Rating: 
Summary: The Return Of The King
Review: This is a strange video. This was made by the same creative team as the one that made the Hobbit and not the one that made Lord of the Rings (Bakshi). However, it attempts to pick up where Lord Of the Rings left off. This is actually a made-for-TV special (you can see the commercial breaks) with less sophisticated animation than Lord Of The Rings. The main problem is that the book has far more story to it than a two hour animated feature can tell, so a lot of back story is missing. Also, there is far too much use of singing as a narrative device. The great Glenn Yarborough's talents seem wasted singing about "Frodo Of The Nine Fingers" over and over again (thank goodness for fast forward). Whereas Lord Of The Rings was aimed as animation for adults, the Hobbit and Return Of The King were targeted for younger audiences and the story suffers. I can't wait for the story to be told in the theaters over the next three years. I've been looking forward to a good LOTR more so than the next Star Wars. The Return Of The King cartoon leaves a lot to be desired and will leave viewers wanting quite a bit more.
Rating: 
Summary: Frodo of the Nine Fingers and the Return of a great movie
Review: MOVIE:
I love this movie!!!!! They really caught it beautifully on the screen. There are only a couple of parts that make no sense:
1. When Frodo and Samwise are sleeping in that hole and Frodo has that weird dream.
2. When Sam is walking down from Cirith Ungol and he dreams of himself being a father.
TYhose scenes really don't add to the story. They really embelished some brief scenes in the book, like when Sam dreams of himself being 'Samwise the Strong' and the Mouth of Sauron part.SONGS:
The songs are superb. My favorites are "Where There's a Whip There's a Way" and "Frodo of the Nine Fingers". Only two songs don't make sense: "Less Can Be More" and "Leave Tomorrow Till it Comes". Another good song is "Win the Battle, Lose the War". CHARACTERS:
Once again, they captured the characters perfectly. I am kinda mad that they didn't include Legolas, Gimli, Faramir, or Beregond. Denethor is pictured exactly how Tolkien described him. John Noble's Denethor isn't old enough. VOICES:
The voice talents are once again great. William Conrad dishes out a great Denethor. Casey Kasem and Sonny Melendrez are great at Merry and Pippin. Roddy McDowall outshines Sean Astin in the role of Samwise (no offense to him), but they are all left behind when it comes to John Huston as Gandalf. He is THE BEST!!!!! OVERALL SUMMARY:
Great movie. Show it to the kids (although some of the younger ones might find it a little scary). Although this is a great movie in and of itself, Peter Jackson's outshines it by a lot.
Rating: 
Summary: The Worst Tolkien adaptation ever
Review: Trash. I read the books of the "Lord of the Rings" when I was in grade 6, and then I rented this movie. I'm scarred for life. The plot is completely turned around. Not worth anyone's time.
Rating:
Summary: What Happened????
Review: I am stunned at all the rave reviews of this, this, well this nonsensical garbage. Don't get me wrong, its cool that they went through all that trouble to make this flik, but don't you think if your going to do it , shouldn,t you leave out all the musical numbers? Which brings me to my next point. Alot of these glowing reviews say that this is much better than Peter Jackson's version because it sticks more to the source material. WHAT! Where did that come from? I'm sure Tolkien just forgot to write sappy seventies music every other chapter. Oh yeah, and he probably didn't want Legolas and Gimli in the third book anyhow. He just needed someone like Rankin to figure how to write them out. To bad Tolkien was already gone to fix his mistake.
Best parts of the movie you say? Well seeing anything of Tolkien usually gives me goosebumps, and at least seeing the title brings some nice memories of the book and P.J.'s film. ( Finally the bumbling, fat faced cartoon version of Sam is purged from my mind!! Thank you Astin!!)
Its almost worth viewing just to see the two greatest scences ever penciled on paper. (Just kidding). Frodo's lovely little dream with the orc wandering by and waving to him as if to say "thanks for the tea!" while he just lounges back against a tree has got to be seen to be believed. And the wonderful little song "Where thrers a whip, Theres a way" is hilarious. Orcs singing about not wanting to fight just tickled me all over. Can't believe Tolkien left out that part.
