Rating: 
Summary: Suspension of Disbelief: or PJ, Noooo!
Review: The director is ultimately responsible for everything that happens on screen, but can be held directly responsible for three things: blocking (talent and camera movement), acting (emoting and dialogue) and mood (set design, lens choices, angles).Before I go off on that, let me say this: God Bless the extremely dedicated and talented special effects teams that worked on this movie. The craft, care and design evident in almost every shot is nothing short of astounding, and SFX, as a technical craft, is really maturing nicely. Hats off to a true technical achievement (forgive me Douglas Trumball [although you and me both know you win hands-down]). BUT: SFX is not the draw. it is not the reward, not in cinema. These days, if it has a computer generated image, people will go and gawk. Unfortunately, CGI cannot repair flawed direction, scripting and casting choices. So many people got bored at this movie. So many people LAUGHED at scenes that warranted no laughter. The flaming plunge of King Denethor was high comedy. At least half of the theater giggled as he plunged over the side. The scouring green bubbles of ghosts were high comedy (particularly when you watch closely and see little ghosts going in circles because the computer program that drives them got confused). Bad choices driven by sloppy direction. I've said it before, and I am going to say it again: These movies would not have been made if Tolkien were alive. This was a man that was scrupulous in his attention to detail and his dedication to beauty, tragedy and a duty one has to the world at large. He ripped into American printers (in that dry, pleasant British way) when they took it upon themselves to alter his spellings (dwarfs to dwarves, etc). He would be beside himself if he were witness to what has happened to his meticulously crafted history. But, to pick up the thread: direction. You want a glimpse of how bad these movies were going to turn out? Watch the camera tests included on the extras disc with Fellowship (yeh, I bought these things so I could learn what NOT to do when making a movie). Jackson's pre-production blocking (shooting with a digital camera on-set to get a rough idea of staging and composition) are evidence of someone who has no respect for the original material (tone, intent or structure). It comes across as a bad high school play. Special effects, a score, and shooting on 35mm can forgive a lot of heavy-handedness behind the camera, but in this case, the immaturity of the director comes shining through with flat characters, chunky pacing and some really truly nasty dialogue and weak performances that no amount of neato New Zealand scenery can veil. Please read the books, see what the original artist truly intended. Please fight the urge to buy into this amateurish, ham-fisted marketing ploy. And, Mr. Jackson? Please stop strutting around like the Second Coming. Please stop! To the Academy: Please, no! Don't do it! Master and Commander AT LEAST (Lost in Translation, even better).
Rating: 
Summary: I Still Think Two Towers Is Better
Review: Don't get me wrong. Return of the King is still worthwhile. I just feel that Two Towers is much better done. In ROTK, some of the computer graphics were sloppy, like the olephaunts.... My biggest complaint for ROTK is that there are too many close-ups and "slow-motions", especially in the beginning. They really interrupted the flow of the movie. Minas Tirith is breathtaking and the battle scenes are great too. There are trolls, catapults and Nazguls.... The part I like most is when Theoden was lining up his horsemen before the battle at Pelennor Field. He banged his sword on his men's spears. The sound effect really got my blood pumping. I know some people don't like the battle scenes, calling them "eye-candies". I'd disagree. What is so mesmerizing about them is the sheer multitude: horses charging into a thick wall of orcs, horses looking like ants running between the olephaunts. (I really love the horse scenes....) Peter Jackson wants us to see those eye-candies. Why else would he devote like two hours for the battles? For the Tolkien loyalists who think that Jackson missed the point of the book, I think they should remember this is Jackson's LOTR. This is Jackson's vision of the Middle Earth--the Shire, the Rohirrims and Minas Tirith.... Rather than complain about what's not faithful to the book, think what Jackson had achieved.
