New Line Cinema | Release Date: December 17, 2003
9.0
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 2656 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
2,404
Mixed:
82
Negative:
170
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)
10
HalfwelshmanMay 21, 2011
A fittingly epic end to a near-perfect trilogy. ROTK not only breaks the formula of third parts in the trilogy being the worst, it actually succeeds in bettering its predecessors. Luckily it has the privilege of resolving all the plot pointsA fittingly epic end to a near-perfect trilogy. ROTK not only breaks the formula of third parts in the trilogy being the worst, it actually succeeds in bettering its predecessors. Luckily it has the privilege of resolving all the plot points from FOTR and TTT, and therefore doesn't suffer from their chief problem - they had to break off the story at some point. The finale is awesome in every sense of the word, from start to finish - from the colossal battle scenes to the quieter character-driven moments it sets the standard not just for fantasy films, but all films. The only real drawback of ROTK is that after watching it, you are finally forced to leave Middle Earth behind. Expand
6 of 9 users found this helpful63
All this user's reviews
10
NintendoMasterGOct 17, 2011
Is this perhaps the best movie I've ever seen? Yep. Does it have an awesome story with excellent acting and amazing scenes? it sure does! The Return of the King is just like the other two Lord of the Rings movies: a masterpiece!
4 of 6 users found this helpful42
All this user's reviews
9
spadenxDec 6, 2011
I agree that the film is a masterpiece and not only shows Peter Jackson's direct skills at full blast but it shows that even now we can still produce a film that will stun you in the way that Return Of The King has.

The only problems with
I agree that the film is a masterpiece and not only shows Peter Jackson's direct skills at full blast but it shows that even now we can still produce a film that will stun you in the way that Return Of The King has.

The only problems with the film I have are this - The acting ,will solid through out, is no where near as good as any other part of the film and it is a bit disapointing. Also there are parts with the CGI and special effects look painfully obvious (usually when the actors are on the screen when they occur). Besides that, Its a great film.
Expand
4 of 6 users found this helpful42
All this user's reviews
10
JohnS.Jan 3, 2004
It's amusing to watch the reaction of Star Wars and Godfather fans as many professional critics slaughtered their sacred cows by proclaiming Lord of the Rings trilogy better -- which it is. At 37, I have viewed those other trilogies manyIt's amusing to watch the reaction of Star Wars and Godfather fans as many professional critics slaughtered their sacred cows by proclaiming Lord of the Rings trilogy better -- which it is. At 37, I have viewed those other trilogies many times. I love Stars Wars and the Godfather movies, but the Lord of the Rings is both grander and more subtle. And the Return of the King distills its best qualities to their essence. Their has never been a better blend of operatic grandeur and intimacy, and there won't be until someone takes decades to create world and its history again. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful
10
MarcD.Jul 29, 2004
I don't understand why so many people are bashing the show. The film may not be 100% faithful to the original films they were based on...but this is a very commendable effort. An entertaining show which left me smiling at particular I don't understand why so many people are bashing the show. The film may not be 100% faithful to the original films they were based on...but this is a very commendable effort. An entertaining show which left me smiling at particular scenes. People need to lighten up. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful
10
CarolynApr 4, 2004
Perfect.
2 of 3 users found this helpful
10
AlextheNomadMar 13, 2008
Folks, I had the stamina and time to go through all the comments on this here thread. And I think all that should have been said to acclaim the movie was said, but here is the interesting thing i noticed... 80-90 percent of all 0 ratings are Folks, I had the stamina and time to go through all the comments on this here thread. And I think all that should have been said to acclaim the movie was said, but here is the interesting thing i noticed... 80-90 percent of all 0 ratings are submitted by the same dork who uses similar dorky wordings like too busy, too long, not impressed, much ado about nothing, not my cup of tea etc. But even with the dork bending over backwards to diminish the score it still got an 8 plus... Just goes to show how great this movie is ... Long live the true craftsmen of the cinematic art!!! Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful
10
21DaHoagie12Jan 8, 2013
All the people who don't like this movie are either bitter, childish harry bladder fans or they're just so miserable, so critical and just such pathetic human beings that they refuse to be entertained by anything...
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
9
sanyrubDec 8, 2013
Could not have imagined a better ending for this trilogy. The better paced one among the 3, not one single filler moment. Action great as always, visuals great as always, excitement in overload mode because we know we are getting to the end.Could not have imagined a better ending for this trilogy. The better paced one among the 3, not one single filler moment. Action great as always, visuals great as always, excitement in overload mode because we know we are getting to the end. Emotional content on point. It has everything, and more. The last hour is just superb. Like I said in my reviews for the other 2 parts, despite everything epic in this trilogy, the heart of the film are Frodo and Sam. That´s beautiful, and even hair-raising in that final hour. I mean, I´m sure Sam was Frodo´s boyfriend for crying out loud! lol Sam had to get a girl at the end just to follow the outdated rules of society No, seriously, it´s amazingly epic and emotive at the same time. Very few times achieved in a film. I can´t give it a 10 because there are very few perfect things in this life and I´m hard when it comes to reviewing. But it has to be the strongest 9 I´ve ever given. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
10
MouthofSauronDec 5, 2012
"The Return of the King" is the best of the trilogy. It's passionate, and grand in scale and scope. An unforgettable conclusion to an already impressive series.