But wait, there's more. The Witch King was just an electronic laugh just like in the Transformers. Really it was. And Gandalf? He was nothing more than somebody reading a script in a nice monotone voice that was even more perfected as the battles rose in a fevered pitch around him.
All I can say is that even if you like it (or dare I say Love it), at least strike up the courage to say that the Peter Jackson version is closer to the book.
Thanks
Oh yeah, I gave it two stars because at least it has Tolkien's name on it.
Rating: 
Summary: Good exposure for Tolkien, Fantasy's best author
Review: I cannot believe the sheer number of negative reviews for this movie. Granted, THE HOBBIT was a more successful film. The reason is because these movies are for children, and written as such. THE HOBBIT does well in this situation because it is for children. THE RETURN OF THE KING not so much. The animation style is the same as THE HOBBIT. Gollum is good. The best part of this particular film is the sequence between Eowyn and the Witch-King of Angmar. That is well done. The Mouth of Sauron is also in there*. Orodruin is done well too. One thing I don't like about both films is current packaging. I bought them before they turned over, and each is well represented with original art from the film. These new covers, however, go totally away from the animation style used to convey Tolkien's world to the audience. Bad cover art. Almost as bad as the phallus on the original cover of THE LITTLE MERMAID. John Huston makes the ultimate Gandalf. His voice sounds exactly like a Gandalf would sound. One thing I don't like is in the end of the movie they have Gandalf imply hobbits evolved into men, which is against Tolkien's conceptions and his Christian view of the world and its inhabitants. THE RETURN OF THE KING suffers simply because of how much they had to cut away. One of the funniest things I have ever heard in the movies is here: they state of the first two books, over 800 pages, that Frodo and Sam had many brave adventures until they got the to gate of Cirith Ungol. Legolas and Gimli are nowhere to be seen. Aragorn is poorly portrayed, and based on interaction between him and Gandalf it seems they dislike each other, which is of course not true. You don't get the feel of Aragorn like you do in the books. There is much cut away from THE RETURN OF THE KING. The Scourging of the Shire has no place in this one. Indeed, they say it is based off Part III of THE LORD OF THE RINGS. But because of its limits, THE RETURN OF THE KING cannot adequately show the grandeur and epic scale of THE LORD OF THE RINGS. The best thing about this is it gets exposure to people that might otherwise not watch or know about Tolkien. This film in particular, because of its limited time and scope, does well in portraying the book. But lets face it, any 365 book that is adapted to a 98 minute movie is, of course, going to not be totally represented. Overall, they've done a good job on this film, considering the audience and that they've been able to shine just a little light on Tolkien's achievement. Of course, these two films (this and THE HOBBIT) are much better than that horrible Bakshi adaptation. (The animation was some of the most realistic, but the film itself was terrible). But between these three films, we still have not gotten a good picture of THE LORD OF THE RINGS as a whole. The last half of THE TWO TOWERS hasn't been touched at all. Lets hope this new three film version by Peter Jackson will be up to snuff. This will be live action, and I'm really looking forward too it. As I watched this as a child, the chief thing I remembered was the song "The end of the ring, the return of the king." I never could find it when I read through the novel. Too bad...I liked that. For its effort and exposure to children - **** stars. *An interesting note: Aragorn says in THE TWO TOWERS that Sauron does not let his name be spelt or spoken, and then the ambassador says he is the Mouth of Sauron. How can that be? We have come to a contradiction* Mike London
Rating:
Summary: A great story, even if not for Tolkien zelots...
Review: I first saw "Return of the King" when it was originally aired on TV. I must have been about 12 at the time. Having loved "The Hobbit", I was enthralled. Despite it's slight departure from the novel, this animated film is VERY well done, especially from a child's point of view (This "child" is now 30 and still loves it!). All the reviews that tear it apart are adults that have read the books and expected this children's movie to be faithful to it... Ahem... You'd need a six hour movie to do that, plus enough elven names to completely confuse you! I still get shivers when I watch the part where Eowen avenges her lord, Theoden. I think the animation far surpassed that of Bashiki's Lord of the Rings, which made the Hobbits (especially Sam) into very ugly, bumbling creatures, and gives a very detailed glimpse of what Tolkien may have had in mind when writing his books. Thumbs up!
