Film

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

Updates:

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

Director: Peter Jackson

Average user rating

13 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 0000-00-00 00:00:00

Time Out Film Guide

Bookmark

User reviews of this film

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
Andrew said...

Posted on Sep 28 2008 13:44 I agree entirely with the reviewer, except about the allegory, which Tolkien said it wasn't.
Jackson reduced a fantastic story to a series of battle scenes between comic book baddies and tackily clad goodies (the Gondor knights' armours and Isildur's sord were particularly disappointing), preceded by rousing speeches or other displays of manly bravery and camaraderie. It was all so ineffectual and melodramatic. Especially jarring were all the endless teary-eyed scenes with Frodo.
In short, I'm really sorry for all you people who missed the visceral experience of reading the book without knowing where the story was going.

Report as inappropriate
james said...

Posted on Aug 28 2008 22:57 This is without doubt the best movie ever made. nothing will top this. ever.

Report as inappropriate
Adam said...

Posted on Aug 15 2008 02:10 you sir are a complete failure. A masterpice has been layed before you and you shame it with nonsensical words of poor judgement.

Report as inappropriate
Brandon said...

Posted on Mar 31 2008 23:32 wtf... do you even know what your talking about here buddy. Overwhelmed by logistics..., im sorry but all of your arguments show that you dont know what a masterpiece is when you see one.

Report as inappropriate
Myrthmor said...

Posted on Feb 20 2008 23:15 You looked at all the wrong parts of the movie, and misinterpreted the delivery of the dialogue. That English actor, theatrical style isn't dull, it's masterful. It's just not yuppie like so many American action flicks.

Report as inappropriate
tim said...

Posted on Feb 08 2008 00:59 Well said. One dimensional characters a good film does not make. I didn't realize ambivalence was a big word, but I guess to some it is...

Report as inappropriate
Jo said...

Posted on Feb 01 2008 08:23 You are trying to mask the fact that you have no idea what your talking about with big words

Report as inappropriate