New Line Cinema | Release Date: December 17, 2003
9.1
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 2282 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
2,106
Mixed:
65
Negative:
111
Watch Now
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
5
StabsM.Sep 4, 2008
Look, the movie was good. The best that can be done turning the compelling, but slow-paced and sprawling, Tolkein trilogy into a movie. I loved the books. I liked the movies fine. But I never understood the intense love-a-thon thrown to the Look, the movie was good. The best that can be done turning the compelling, but slow-paced and sprawling, Tolkein trilogy into a movie. I loved the books. I liked the movies fine. But I never understood the intense love-a-thon thrown to the movies - they aren't exactly masterpieces of anything but special effects (though the special effects were incredible). It isn't like there's any acting in the movie, and it isn't like they were somehow better than the books, you know? Expand
7 of 24 users found this helpful
6
AkashVijayJan 21, 2015
It's absurd that the most acclaimed Lord of the Rings movie is the weakest one (at least to me). Return of the King lacks the tightness of Fellowship of the Ring and the emotional touch of The Two Towers. The formula it uses is- Build up toIt's absurd that the most acclaimed Lord of the Rings movie is the weakest one (at least to me). Return of the King lacks the tightness of Fellowship of the Ring and the emotional touch of The Two Towers. The formula it uses is- Build up to battle - Battle - Build up to battle - Battle - Half a dozen endings. This may be one of those rare examples of an adaptation being too faithful. An extremely accurate adaptation doesn't always qualify as a good one. A film stands on its own. It can't justify its flaws by leaning on the book. Return of the King blends in its enchanting score with its pitch-perfect cinematography, but it lacks the focus of the previous 2 film. Expand
2 of 11 users found this helpful29
All this user's reviews
5
RuisertTheGaelMay 17, 2009
Well, Jackson managed to not foul this one up quite as bad as Two Towers, but still, it has to pick up and continue all the problems from TT. I was not about to spend decent money on this in a theater, since I pretty much knew it was going Well, Jackson managed to not foul this one up quite as bad as Two Towers, but still, it has to pick up and continue all the problems from TT. I was not about to spend decent money on this in a theater, since I pretty much knew it was going to inherit all the junk leftover from TT, and probably add to it. At least it did NOT have Arwen take the sword from Aragorn and show him how to use it right, like I feared it might... Add to that the half dozen or more times when Jackson re-wrote some of the best scenes from the book and pretty much ruined them, well. I'm just glad I can read. Expand
4 of 31 users found this helpful
6
C.B.Oct 20, 2005
More like "Lord of the Borings."
0 of 2 users found this helpful
6
MichaelRamseyJun 4, 2004
While all-in-all was a decent conclusion to the series. I agree with Mr. Phipps in his (Jackson's) not adding the "Scouring of the Shire". There are moments in it which let us understand what it all was about, at least for the Hobbits. While all-in-all was a decent conclusion to the series. I agree with Mr. Phipps in his (Jackson's) not adding the "Scouring of the Shire". There are moments in it which let us understand what it all was about, at least for the Hobbits. And that wisdom does come from experience... not age. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
StefanMar 5, 2006
A magnificent fantasy film, but I can't bear to watch it. Jackson invents unnecessary scenes which makes it apparent that he hasn't understood the original story, or deemed it more important to cater for his own visual and A magnificent fantasy film, but I can't bear to watch it. Jackson invents unnecessary scenes which makes it apparent that he hasn't understood the original story, or deemed it more important to cater for his own visual and dramaturgical interests. This is ok when it comes to King Kong, but Tolkien's book has a much different, and imho superior quality of atmosphere: more wise, more witty and more... magnificent. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful
6
JackSJul 26, 2007
My wife and step daughters loved the books and the films, but I could never get into them. Granted, the acting, cinematography and attention to detail are there, but in my opinion, this movie drags on and on. My family was riveted and loved My wife and step daughters loved the books and the films, but I could never get into them. Granted, the acting, cinematography and attention to detail are there, but in my opinion, this movie drags on and on. My family was riveted and loved every second, but I was reaching for the No-Doze. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
