. In the fellowship of the ring, we got the set up of fellowship and fighting in the forest. it is good beginning showing the introduction to the whole story with great entertainment. For two towers, we saw a great battle to defense the castle. These are peaks in the films. But what we have in three? a more big castle and more oracle and men fighted and died. It is REPEATING the two towers but turn out to be worse than the fight in two tower, of which the whole story of chapter two is to prepare for that fight, What else we have? Sam and Frodo climbling the mountain and revealing human nature? What a old and dull screen we have! the technique is bad to show that "Nature". I come with great expectation to see the film but go home with great disappointment. The flow of the film is so loose that i could not counted to be great that many do. The combination of three i agree that it worth the best picture in Oscar but it alone wouldn't.
| 