Rating: 
Summary: Jackson made Tolkien new for me again
Review: Reading "Lord of the Rings" for the first time at around 16 years of age was for me a seminal experience. The impact of the work was so strong that I read the books three times in a row before I completely digested the enormity of this masterpiece. Much of who I am today was formed from how that first reading made me look at myself and look at life. Since that time I've read the books more than 30 times. Each re-reading has deepened my appreciation of Tolkien, but the joy that I felt when reading the work for the first time is something that I thought would always be in the past. When I first heard about the Jackson films I was both pleased and anxious. I was pleased because I love movies and have always looked forward to someone attempting a filmization of my favorite author. Of course, I was anxious because any adaptation of LOTR would probably not be good enough (recalling Bakshi's attempt in the late 70s). When I first saw Jackson's "Fellowship" I had to watch it about 3 times before I could rid myself of my own idea of what a Tolkien film should be like. After this happened I realized what a great film this really was. My experience with "Two Towers" was that I was so upset with the choices that Jackson made that I only watched it once and have yet to discard my disappointment with the film. However, I am planning on seeing it again when I purchase the DVDs (extended, of course) of all three films. I am pretty sure that several re-viewings of the film will also rid me of my disappointment with it.
My more recent experience with "Return of the King" was a bit more complicated. On first viewing I liked it way better than "Two Towers" even though I was disconcerted with certain plotting choices and spent a lot of time arguing with Jackson (in my head, of course) while watching the film. However, at the point in the film when Bernard Hill as Theoden was giving his big speech to the riders before their charge, suddenly something clicked for me that hadn't clicked in any of Jackson's three films until this point--Jackson somehow managed to distill in this one moment everything I loved about Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings". I started to cry, not so much because of how moving the scene was, but because Jackson managed to make me feel exactly the same ecstasy of emotions that I only had been able to feel when reading (and re-re-re-reading) "Lord of the Rings".
The first time I saw "Return of the King" I had (literally) to run out of the theater the minute the credits came up to be on time for a choir rehearsal. I really did not have time to completely digest everything that I was feeling about the movie. So I decided to go and see the film a second time. In the past, when I had re-viewed "Fellowship", it was after I had purchased the video. This was the first time that I had returned to see one of Jackson's films at full price at a theater (which is now $10.25 in most NYC theaters). This second viewing was an eye-opener--not only did I feel the same emotions during Theoden's speech, I felt these emotions during the whole movie regardless of changes in plot or character. I also started to forget that these people were actors in a movie and started to feel for them as if they were real people with real problems. This is the first time that this has happened with a fantasy, or science fiction, film. I even went to the film a third time (still at full price) just to see if it still made me feel the same. It certainly did, only even more so. I have now come to the conclusion that Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" films (not just "ROTK") are among the greatest movies that were ever filmed. Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" films are perfect in way that Tolkien's books themselves were perfect. Which is not to say that the films (or even Tolkien's books for that matter) are without flaws, but that the films (like Tolkien's books) are masterpieces that reflect much of the mind of their creator. The fact that Jackson is not Tolkien (and visa versa) means, at least to me, that rather than a mere filmization of the work we have two completely separate, if at the same time completely related, works of art. Both are masterpieces, and while it is true that Jackson's films could not exist without Tolkien's books and the primacy of creation goes to Tolkien, Jackson's powerful vision gives something back to Tolkien. Having seen and loved the films I will never be able to read Tolkien in the same way again. Peter Jackson in "Return of the King" has done the miraculous--he has made Tolkien new for me again.
Rating:
Summary: Battle of Biblical Proportions
Review: I didn't see the first two movies of this trilogy until they were released on video/DVD, and let me tell you, I wish had not waited so long to become a LOTR fan! We watch the videos over and over, and my two children have most of the lines memorized. We could not wait for this movie to come out, so we could see how the producers could top the first two. They did!!! Although, there are lots of things left out of the movies from the books, to me, there is much more added to the movies that makes them better than the books (if I may dare say that). The final part of the trilogy, Return of the King, is a battle of Biblical proportions, an epic story of good versus evil which gives me chills to think of the Spiritual implications and symbolism of this movie (and the first two). Now, we can't wait for this movie to come out on video/DVD so we can watch it over and over again! It's fantastic, and, if you can imagine, even more captivating and stunningly beautiful than the first two! I love the cast, as well. They are fabulous, each one! I would highly recommend seeing the first two in order, if you haven't done so, before seeing this film, but I would recommend the trilogy to anyone from action fans to love story fans to sci-fi fans, and the writers even throw in a bit of comedy, as well. There's no profanity or nudity or lewdness. There is violence, but what do you expect when you are trying to rid Middle-Earth of the evil Dark Lord??? Even at that, it is tastefully done to enhance the theme of the film! Thank you for reading this review and letting me express how much I have enjoyed LOTR...all 3 of them! God bless you!