MarionmMay 1, 2008
The music is the best ever for any relaxation therapy !!!! Its kinda like church MUSIC!!!!!! sadly most of these people think this movie is GREAT!!!! its aint trust me folks!!! It was boring and REALLY REALLLY CHEESY. It might have passed asThe music is the best ever for any relaxation therapy !!!! Its kinda like church MUSIC!!!!!! sadly most of these people think this movie is GREAT!!!! its aint trust me folks!!! It was boring and REALLY REALLLY CHEESY. It might have passed as a when-you-have-nothing-to-do FILM!!!! but ist just wayyyyyyyyy tooo long!!! Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful
5
DaveDec 21, 2003
I must say i'v read Rick's review, and although i don't agree, i was laughing my a** off. The moive did start to drag ALOT in the middle, and it seemed like everyone was kinda forcing there acting(script) parts. The effects I must say i'v read Rick's review, and although i don't agree, i was laughing my a** off. The moive did start to drag ALOT in the middle, and it seemed like everyone was kinda forcing there acting(script) parts. The effects however, is the most superior to date than any other movie.Absolutely demolish?s matrix special effects. I did however understand what Rick meant by "nerds". I think it was geared to more of the hardcore fans. With such length, thats why it kinda fell in the middle and picked itself back up again. I don't think it was that bad though, in consideration of the whole film, and its length. I know it's based on a book but i lowered my score based on the ending as well, it could have been better. I do feel that Ebert's review was dead on. And Tyler G., you don't have to read all the books to tell if this movie was good or not. It's like looking at Matrix Revolution(without seeing the pervious installments) and saying Matrix Revolution was a perfect movie. Its not, it was horrible. The return of the king, stands by ITSELF as not such a great movie. And no i didn't compare it to Hogwarts and what Middle-Earth stands for, and bla bla bla, cuz im not that much of a diehard fan.I just thought the movie really disappointing. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful
6
NikkoC.May 19, 2006
Crying, weeping, applauding - the movie had come to an end.......and finally, I could leave. Jackson's inability to 'kill his babies' in the diting process means an exercise in ticking boxes and presents, because of the Crying, weeping, applauding - the movie had come to an end.......and finally, I could leave. Jackson's inability to 'kill his babies' in the diting process means an exercise in ticking boxes and presents, because of the world's inherent fantasticness and ymtholigical landscape, characters one simply cannot care for becuase they are clearly total bollocks in any real sense. So if the premise is ridiculous, yet is subsequently treated seriously and with the most mundane of affection (clearly caring for 1d characters who he does not give enough to for us to do the same), the movie is undited nd almost seven hours long.......why wouldn't anyone, as I did, stand and applaud in sheer relief at its conclusion (about an hour late)....I mean shit! Boot camp was finally over....and this kiwi (but no dim one) could finally fly home. A movie review is not about judging a film's vision or the child-like sinserity of its maker...NO!...It is about the merits of the film as they sit objectively and whether it stacks up in all the genral areas and any we didn't see coming...this does neither. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
night4Apr 28, 2016
All 3 of these were a poor interpretation of the books.

Take the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, for example. In the books it's basically a showdown between the forces of Sauron with the Witch-king leading them, and the forces of good with
All 3 of these were a poor interpretation of the books.

Take the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, for example. In the books it's basically a showdown between the forces of Sauron with the Witch-king leading them, and the forces of good with Gandalf in command. The destruction of the Witch-king is a pivotal moment in the story, and greatly cheapened in the movie. It's impossible to know why a hobbit stabbing the Witch-king would have any great effect because they left out the Barrow-blades. They might have at least explained it afterwards, even if they just used "Elf magic" as a lame excuse.

And there's no dramatic showdown between Gandalf and the Witch-king like in the books. In the movie, Gandalf's staff breaks and that's about it.

Anyway, it's somewhat enjoyable overall, even if it's like "The Lord of the Rings" for the mentally disabled.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews