Rating: 
Summary: the best movie I ever seen!
Review: The return of the king is the best of the three movies.
There is not a lot of violence, and during the battles we don't see the details.
The special effects are great.
We see Argorn king, Sam and Frodo climbing the mount doom..
The actors are great.
I was a little bit disappointed with the two towers but the return of the king really deserves five stars.
Watch it!!
Rating:
Summary: The epic conclusion does not disappoint
Review: Peter Jackson concludes his landmark version of JRR Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings." Frodo, Sam, and Gollum reach Mount Doom, where the ring is to be destroyed, while the remainder of the fellowship gather at the massive city of Minas Tirith to face Sauron's legions in a tremendous battle that surpasses any that I have ever seen on film before. This is the best of the LOTR films; the complete arc of the story is now evident and the trilogy stands revealed as one of the greatest achievements in adventure cinema. The special effects are both eye-poppingly spectacular (as in the afore-mentioned battle) and incredibly subtle (it is easy to forget that Gollum is a CGI creation).The backlash against this film's admittedly excessive hype has set in, with many declaring that its essentially lightweight story precludes it being considered a great film. I would say that it-and the trilogy as a whole-is a great film *of its type.* Every film cannot be judged by the same measure. While the LOTR movies do not have the psychological heft of more serious cinema, it is difficult to beat them for sheer spectacle, fun, and exhalation at the possibilities of film. It really seems that we have reached a time when any visual that we can imagine can also be realized on screen. Therefore, I have no problem awarding five stars to both ROTK and a more "meaningful" film such as, say, "The Godfather." Both films are trying to do different things and do them exceedingly well.
Rating:
Summary: A glorious return
Review: The final chapter of The Lord of The Rings trilogy is an incredible work - the entire series will stand as a cinematic milestone for the
foreseeable future. I was quite worried that the movie wouldn't stand up to its predecessors - but it succeeds oh so well! It is not a perfect
film - that would be expecting too much - but it comes close enough.
First, I'd like to mention some of the criticisms and weaknesses. Many reviewers feel the movie has "too many endings". It can certainly
feel that way - but the finale is reasonably faithful to the books, as it had to be if Peter Jackson was going to be true to Tolkien's vision. I
found the finale profoundly moving. I did feel that Eowyn got short-changed in her scene with the Nazgul and King Theoden - I wanted more. I also felt that the coronation could have been more faithful to the book, though that would have entailed making an already long movie even longer. Finally, Denethor is so completely unsympathetic as a character that I feel he is almost a charicature. In the book, we know that he has looked into the Palantir and is thus infected by Sauron's evil, and that makes him a more sympathetic figure. It also gives him a closer connection to Pippin and helps us understand the bond between these two. I found the opening a bit off-setting on the first viewing, but by the third viewing I found the Smeagol - Deagol - Gollum triangle informative and worthwhile.
These criticisms are relatively minor. The rest of the movie is so well done as to smother them. In a movie rich with incredible performances, I'd like to mention Sam (Sean Austin) and Gollum (Andy Serkis) in particular. Sam's pathos when Frodo orders him to go home is heart-wrenching, and Gollum has shown that the computer/actor has come of age.
In the special features of the extended version of the Fellowship of the Ring, Viggo Mortensen notes that the attention directed towards how many awards and how much money these movies garner is much like the One Ring - it can misdirect our attention from the story. Smart man; in the end it doesn't really matter whether "Return" is the second movie to make a billion dollars or wins "Best Picture". What matters is the trilogy's ability to convey the power of loyalty, friendship and hope in our daily struggles against our own version of the Ring. All the people associated with this work of art deserve our praise - they've given us an epic for our times.
Rating:
Summary: My new favorite movie!
