Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

Average user rating

22 reviews

Movie review

From Time Out Film Guide

The first thing we see is a maggot wriggling on the end of a hook, and behind it, the grinning face of Smeagol (Serkis). It's a typically incisive piece of picture-making and storytelling, taking us back before The Fellowship to a time of supposed innocence and the moment of corruption - the rediscovery of the ring on the river bed. What follows may be the longest climax in film history: more than three hours of mad kings, massing troops, battle cries and ballyhoo. In terms of spectacle, there's nothing like it. Jackson has weight of numbers on his side. But for the first time in this mammoth undertaking, the director seems overwhelmed by logistics - and if he isn't, we are. Return of the King is no less dynamic than the previous chapters, but too much of the dialogue sounds like an orientation exercise. Some story strands are crudely abbreviated; others fail to develop elements that were already well-established. Given the inordinate running time, it's hard to avoid the feeling that we've already been here, done this. As to how the trilogy's themes of leadership, self-sacrifice, loyalty and honour speak to our own troubling times, Tolkien's anti-fascist allegory doesn't allow for ambivalence or ambiguity.

Author: TCh

Time Out Film Guide

Email Tweet Share

User reviews of this film

Zoso4me said...

Posted on Jan 26 2012 02:02 Wow....Its hard to believe that someone could rate this anything other than a 10. Yes Jackson did not follow the books exactly. What he did do is take an impossible task and make it real. If one were to watch the 6 hours of bonus "The making of" you will completely understand why he did what he did. Also you will see the amazing amount of work and detail that went into the movie. From the real swords and armor (all of it) to the imported fabric for the dresses. There has never been the amount of work put into a film to make it real. 7 years the cast spent together. No drama, NO pre-madonna's. Its only an american yuppy that thinks "The tree of life" is a master piece that thinks this film is anything other than an EPIC MATERPIECE! One is truly a sad pompus apartment deweller me thinks precious. These films are what ALL attemps will be judged for many years to come. Take one look and the "making of" and see Jacksons refusal to instantly use digital production for all impossible shots. Instead he use "Big-a-chures" lol. One more thing. The average Hollywood movie averages anywhere between 200 and 300 actual shots. ROTK.....wait for it...OVER 1400 SHOTS. Enough said

Report as inappropriate
Matt said...

Posted on Dec 06 2011 17:02 I DISrespectfully disagree with this pessimistic, shallow attack on the GREATEST trilogy of our time. If u even read the books, elves are extremely dexterous and agile, while dwarves can (when they're in a merry mood) act carefree or hearty such as these "silly parts with Gimli". It all pushes the storyline foreward and entraps audiences, even people like u who are too thick-skulled to admit it. Read the damn books! The movie contains almost all the factors, events, and characters (sadly not Tom Bombadil, or Gildor), which is near impossible to find in moviemaking these days. Jackson fully honored and respected almost all details of Tolkien's marvelous works! Here's a tip for ur next half-assed, depressing review: stop lounging back on ur couch smoking weed, watch the movie again (if u even saw it in the first place) and actually absorb the surreal grandeur of the film's shots and storytelling, compare it to the other shitty films that u gave a good review, and then get ur damn facts trait!!! If u atually take this to heart, u will actually find that you too will have become bewitched by these masterpieces of film!!!!

Report as inappropriate
Clancy6969 said...

Posted on Apr 15 2011 23:43 I agree, the whole series started going downhill after the first movie, silly scenes like Legolas snowboarding down some stairs on a shield, and Gimli's many silly scenes, and pretty much the entire Rohan storyline was frankly quite badly done. Non actors, many pregnant pauses and pacing issues, the whole Rohan thing was just slapped together it seemed. All in all it did not come off as a timeless and epic trilogy, though it had it's moments.

Report as inappropriate
Zac said...

Posted on Apr 14 2010 07:46 sorry, I meant "those who watched the film hadn't read the books."

Report as inappropriate
Zac said...

Posted on Apr 14 2010 07:45 I like how people who agree with this reviewer assume that those of us who watched the film haven't seen the movie. I, for one, have watched the movies AND read the books, and while the books are better, the films are fantastic in their own right. I think Jackson did the best job possible considering the task that was ahead of him.

Report as inappropriate
Neil said...

Posted on Apr 12 2010 06:22 Well this was the 4th time i'd probably watched ROTK all the way through (including the Extended versions).. and I can honestly say the theatrical version just doesn't stand up against the Extended version. So much is missing that viewing the Theatrical is a dissapointment. Regardless, ROTK is definitely the weak point in the trilogy, when you look beyond the "spectacle".

Report as inappropriate
Marc said...

Posted on Feb 23 2010 22:19 Apparently most of the idiots making comments about this review forgot one important thing: not everyone has the same opinion as you. Grow up.

Report as inappropriate
shayz said...

Posted on Feb 08 2010 20:13 wtf are you on about...logistics wtf?? the lord of the rings is the most amzing film ever made. your review seems to focus on the negatives of the movie and no substantial positives even though i can think of dozens.

Report as inappropriate
jonas said...

Posted on Nov 27 2009 10:39 My God-you really seem to hate this movie-if you were going to hate it so much-why did you even watch it?-whatever it is the acting is top notch-and the direction- need i say more?-i hate reviewers like you who go to a movie just so that you can bash it down with some psycho babble about logistics.

Report as inappropriate
David said...

Posted on Sep 14 2009 14:50 As for me, I understood all the big words, and still disagreed. Return of the King is the peak of excellence for all involved, from director to composer to actors. Yes, Tolkien's original story was unyeilding with its defined lines of good and evil, but it can be forgiven in that it is by now an old fashioned fairy tale, created at a time when people wanted to see good triumph against evil. As for the film itself, it's no less than amazing. Not perfect, but as near to perfect as an action film will ever get.

Report as inappropriate
daniella said...

Posted on Sep 01 2009 02:35 The Lord of the Rings Movies are the greatest movies I have ever seen! They are AMAZING!

Report as inappropriate
daniella said...

Posted on Sep 01 2009 02:34 The Lord of the Rings Movies are the greatest movies I have ever seen. They are AMAZING!

Report as inappropriate
Zachary said...

Posted on Aug 10 2009 20:38 If one looks at the movie on its own, it was a great movie, especially the extended edition. Having read the whole mythology (The Silmarillion, the Children of Hurin, the Hobbit and LOTR), there are some interesting liberties, however, that Jackson takes that, I think, diverge far too much from the true story. I have to rate the movie at a 4 for that reason. It is a great film, but read the books. They're far better.

Report as inappropriate
Brian said...

Posted on Dec 27 2008 23:37 I disagree with the last half of your review, particularly the allegory reference... the LOTR trilogy remained true to Tolkien's premise: the story is not an allegory. The only allegories are those the viewer decides to force upon history, which you seem to be keen on doing.
Other than that, honestly the film (and the LOTR series) is a masterpiece and will be highly-regarded in cinematic history, unlike your skewed review.

Report as inappropriate
tom said...

Posted on Oct 09 2008 04:05 The lord of the rings is a great masterpiece, no matter which way you view it as a book or as a movie. Peter Jackson delivered the main plot missing out the scouring of the shire and other events, which would have made the movie even better (but also longer). Best movie ever.

Report as inappropriate