The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (12A)

Film

Fantasy films

User ratings:

<strong>Rating: </strong>4/5
Rate this  

Time Out says

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

Share your thoughts
  4. * mandatory fields

Comments & ratings

Rated as: 4/5 (22 ratings)

  • It's not an allegory for anything. You don't know much about Tolkien.

    James Sun Apr 7
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report

  • I'm astonished at this negative review. This is a masterpiece and I was priviledged to have seen it.

    Paulm Tue Sep 4 2012
    Report

  • the worst of the three boring movies----this one even edits out christopher lee....at three hours, schlock film maker jackson couldnt fit in five minutes of the great christopher lee?!

    sakara Thu Aug 9 2012
    Rated as: 1/5
    Report

  • Everyone please excuse this critic. He's obviously a no-name trying to seek out attention by disagreeing with the masses. There's a reason why this film won 9 oscars including Best Picture

    Name Mon Jul 2 2012
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report

  • nothing compares.

    Jack Tue Mar 20 2012
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report

  • 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

    Zoso4me Thu Jan 26 2012
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report

  • 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!!!!

    Matt Tue Dec 6 2011
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report

  • 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.

    Clancy6969 Fri Apr 15 2011
    Rated as: 3/5
    Report

  • sorry, I meant "those who watched the film hadn't read the books."

    Zac Wed Apr 14 2010
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report

  • 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.

    Zac Wed Apr 14 2010
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  • Hotwise
  • Cool brands
  • Star