The Return Of The King

Rating:
Summary: more than they could chew
Review: the rankin/bass style, at least as represented by thier tolkien adaptations, is one that relies on dark and sparse visuals. it thrives on stark, or simple landscapes and intimate character confrontation i.e. smaug and bilbo in "the hobbit".

All that to say, with "Return of the king" they really over extended their style. The vast battles and broader interplay of the lord of the rings books forced the rankin/bass company to take what had been an atmospheric and wholy effective method in "the hobbit" and stretch its capability to the point that only a handful of visuals work on the levels of nearly the entire earlier film. creatures like the goblins, and the nazgul ended up looking as though they could have just as easily been churned out by hanna/barberra. And their dusty still life method that had brought the shire and lonely mountain to such vivid life serves to distract and suck alot of life from the story. it also dosnt help that there is very little variety of local in the story, beacuse when you are dealing with this brand of still background animation the last thing you want to do is stay to long in one place.

And the voice characterazations with the acception of the return of John Huston as gandalf were uninspired and forgetable. which is really a shame since their earlier inspired choices have defined those characters for every new generation of tolkien readers since 1977

Rating:
Summary: Good for MST3K purposes only
Review: I originally viewed the Rankin/Bass animated films of 'The Hobbit' and 'The Return of the King' at the impressionable age of twelve. The mystery and dark tidings of Middle-Earth captivated my attention, and soon after I began reading the original works. So I'll say one good thing about these adaptations: in the very least, they inspired a child to read.

Unfortunately, fourteen years later the 'nostalgia-cloud' has evaporated: recently I viewed 'Return of the King' with a friend, and was thoroughly shocked at this pastiche mess of an adaptation. The animation is adequate, barely. Gandalf delivers his lines with the woodenness of a WB teen star. The Nazgul resemble KISS groupies. Frodo is an unsympathetic runt with oversized eyes; Pippin is a cockney-blathering bloke appearently raised on the bad food and bad weather of lower-class London. The Witch-king, with his steel crown and glowing eyes and invisible head, inspired nightmarish awe in me at twelve; now, when the wretch throws back its hood with a screech of electronic laughter, my friend and I burst into derisive laughter. And don't get me started on those John Denver-esque songs, delivered in prompt ten-minute intervals--obviously meant to extend this into 90 minutes, they start as annoying and quickly devolve into teeth-grinding badness... Though I must admit the Orc marching song ("Where there's a Whip, there's a Way") and Frodo's hallucinations of Goblins in the Shire were so amusing they almost redeemed the shoddy affair

Great to MST3K with sardonic-minded friends, otherwise, a waste of time. Read the book or wait for Peter Jackson's upcoming saga.

Rating:
Summary: This is the Other Good Animated LOTR Movie
Review: Once again, I would like to reiterate that this movie and the Hobbit were made by a different director and different animation team than the "Lord of the Rings" animated DVD. This movie, like the Hobbit, has good animation and more clever, catchy songs. This is a telling of the end of the Lord of the Rings saga, and it does puzzle me as to why this animation team never did the Fellowship of the Ring or The Two Towers. In any case, if you liked the Hobbit, this is another great movie. If you disliked the "Lord of the Rings" DVD that has been mistakenly placed in this series, this movie is much better.

Rating:
Summary: Susprisingly great animated movie.
Review: This is the last of the Lord of the Rings animated trilogy, it's about " Samwise" ( Roddy Mcdowll) and " Frodo Baggins" ( Orson Bean) who continue their quest to destroy the one Ring and a war is going on before the true King of the country returns. It's a spectacular and greatly drawn animated film with good songs such as " It's so easy not to try" or " When there is a whip there is a way", plus it's a must see.

Rating:
Summary: An Amazing Interpretation of Tolkien's Masterpiece
Review: The third installment of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy was colorfully created into movie form in the Rankin/Bass version of the "Return of the King." Just as I started reading Tolkien's trilogy, I confronted both Ralph Bakshi's "the Lord of the Rings" and the "Return of the King." This movie is exciting, and unpredictable. The only problem is constant songs, but you can easily ignore them. In my opinion, Gollum looked more as decribed in the books. Gandalf is wise, mighty, and all-powerful. I am going to tell you that you should read the books before you watch this film. It doesn't give you much background about the beginning of the trilogy. Besides its few mistakes, the "Return of the King" is a great film, and I think all people would enjoy it.

Rating:
Summary: Don;t Buy it.
Review: I bought the "Lords of the Rings" (Animated) DVD
The movie coverted "The Fellowship of the Rings" and "The Two Towers". The Movie was actually well made and I bought "The Return Of The King" blindly. I was very disappointed. Part III is not a Kids Book (Its not "The Hobbit" (This DVD was nice and appropriate)). "The Return Of The King" (Animated) is like a bad Disney Movie. I read the books a couple times and after 10 Minutes watching "The Return Of The King".. I couldn't stand it no more and turned it off. I just can give you this advice: DON'T BUY IT! Take your kid to the cinema and watch a nice Disney Moview instead.

Rating:
Summary: A fun watch, but not accurate book-wise
Review: Especially after seeing the release of Lord of the Rings, this is a fun departure back to my childhood of Bass cartoon stories. I loved the Last Unicorn, and this retelling of the LOTR story is fun to watch, even if it only touches on the basics of the story. Good introduction to the works, if nothing else, and fun for the kids.

If you are an adult looking for a fun view into LOTR, however, this probably isn't it. It skips over almost everything that as an adult I found interesting with the books and movies, and focus mainly on the story of Sam and Frodo.

Rating:
Summary: utter agony
Review: I remember liking this when I was little. As an adult, its like witnessing a fatal highway accident in slow motion. Definitely, "Lord of the Rings Lite" if you could even dare to make a connection to the literary masterpiece. But the story is so horribly shredded in this loosely based adaptation of the third installment of the Tolkien's giant novel that you can only wonder, "What on EARTH were they thinking?!"

This film was released to "finish off" Bakshi's film adaptation. But Baskhi's film stopped halfway through "The Two Towers." Since ROTK makes no attempt to cover the last half of that book, you don't get any of Frodo and Samwise's capturing and taming of Gollum, their journey through Ithilien, or Gollum's betrayal of the hobbits to the giant spider, Shelob, which sets up how Frodo is captured (the point at which ROTK begins). Those events are passed over as simply "having many brave adventures until they reached the rocky domain of the black lord, Sauron."

The story is told in flashback form after the One Ring has been destroyed. When the minstrel starts singing about "Frodo of the Nine Fingers and the Ring of Doom," you may find yourself wishing he would suffer the fate of Sir Robin's minstrels in a completely unrelated movie. It's that annoying. The interlude music sounds like someone trying hard to emulate John Denver, i.e. cheesy filler when the plot isn't advancing.

The film concentrates mostly on Frodo and Sam's crossing Mordor to reach Mount Doom. In a particularly dreadful dream sequence, Frodo sees himself destroying the ring, after which the world suddenly grows all flowery and nice. In a bold move to one-up Disney on the "change the characters to give it a gooey 'family' atmosphere," the orcs put down their weapons and set off (for home?), waving happily good-bye to the hobbits.

As for the characters involved in nearby Gondor, Merry and Pippin are reduced to bit parts (and as someone else noted, are drawn as a beanpole and a blob -- it's tragically true.) Aragorn is a stern looking warrior-king that you wouldn't ever know had a long friendship with Gandalf. Legolas and Gimli are totally absent. No mention of the Fellowship whatsoever. Eowyn shows up only to kill a ridiculously silly Nazgul King who laughs like a Saturday-morning cartoon villian, then she disappears.

So with Sam (melodramatically voiced by the late Roddy McDowell) and Frodo crossing enemy land with Orcs who must have been recruited from Mordor's summer stock musical theater group, we finally reach Mount Doom where they are attacked by a giant, mutant frog. Oh wait, that's Gollum. Struggles ensue, the Ring is destroyed. Oh, hooray.

The end is probably the greatest insult of all to Tolkien. We return to the present where Samwise is fretting over the dominant role of men in the world and how hobbits will fare. And in a [sad] attempt to induce wide-eyed wonder in children watching this travesty, Gandalf reassures him that hobbits are one day going evolve into men, and that people in future generations one day will read the stories of old and wonder if they have hobbit in them... gag... arf... wretch... And then we are treated to the final song, a John Denver-esque version of "The Road Goes Ever On and On" sung by the minstrel.

If you haven't impaled yourself on something sharp in your kitchen by this time, you are a very strong person for withstanding the horror of gross transubstatiation of a classic into this grand example of "Must Flee TV".

Rating:
Summary: Not the greatest not the worst... not the Lord of the Rings
Review: This movie should not be allowed to affiliate itself to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The only thing true to the book is the overall outcome and the characters names. For instance:
Sam finds the ring and Sting on the ground while walking around.
Sam doesn't know what the vail of Galadriel is.
The vial of Galadriel loses its power if you say what its secret is.
The list goes on, but those are the highlights. The key to understnading this is on the cover:
'Based on the Hobbit and Return of the Kings'
With this knowledge it is easier to see why there are mistakes in the film. It is because they completely throw out everything that happened in the first two books in the Lord of the Rings trilogy (or they just didn't read them).
The movie elaborates on insignificant occurances in the book and completely blows over the more significant parts. Sam's vision of middle earth if he had the ring certainly didn't merit a 10 minute display.
Songs make up more of this movie than script and story combined. And lets face it, who reads the Lord of the Rings because they like the songs and poetry that litter (literaly) the book?
If you want the feel of the Lord of the Rings - avoid this film.

Rating:
Summary: A travesty
Review: For all the fuss about problematic portrayals, additions and omissions in Bakshi and Jackson's LOTR productions, nothing ever came close to this. This movie only barely resembles the climax of Tolkien's masterpiece -- and in many areas, it doesn't resemble that! Their production of "Hobbit" was far better.

This movie attempts to wrap up the story that Ralph Bakshi's darker, more serious and better-made "Lord of the Rings" began (and was not finished, due to lack of finances). We have Frodo and Sam struggling through Mordor with orcs and the creepy Gollum coming after them, Gandalf and Merry and Pippin trying to defend Gondor from hordes of orcs and a hysterically insane Denethor, and Aragorn is off on a ship striking kingly poses.

Perhaps one of the most unforgivable things done here is character omission: Legolas and Gimli. Everyone's favorite elf and dwarf are completely absent, apparently because they aren't vital to the plot. That is irrelevant -- they rounded out the cast of characters to include all the Free Peoples, and added a little wry humor to it as well. (Though Rankin-Bass would probably have shown them as a garden gnome and a distended Yoda, as they did in "Hobbit", so maybe it's just as well) Other fan favorites that are nowhere to be seen are Arwen, Eomer, Faramir, Saruman, Imrahil, Rosie Cotton, and uncounted others.

And the characters who are retained aren't really recognizable from the other LOTR productions or from the book. Frodo seems to be sleepwalking through ninety-five percent of the movie, without the childlike sweetness of Bakshi's Frodo or the adorable, wide-eyed solemnity of Elijah Wood/Peter Jackson's. He never gives any feeling of real temptation toward the Ring; and if he whined about physical weakness or addressed Sam as "dear Sam" one more time, I was going to throw up. He is also unconvincing in the fight with Gollum: There are lines from the book, but he delivers them with all the pain and anguish of a paper cut victim. Sam has the same personality as Frodo, and just as boring; he talks a lot to himself and to the Ring, and exhibits Shakespearean verbosity -- which, as we all know, is not how the sweet, humble gardener talks! Aragorn has apparently been attacked by a personality vampire, as he does nothing but pose, make ultra-serious pronouncements, and call Gandalf "wizard."

Eowyn is also sucked dry of all personality. There is no reason for her to ride with her uncle's army (as there is in the book), and once she's killed the Witch King she vanishes except for a cameo at the end. Merry and Pippin are interchangeable and boring (one is a beanpole and the other is a blob. The Entwash is also edited out -- and the explanation for why they are taller than Frodo will elicit screams of pain from Tolkien fans). Bilbo is almost senile. Gollum appears for about five minutes -- and he's a giant green frog. Denethor is a raving loon with no firm reason to be so. Gandalf is too deadpan to be convincing, and his true nature as an Istar is ignored completely (why is he saying "we're old"? He's immortal) The Witch King, lord of the Nazgul, is turned from a menacing and hideous demonic creature into a bizarre Disney villain with a nails-on-chalkboard cackle.

Another problem is the setup. It's a little hard to be worried for any of the main characters when we see them chatting and relaxing at the end -- everything is in flashback. And little or no explanation is given for the characters: Do Merry and Pippin know Frodo? Why is Gandalf wearing different clothes? Why is Merry so upset about Theoden? Why is Sam so desperate to rescue Frodo? How did Frodo get captured in the first place? Why does Gollum say "wicked master [Frodo] cheats us"? Who is Galadriel and where did Frodo get the vial? (Readers of the books will know, but if you simply watch you won't have a clue)

Terrible direction peppers the whole thing. All the villains cackle maniacally, while the heroes talk in a monotonous deadpan manner -- except for a few exceptions. When they get really upset, they cry or yell. And one confrontation is downright silly, even by kiddie standards: Frodo's maniacal laughter made me giggle out loud, and Sam lets loose a melodramatic "Nooooooooooo!" that would put Luke Skywalker to shame. Sam's temptation fantasy will have you rolling on the floor. And when your heroes are all of three and a half feet tall, it's a little hard for them to look menacing and sinister -- EVER.

As for the new cover for the movie... um, what is that? What horse is that? Why are there TWO Sams on the horse? Why are there two generic dwarves on it, when no dwarves are featured in this film? What are those two castles?

Scripting is also terrible. They intersperse bits of dialogue from the book in all the wrong places, resulting in the heroes saying nothing during "dead" moments, and talking endlessly during crises. "Thees", "thous", "nays" and "yeas" are sprinkled seemingly at random, and other formal bits of speech crop up a lot. And WHY won't that annoying minstrel shut up about "Frodooooooo of the Niiiiiine Fingers"?

This movie should never have been made, period. Watch "Hobbit," watch Bakshi's LOTR, and if you want to see the finale of the trilogy, wait a couple years and see how Peter Jackson does it. As for this movie, Tolkien is undoubtedly spinning like a top in his grave.