Rating: 
Summary: Sure To Win Best Picture And Best Director At The Oscars!
Review: The early reviews I've read about this most phenomenal movie are all positive (so far). The Preview and TV Spots of 'The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King' look really good: greatly hiring my anticipation for it. I own the movie-soundtrack of 'The Return of the King' and its sounds wonderful! I can't wait to see this movie-sequel in theaters! It'll be better than 'The Fellowship of the Ring' and 'The Two Towers' put together.
Rating:
Summary: This Movie Is Great!
Review: Better than FOTR and TTT, LOTR: ROTK is breathtaking! It is a great adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's LOTR book trilogy. I saw the premier of this most excellent movie! ROTK does not disappoint!
Rating:
Summary: Leontyne Price is better than Britney
Review: Miss Price trumps Britney Spears in the area of singing.This movie is a glorious retelling of the book.
Rating: 
Summary: Any Questions?
Review: How do you cut Saruman out of ROTK?
Tip of the iceberg, but a fowl wind blows from the West..... .... more to follow once the movie is viewed. Judging from the woman in West Chester who claims to have seen the film, sounds like the theatre edit cheapened the story.
Rating:
Summary: Keep your shorts on...
Review: 5 star reviews for a movie which has yet to be released and which most of you have not seen? Is that how sad we are now... that we have forgotten that we must 'preview' before we 'review'?
I loved the books, and I have loved both movies, but as I have not seen ROTK yet, as most of you have not, I AM NOT ENTITLED TO WRITE A REVIEW. A special award should go to the reviewer who used his space to decry the 'liberals' who refuse to acknowledge the strong currents of good and evil throughout the story. That reviewer ought to recall that Tolkien was and is as anti-war and pro-environment as the best of us 'liberals'. We liberals know evil well... it is in our White House as we speak. So, Americans, think again about the fall of the Two Towers and then look up the meaning of the word 'allegory' before you speak... you will sound like a foolish son of a Took otherwise.
Rating:
Summary: I have actually seen the movie--VERY MINOR SPOILER
Review: I saw the film on December 4, 2003, in Minneapolis; Barry Osborne had arranged a screening to benefit Carleton College, his alma mater. As with the others, I looked forward to this movie--wouldn't miss it for anything--with the repeated thought, "Don't let them mess it up; PLEASE don't let them mess it up." I should have had more faith. Peter Jackson didn't mess it up. I recommend it wholeheartedly. It starts with the backstory of Smeagol and Deagol, telling the tale of the evolution of Gollum. It continues to highlight the character as even more manipulative than he is in the book. I found Gollum's increased influence and a few other changes in detail confusing at first, but these things did serve to heighten the suspense for one who already knows the story well. Of course the movie has to omit things that were in the book; time is limited, after all. But these necessary changes were handled in a simple and elegant way, making the flow of the story smooth and impressive. This film is extremely heroic in theme and action; as a result, some of the subtlety of the earlier movies is lost in the more direct appeal to the emotions of the viewers. The acting was. as always, excellent; in particular, Billy Boyd gave depth to the character of Pippin far beyond what he was called upon to do in the first two films. David Wenham (Faramir) also was outstanding. I liked it very much. Most likely, if Hollywood runs true to form, some other movie will win the Academy Award for best picture. But Return of the King actually IS the best picture of 2003, award or no award.
Rating:
Summary: Breath-Taking!
Review: This action-driven, touching, and most phenomenal fantasy/adventure movie will be awsome to many who see it in the theater! I saw the premier of it in L.A. and it was incredible! Better than film one and two combined! The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is a must-see movie for fans of author J.R.R. Tolkien's remarkable book-trilogy!
Rating:
Summary: Petter Jackson, is not JRR Tolkin... in a good way...
Review: I have seen all three movies many times (including the 3rd even though it is not out in many places); and it has to be said "They ALL are great movies"! I know what many people are thinking, that these movies are a sad recreation Tolkin's outstanding novels. And I think that you have a small point. Now before you hate me LOTR fans I will have you know that I loved the movies. But it is true, the movies in No way can compare to the novels, they lack in detail and they did not follow the story line very well. But everyone must understand there are curtian things that had to be cut out of the movies or changed; and another thing wake up and realize:
PETTER JACKSON IS NOT TOLKIN!
From what I have heard many of you spend your time comparing the movies to the books instead of really "WATCHING" the movies. Yes some of the special effects in the 3rd movie are a little... dissapointing, but the movies really are five star deserving. I know everyone has different views on such things, but Petter Jackson did do a great job.
The books would be imposible to make into movies with out having to alter things. And also realize how you read the books and inturpeted them is NOT how everyone else saw them. Everyone got different thing out of the book. So before you go around saying the movies sucked because the weren't like the books realize that they are from different peoples views, and that movies can not be 100% like the books. I reccomend "The Return Of The King", to people who are willing to appreciate the movies for what the are; and also to those who where dissapointed by the comparison of the 1st and 2nd movies vs. the books, I think you should whatch the 3rd movie as if there was no book, and maybe then you will see Jackson did a great job! Well see you guys at the movies on December 17, 2003!!!
Rating:
Summary: Its Going To Be Massive!
Review: This movie will, in no doubt, be incredibly good. It'll win many Oscars and also 'The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King' is expected to get really good critic-reviews. This is a movie that I highly anticipate to see! 'Return of the King' will be a phenomenal movie to end the wonderful 'The Lord of the Rings' movie-trilogy! December 17nth is drawing near!!!
Rating: 
Summary: A Sad Disappointment
Review: With all respect to Mr. Jackson and his hardworking and talented crew: these movies are not at all acceptable. The translation from prose to screen is difficult to overcome and often cannot be done without major revision of the source material; however, the final product must maintain a great degree of life on its own, either apart from or related to the original. Stephen King's "The Shining" is quite different from Kubrick's movie, and yet both retain an equally powerful story, and Kubrick's movie does not suffer precisely because he is willing to rework and cut and create as he sees fit for his own vision. I cannot see that Mr. Jackson has the same degree of vision for his movies. The source material for the "Lord of the Rings" movies is simply too strong and earth-rooted to come alive on screen, and Mr. Jackson is hampered by a fear of making his viewers think and reflect and a greater fear of giving them time to do so. Perhaps that is my own cherished prejudice leaping up, but these movies simply do not have a kind of real life and energy. Where the quiet attention to setting that Tolkien so loved? Where the noble strains of antiquity and reverence? These movies have all of the style and none of the substance of a great masterwork. Furthermore, CGI is never acceptable in a movie, for any reason. Why should we watch a grouping of pixels from a computer screen instead of a live actor? The Gollum character could EASILY have been performed by a live actor in makeup and costume, and probably with much less trouble and more real chemistry on screen. Oh heavens, there are a thousand things to lament but the final conclusion is that these movies are sadly not at all a relative of their original text. Flaccid dialogue, weak acting, overwrought scenes hampered by too much flash. Mr. Jackson and his colleagues have created a marvelous spectacle indeed, but no movie, and we hope that he and his colleagues will retire to the circus where just such flash and blow belongs.
| 