Rating:
Summary: Don't overlook this one
Review: I have to confess that I have a great deal of affection for this animated version of ROTK. In some ways it conveys the spirit of the book much better than the Peter Jackson film, particularly in the parts with Frodo and Sam. The character of Sam comes across as more complex and convincing than Sean Astin's portrayal in the film, although I don't want to criticise the actor as I suspect this was mostly the fault of the screenwriters. And Frodo's sense of resignation is also well captured here, again much more true to the book than his terrified portrayal by Elijah Wood in the film. Much more of Tolkien's original dialogue is preserved here, which helps a lot. For instance, more of Denethor's best lines are preserved in this 90 minute cartoon than was the case with the 3+ hour movie. I also think that the music overall helps to convey the heroic and lyrical tone of the book, compared to the unrelenting horror-movie feel of the Mordor scenes in the live action film, even though much of it is admittedly silly, although even the much ballyhooed "Where There's a Whip There's a Way" has some basis in the text. I think the voice actors were excellent overall, even though I didn't particularly care for Casey Kasem as Pippin, and the Nazgul Lord did sound a little too, well, cartoonish. Still, John Huston's Gandalf will forever be the voice I hear when I read the books; a classic performance. Even though you can poke holes in this version if you want to, I suppose my only real complaint is that it failed to establish any connection between Aragorn and Frodo. Since the entirety of "Fellowship" and "Two Towers" was summed up with something to the effect that Frodo and Sam had "come far and through many brave adventures," I don't think it would have been unreasonable to provide some similarly cursory treatment to establishing that the the march on the Black Gate was for the purpose of helping Frodo and Sam. One final word: I don't mean to come across as overly critical of Peter Jackson's films. In fact I enjoyed them tremendously. However, I think this version also has a lot to recommend it. Also, please forgive me for coming across as a "Tolkien geek" but I couldn't help myself.
Rating: 
Summary: There seems to be a bit of confusion
Review: The review here dated May 24, 2004 from an anonymous viewer in NJ (my home state) has CONFUSED this animated movie with the recently released Peter Jackson- Return of the King DVD. THESE ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FILMS MADE MORE THAN 20 YEARS APART. The animated Return of the King was a TV special released in 1980. For its time, it was an entertaining look at the last segment of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Keep in mind that this was targeted at a younger audience, especially those who watched the animated Hobbit film. I recall watching this in middle school, my first taste of the fantasy genre. And I will admit, I did compare one scene from the animated Return of the King (1980) with the live-action Return of the King (2003). It was the scene with Eowyn facing off against the Lord of the Nazguls. The animated movie hewed closer to the book in that more of the actual dialogue was used. Eowyn's speech is a bit wordy and seems more at place in a stage play than in a fast moving battle. But I did enjoy how it paused the momentum of the Battle of Pelenor Fields and you get this beauty standing on the battlefield with her long blonde hair flowing in the wind like a banner of courage. I was hoping for equal treatment from Peter Jackson, but he kept this scene short. It is a critical moment in Eowyn's character development.
Rating:
Summary: PETER JACKSON DROPPED THE BALL!!!!
Review: WHAT HAPPENED?!?!? So I see this in the video store and think 'Wow, ROtK came out already? Where's the hype, the hoopla? Oh, well, lucky me" and buy the DVD on the spot. BIG MISTAKE! Apparently the genius who made Fellowship of the Ring & The Two Towers has gone the George Lucas route and SOLD OUT to the kiddies!!! 1 He decided to finish his masterpiece trilogy as an ANIMATED film!! WHY?!?!? And the animation SUCKS! He could at least have done it Anime or CGI!
2 He fired the original cast and replaced them with NO NAME tv voice actors! WHA-?!?!?!
3 He DUMBED it down for kids and added MUSICAL numbers. HUH??!? Since WHEN was LOtRs a friggin' MUSICAL?!?!? I guess he decided to cash in on the rerelase of the awful 80s cartoon movie. WHY OH WHY?!?! Peter Jackson - you dropped the ball!!!
Rating:
Summary: Not a perfect movie, but not a bad movie either
Review: First of, being a fan of J.R.R. Tolkien since I was 5, I quickly bought both of these DVDs when they become available when I live. I had noticed the poor sound quality of the Hobbit (ex. no roar of the dragon, no fluttering of the bird's wings, etc.) but lucky, this was not the case in "Return of the King". True, there seems to be extra sounds such as creepy orc laughter in the first war scene, but the additions work nicely. Unfortunately, some sounds are much louder than in the original. However, a problem never shows up in which you can't hear a character speak like in the Hobbit. In addition, I have never seen Rankin-Bass so clear in my life and this version can truly stand up with any ancient Disney movie. The viewer can notice every stone under every horse's hoof, every spiderweb in every corner, and even Frodo's wounds look even more graphic. I look at my old version and I don't know if Rankin-Bass ever indicated for this film to be this 'light', but I think it works much better than their old misty versions. Some viewers may complain of the ugly yet original style (and the "twitching") of the characters but the clarity of the picture makes it easier to digest. For those who still think it's horrible, make sure to check out the Ralph Bakshi's animation of the Lord of the Rings (1978) for some real pure "cavity-candy". In my opinion, this version is more true to the book than the recently released non-animated version of The Return of the King. True, there is no battle between Sam and the spider and there is no Golem teaming up with Frodo and Sam but there are some major points mentioned in this movie that were not in the 2003 version. For example: Frodo and Sam both say much more lines straight from the book (ex. Frodo says, while he is at the edge of Mount Doom, "I have come...but I do not choose to do what I have come to do...", etc.).
More additional parts include: Frodo and Sam dress up like Orcs, there are Watchers blocking an invisible gate, and the fact that the viewer can feel their struggle a lot more in getting to Mount Doom in this cartoon (Frodo and Sam supporting each other up the mountain, Frodo having nightmares of when he was tortured, etc.) than the Hollywood version (I personally felt that the Sam and Frodo part in the Return of the King [2003] was rushed but the war scenes were well done). Finally, you could really feel Frodo's madness (...was Frodo's evil laugh too much, I wonder?...) and Sam's despair in Mount Doom unlike the non-animated movie version. For the negative side of this movie, the war scenes were poorly explained (who's Aragon again?) and I found myself often fast-forwarding these parts because of the confusion. Repeated footage of the same orcs is used again and again. Looking back at it, the war itself just looks like the orcs are in the battlefield fighting no one but trying to get into a large castle. Also, all the men are cowardly and hardly put up a fight. Our favorite Elf and Dwarf from the Trilogy are also no where to be found unless you consider those 2 men by Denethor's side to be them but there is no mention of this (and no Elf girl either!). In addition, there is no real connection between Frodo and Sam and the war unfortunately. One last note - Golem calls Frodo "Maaasssster" near the end and the viewer has no idea why he called him this because there is no explanation and with the new clear picture, I noticed that Golem took off an invisible finger when he claims the ring. Both Return of the King movies have their best qualities. This animation version should not be ignored and should be appreciated in its own way. Remember - this was the first attempt at making the Return of the King and I really don't think it was perfect but I don't think it was really that bad either. I call this version the "Brown" version (almost everyone has brown eyes) while the non-animated version is called the "Blue" version (almost everyone has blue eyes). These movies are basically different sides of the same coin. To sum it up - If you can tolerate other animation styles besides Disney, can also tolerate folk songs and you are a fan of the Lord of the Rings, then I recommend checking out this movie on DVD if you haven't already. But, be warned - this movie has much more emotion than other animated movie I have ever seen. The DVD itself also contains extras such as explanations of other characters in the Trilogy, a small biography of J.R.R. Tolkien, and English, French, and Spanish subtitles - in other words, nothing to write home about. If you want to buy this movie, buy it solely for Frodo and Sam and not for any of the war scenes (and ESPECIALLY the extras) because you probably will be disappointed. For any Rankin-Bass fans, the Last Unicorn is coming to DVD during March 2004, so now all we have to wait for is "Flight of Dragons"...
| 
