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

You know, I set in to write a whole long thing about everything I disagree with in this review, but frankly, either you wrote this review the way you did because you or someone you listen to told you that having a dissenting opinion on such a popular film would bring you attention (like saying The Godfather was one dimensional), in which case it doesn't do to debunk a false view, or you really think this, in which case I've met your ilk in every coffee shop within ten miles of my University, and you think think that something can't be great unless it involves some tragic anti-hero on a dark, unhappy, and unpleasant journey that uses vague and largely audience-invented metaphors to imply still vaguer themes about the "human condition". The Lord of the Rings isn't "artistic" enough for you. Its themes are the ultimate corruption caused by even the illusion of power, and how the only way to fight suffering is to put aside superficial differences such as race and ancient history in order to come together to achieve great things. If that doesn't "speak to our own troubling times" I don't know what does. It's one thing to not enjoy this, or any, movie because you (in this case) don't like violence, or don't enjoy tales of adventure, or don't enjoy Orlando Bloom's particular brand of acting; those are the types of opinions that everyone has. But to prevent yourself from enjoying a really masterfully constructed film based on this crap you made up to sound smart? That I just can't stand. It'd be like deciding you don't like Casablanca because you think that it's racist; you're only denying yourself some enjoyment in this short, unpredictable life, and replacing it with bitterness and misgivings. Oh, and also, I will never buy Time Out London or any of its affiliates, knowing that they publish and/or encourage this kind of drivel. If I were in the woods doing my business, and a copy of this journal was the only piece of paper in sight, I would wipe with pine cones. Hm, guess I did end up writing a whole long thing,

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

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

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?!

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

nothing compares.

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

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!!!!

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.

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