Review: I know a lot of purists are upset over the changes made with the transition from prose to screen, but I personally loved this movie! One of the best compliments I can give it is that in over three hours of cinema, not once is there a single spot slow enough for you to get up and go to the bathroom. I was a little disappointed with the way Faramir was portrayed in the The Two Towers, though the estended version of the DVD cleared some of that up for me. The character really got his chance to shine in this movie, though. Ian McKellen was Gandalf. He had so fully immersed himself in the role that it's hard to believe he could act differently in real life. He came across so convincing. I would also like to give a huge round of applause to Sean Astin. I had always thought you had to be a Lord of the Rings geek to truly appreciate what a pivotal and important character Samwise was. Mr. Astin really was able to bring that out in his performance. Return of the King shows him at his best. Even the youngest viewers can understand just how significant Sam was to the story. This character goes underappreciated by a lot of people, so it's good to see him portrayed so accurately. And of course there's Gollum. Tolkien made it a point throughout his books to state that one of the reasons Gollum had survived so many encounters was because people pitied him. In these movies, you really connected with Gollum as a character. He was given the depth and attention he deserves. Some people complained that Gollum can't be cute, but then how are we supposed to pity him? To those who would say that Return of the King is nothing but special effects, let me re-state what we already know: the casting was perfect, the acting was nothing short of superb, the cinematography was spectacular, the music was beautifully arranged, and the imagery was so deep and well-thought out that it really made the lands of Middle Earth seem to come alive. Rather than focusing on the special effects, Jackson focused on the story that made those special effects a necessity. I await the extended DVD for a number of reasons. First of all is because I've heard that closure is given to the fate of Saruman, and that is pretty important to me. Now all that's left to do is wait for this movie to sweep the Oscars. If the academy does not give this film the credit it deserves, it only proves that they are completely immersed in pretense and self-importance. Who cares if a movie isn't art? If it entertains, then in my book that's good enough.
Rating: 
Summary: It was very good but.....
Review: Lord of the Rings: Return of king was a must see for me, being quite a fan of the first two films. Well after I saw it...well I was slightly disappointed. It was very good but it was missing something that the first two films had. I can't quite put my finger on it. There were several things in this movie that had an impact on the suspense. For example: -The major battle of Minas Tirith was supposed to better than Helm's Deep but there was not as much fear or suspense as Helm's Deep. There are two reasons for that, it rushes into the fight (the suspense is the wait not the battle) and the scene had split focus which confused the audience emotionally. Helm's Deep was good because it was building up to the battle and you got to see the fear of the defenders.
-What ever happened to the original of the book? The ending of movie is very different. I guess with this film there was too much to put in it. Another thing that annoys me is that everyone including Peter Jackson seems to think friendship and courage and things like are the main themes. They are and they aren't. Isn't the story about the ring? Isn't the ring a symbol of power and temptation?
Rating:
Summary: the best movie I ever seen
Review: this movie really deserves 5 stars.
It's the the Lord of the rings best movie.
The actors are very good, they are the best actors of the world.
The plot is very good, there was not a lot of battles and during them we don't see all details.
I was a little bit disappointed with the two towers but the return of the king is amazing.
We see Frodo and Sam climbing the mount doom and destruct the ring, when Aragorn the new king...
The special effect are great, it's very good adaptation of the book.
I highly recommend it!.
Rating:
Summary: Gripping
Review: From the very beginning of this movie, I was on the edge of my seat. Even though it was over three hours long, you didn't get tired of it. You couldn't wait to see what was to come. I would recemend this movie for everyone over 13.
Rating:
Summary: An Awe- Inspiring, Mind-Blowing Epic
Review: Do you ever feel that you've lost your appreciation for movies? Have you given up on the whole sci-fi/ fantasty genre of films, thinking that it requires a child's imagination to appreciate them? I thought so myself And then came Lord of the Rings; The Return of the King. It's rare that a film can be three and a half hours long and leave you wanting to see it again the very next day, and then the next day after that. But this film does! Yes, the film is a dazzling visual spectacle. But sheer spectacle is meaningless (as evidenced by the most recent Star Wars films). This film resonates with us all, because it demonstrates the importance of friendship, as well as endurance through even the darkest of times. When the ring finally meets its doom, the audience feels the emotions of Frodo, Sam and Co.; you feel as if you've reached the end of a long, arduous journey. We have been led from a happy, small shire, through an ever growing darkness and despair. The evil is finally defeated, but things never return to "normal." The ending was much better than I expected; the loss of human life is minimal for our heroes. However, there is still a sense of sadness and tragedy; the cost isn't in the form of life, but of oneness with one's homeland. Such emotional impact is rare in most movies' endings; most films usually opt for a dark, depressing, ending, or a finale that is sentimental and silly. And the actors deliver surprise after surprise. Viggo Mortensen is unbelievable as the noble, valiant Aragorn. I say "unbelievable" because he has a reputation for playing scumbags. He has definately displayed a wider range with Aragorn's character. Then there's the other actors who are (normally) insubstantial (ie Elijah Wood, Sean Aston, etc.). Their fine performances under Peter Jackson are proof that actors are only as effective as the people directing them. On all fronts, this film is an unforgettable masterpiece.
Rating:
Summary: A very good film, but not "great." The hype brings it down!
Review: Before I review this good movie, I have to get something that's been bothering me off my chest. I went with eight people to see "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King." All eight of them found it "good" at best. We all thought it was too long, with too many passages of dialogue explaining what was going to happen ("I ride to Minis Tirith at dawn to face the enemies of Middle-Earth!" -- just do it already!), too many scenes that most definitely could have been cut or edited, and we all found that the ending of the film stretched on too long and we didn't need to see Frodo and Sam fondly gazing at each other ninety times before we got the idea that they have an affection for each other. (Brotherly love or...something else?) The thing is, all the "Lord of the Rings" movies are good. But none of them are great. Filmed by Peter Jackson with an epic feeling that betrays J.R.R. Tolkien's light-hearted tale, the films try to take a somewhat light idea and turn them into epics -- a problem, since the entire world is fantasy, and it is hard to take anything in the film dreadfully serious. (I thought it was just I, but some other critics have noted the same problem.) This is the best "Lord of the Rings" movie. Even though it sounds as if I am complaining about them, I am not. I'm complaining about the way movie geeks flock to the cinemas and spread word that it's the "best film of all time," then post these comments on the Internet and try to boost the film's rating on IMDb. (Some fans have been caught in the act of making multiple usernames to do so.) I find it almost laughable that anyone could argue that the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy is the best of all time, or that it is the better than "The Godfather" (because that film stands as the number one film on the Internet Movie Database, there are heated debates from "Rings" fans claiming that "The Godfather" is trash and their favorite film is not). It's all opinion, of course, but I sometimes wonder whether the fans of "The Lord of the Rings," those who claim they are superior to "The Godfather," have even seen that film. I also wonder whether the strict fans that claim it is the best film ever made have actually seen enough films to qualify for that assumption -- if it is their favorite film, fine, but to say it is THE best film of all time is entirely their opinion, although they seem to take it as a fact. Have they seen the films of Fellini? Kurosawa? Scorsese? Coppola? "Citizen Kane"? "Casablanca"? "Taxi Driver"? "Sweet Smell of Success"? "To Kill a Mockingbird"? "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"? "Chinatown"? "Apocalypse Now"? "2001: A Space Odyssey"? The list goes on! Their definitions of classics range from the time of "Star Wars" to present cinema. It may sound like an old argument but it's true -- greater films are harder to find nowadays, and just because "The Lord of the Rings" seems like an achievement of some sort, it does not make it the best film of all time. I can name many better films. But, then again, it's my opinion, I suppose. Now that I'm done with my rant, there's nothing left to say. Frodo and Sam (Elijah Wood and Sean Astin) venture closer to Mordor to destroy The One Ring, while Gollum (Andy Serkis) plots to murder them both and take the Ring of Power for himself. (We get to see Gollum's background in the film, too, which is something that will satisfy Tolkien's fans that have read the stories.) Meanwhile, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) returns to the throne of a kingdom (hence the title of the film) to claim his position as heir of Isildur, but first gathers together Legolas and Gimli (Orlando Bloom and John Rhys-Davies) to help battle the Orcs venturing closer to their castle, along with Gandalf the White (Ian McKellen), who opens a can of whoop [butt] in this movie. The film picks up pace starting with the giant arachnid battle, about halfway through the film, and continues down the path of mild greatness until the last twenty minutes, which never seem to end. It is as if Jackson was afraid to close his film for a final time and kept dragging the scenes out -- I don't need to see Frodo and Sam admiring each other more than twice! As the credits rolled, the audience poured out of the theater. "Wasn't that good?" I heard someone say. "No," was the reply. "The Return of the King" is a very good film, and certainly the best of the trilogy, but don't be fooled by the hype -- this is not one of the best films of all time. It's a case of the Emperor's New Clothes -- some day, someone's going to realize that what they're going on about isn't really there at all. And finally all the film fans will be able to say, "Y'know, I never really loved the movie all that much anyway." But for now, I guess we'll all have to put up with more unearned hype. I liked this movie. I liked it a lot at certain points. But I would never, ever call it great. That's just me, I guess.
Rating:
Summary: It couldn't have been done any better!
Review: Amazing is the only word that comes to mind. I noticed far less of the effects in this film than the previous. I know enough about what it takes that I can say I'm very impressed. I knew that what I was looking at was a fantastic CG representation, but I found my self accepting it without question. The ghosts were perhaps the most laking due attention. Yet the close ups were absolutely beautiful. Visually the film must get top ranks for 2003! Anything less would be dishonest.
| 