Rating:
Summary: we've come to it at last...
Review: I am still recovering from my uncontrollable tears which flowed from my eyes 2 months ago. It was an experience i dont think i will ever forget. "The Return of the King" is simply the most brilliant film i have ever seen in my lifetime. And coming from a movie critic such as myself, you must understand the rarity of my enormous praise. Not once are do you see a flaw in its absolutely revolutionary visual effects, and never do you find yourself looking around at the movie curtains, as you are absolutely captivated in the world of Middle Earth as you experience, Arwen's sacrafice, Aragorn's bravery, Sam's loyalty, and above all emotions that stir in your hearts, the absolute heartbreak and pain you feel for Frodo, the ring-bearing hobbit. For the final quarter of the film, my tears were for Frodo and Sam as i urged them with my every strength, so that they can at last be ridded of their most evil burden, the One Ring. The musical score is the most moving of the three films, for it is the most personal when it desribes Frodo's utter angst towards the ring, and espeically the mind-gripping battle sequences (the biggest ever seen on film), where "frantic" music is played. Sometimes the beautiful harmonies of the "string" instruments is enough to throw you into an emotional disgrace! It happened to me! It is a very great shame, that i am unable to reward this film with SCORES of stars, for there's is just not enough in this world that can describe the SHEER brilliance of this film. WIth already 4 Golden Globes, and dozens of other awards, i am praying that this film is blessed with the Best Picture Oscar as it is truly deserving of such a high honour. "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" will without a second thought be dubbed the most phenominal picture ever created. Please without hesitation see this truly remarkable film. Take a tissue - in my case a box, and be utterly mezmorised in the magical world of Tolkein!
Rating:
Summary: After 3.5 hours, you'll be exhausted- and utterly blown away
Review: From the release of the Lord of the Rings books decades ago, this trilogy has been set in stone as a classic fantasy. Being a typical average teenage girl, I was not particularly excited when I was dragged to see the Fellowship three years ago. In fact, if it werent for the extremely sexy cast including Orlando Bloom, Elijah Wood, and Dom Monaghan, I may not have gone at all. As it turned out, even if Elijah looked like my math teacher, this movie would still be well worth seeing. Now that the third installment is finally out, it has only gotten better. These movies have everything, great acting, directing, action, adventure, and even romance. The third is by far the most emotional, having felt like you have known these characters for years. While in the theatre, I remember thinking 'two hours left, THATS IT?'. Peter Jackson found the perfect harmony within the cast and crew, and their real life love for one another is obvious in the movies. You will be just as hesitant to say goodbye as they must have been. Having seen it several times now, I have two tips; don't miss out on the most epic triology of the century just because it is not a shallow makeout movie. Oh, and don't forget the tissues.
Rating:
Summary: If this doesn't win an oscar for best movie........
Review: This is the best movie of all time. First you gotta thank J.R.R. Tolkien for such a great story. Then Peter Jackson for makeing such a huge story into three wonderfull movies. But The Return of the King is the crowning point of the triolgy, and of all adventure movies. The charecters are one of a kind. Never has there been charecters you come to respect and enjoy(except for maybe the charecters in Star Wars). Frodo and Sam. Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas. Merry and Pippin. And of course Gandalf and Gollum. Sir Ian McKellan(Gandalf), Sean Astin(Sam), and Andy Sirkus(as Gollum) are all worthy of oscar. So is Howard Shore the composer of the themes in The Lord of the Rings. Peter should also win for best director, which he is.
The special effects are the best I've ever seen. The giant elephants, giant spiders, giant armies, the giant city of Minas Tirith is just amazing, theres no other way of putting it. The other places like Barad Du, Saurons tower, Mount Doom, The Black Gates, Osgilith( sorry if I misspell stuff), The Fields of Pelanor. The Nazgul look as good as ever. Exspecially the Witch King on top of his flying beasts.
The battle scenes are the best ever made, with thousands of horse men chargeing to Minas Tirtith.Takeing on Hundreds of thousands of orcs. The army of the dead just swalling the orc armies. There just amazing.
The end is just very strange. You know it's the end but you want to see more, just wait for the DVD.
Rating:
Summary: Epically long but worth the time
Review: The Return of the King was a great ending to the epic story of Frodo Baggins. Starting in "The Hobbit", we follow him as an insignificant being, in a place hidden from the evils of Middle Earth. But the great wizard Gandalf knows the value of hobbits. With the most evil and powerful magical ring ever produced in a fantasy world, only a hobbit could resist the powerful pull of the ring. "The Lord of the Ring" series of films, based on the trilogy by J. R. Tolkien, may not as I envisioned it when I read the books, but is non-the-less a fantasy epic that is one of the best I've seen to date.
If you like a dark struggle to the bitter end, this movie will keep you focused. If you appreciate large battle scenes with fictional creatures, you'll enjoy this film. If nothing else, this story will entice those that read the books years ago, as I did, to pick them up and read them again, with fresh images in mind.
Rating: 
Summary: A good movie that should have been great
Review: Never have I been so thoroughly disappointed with such a decent film. Some would blame expectations, but having had expectations merely from Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers I don't think expectations are unreasonable. The problem with the film is it suffers from "been there done that" syndrome. The battles go on far too long with far too few results. It's merely eye candy, there are no characters to feel for during the battles leaving the audience feeling battle fatigued. No longer do we have those introspective moments of Fellowship of the Ring, instead we get formulaic action and tired dialogue. The whole series is absolutely plagued with fake deaths, and we get our share of them with Return of the King also. Without giving away spoilers, there are more than 3 "fake deaths". One per movie is enough Peter Jackson. But more than anything the greatest travesty in all 3 films is how Peter Jackson missed the underlining themes of the Lord of the Rings books. One of the most important aspects of the books is the destruction of war, but yet we got not one look of the destruction that almost cost Middle-Earth it's existance. In the book when Frodo returns from the journey to Mt. Doom he's no longer the same person. He's lost his innocence, terrible memories plague his thoughts, the effects of the ring have taken it's toll to the point of him having to leave the Shire. This is representative of how Tolkien must have felt after returning from World War 1. The destruction of war, the SACRIFICE the Fellowship had to go through. Those are some of the messages Tolkien wanted readers to get from his book, but they're all terribly absent from the movie. Instead, the reason for Frodo leaving the shire is almost unexplained in the movie. Peter Jackson could have changed every scene around if he wanted to, but the most important parts of the books are what goes on under the surface, and that's what Peter Jackson should have focused on. It's not the action, it's not the war, it's not the adventures, it's the human elements. That is what Peter Jackson did so well with Fellowship of the Ring but seemed to have forgotten with Return of the King.
Rating:
Summary: Garbage Garbage Garbage
Review: If character development, decent acting, interesting cinematography, and/or a solid narrative aren't your criteria for quality, you may like this film. I, on the other hand, happen to consider these things essential to the craft of filmmaking (call me elitist); and this movie has none of it. In fact, damn near the ONLY two things this movie has are 1) special effects, and 2) an "epic" feel, due mostly to swooping landscape shots and occasionally (i.e. inconsistently) arcane dialogue. I wish I could give negative stars to offset the innumerable geeks and nerds (who undoubtedly use this movie to escape from their miserable, failed lives- you know who I'm talking about- those greasy faced centipedes that wear black tee-shirts touting a love of either a) Star Wars, b) Metallica, or c) Monster Trucks, who hang out at video arcades and play D&D in dingy basements) who think this movie gives life meaning. Not since Titanic have I loathed a movie quite this much. In truth, I don't quite hate the movie as much as I hate what it represents, but make no mistake I do hate this movie. I could go on for hours about why I abhor this waste of celluloid, but for those who enjoy this tripe it would make no difference. So I'll spare you all the rant. In one word, though, to describe my overall impression of this film, I would have to say I find it impossibly "tacky." Tacky tacky tacky tacky tacky!
|