5 of 8 users found this helpful53
All this user's reviews
10
HarryPotterIsgayJan 2, 2004
Anyone who doesn't like the lord of the rings can suck my ass. You dirty pieces of shit are the reason it has an 8.9 out of ten instead of one hundred. And all you purists can shut the hell up because its called a screenplay, which meansAnyone who doesn't like the lord of the rings can suck my ass. You dirty pieces of shit are the reason it has an 8.9 out of ten instead of one hundred. And all you purists can shut the hell up because its called a screenplay, which means it is made for the cinema and isn't going to have every fucking thing that was in the books in the movies. You stupid shitlickers Expand
3 of 5 users found this helpful
10
TTTJul 13, 2011
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie is incredible . When I watch the backstage of the film I was surprised of the work to make this movie. The sword are real and produced by a smith . And the commitment of the actors . Second, the movie has played very well the Tolkien's book including environments, characters and plot.
I really love this film.
Expand
4 of 7 users found this helpful43
All this user's reviews
9
cameronmorewoodNov 14, 2012
The best of Jackson's middle earth epics is also the longest, and rightfully so. Return of the King is a wonderful and gripping tale with ups and downs that despite its fantasy, make it seem almost relatable.
4 of 8 users found this helpful44
All this user's reviews
10
ChrisJan 10, 2004
MASTERPIECE!!!!! My favourite film of all time. Amazing scenes that will leave you breathless and scenes of real emotion are crammed into every second of this long and entertaining movie.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
7
PatC.Jan 5, 2004
This movie is as good as the originating material will allow. However, the Rings Trilogy is not a screenplay. It was written as immersing fictional history, not singular plot, story and characters. After watching the characters on the screen This movie is as good as the originating material will allow. However, the Rings Trilogy is not a screenplay. It was written as immersing fictional history, not singular plot, story and characters. After watching the characters on the screen for nine hours, I still don't understand what makes them tick. This is a simple escape to a fantasy world, but done in such a way as to re-define what motion pictures are capable of in relating a long story (this is not just a simple tack-on, like most sequels). The Trilogy on film, taken as a whole, is one for the ages. This film, standing alone, is simply OK. Sure, millions are slaughtered, evil is vanquished and world order is restored. Fans of the books must be awed by how well the story is actualized on-screen. But it's a sprawling fairy-tale both in print and on film, not a concise nugget of entertainment, and it doesn't compete with the best movies that keeps the mind alert, engaged, and retentive. It's really not fair to rate this as a movie. It is something different and unique, an awesome allegorical theme park on film. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful
10
JohnO.Mar 19, 2004
Epic, enchanting, magical. This immortal picture deserved every Oscar it got.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
10
HunterB.Nov 16, 2007
Best movie ever.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
8
JacobJan 12, 2013
There is so much you could say about this film but I am going to keep it brief. Return of the King is a great film and possibly one of if not the best film adaptation of a book I have ever seen. It cuts stuff out to keep the plot moving andThere is so much you could say about this film but I am going to keep it brief. Return of the King is a great film and possibly one of if not the best film adaptation of a book I have ever seen. It cuts stuff out to keep the plot moving and the stuff that Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
10
beingryanjudeAug 24, 2014
It is no small feat to perfectly tie together an extraordinary trilogy. The Return of the King is, perhaps, the most passionate of all three. There is a reason why the Oscars awarded this film Best Picture... it is a masterpiece.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
10
marian1233321Aug 9, 2011
a
6 of 13 users found this helpful67
All this user's reviews
9
NickS.Mar 7, 2004
It was great. I have to agree with some people that the ghosts left the battle something to be desired. The battle did last long enough though to make it epic. But, it really wasn't the epic battle of the movie. The battle at theIt was great. I have to agree with some people that the ghosts left the battle something to be desired. The battle did last long enough though to make it epic. But, it really wasn't the epic battle of the movie. The battle at the Black Gate was honestly the epic one. If you think about it, they faced impossible odds, and they were all united to fight the odds. Anyway, the film was one of the best ive ever seen, and it is not overrated. Its actually underrated from my point of view. I reccomend this film to anyone who loves fantasy movies. Oh yeah, and CONGRATS to the Lord of the Rings cast and crew. You worked hard to make it, and you won alll 11 Oscars. HORRAY FOR LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING!!!!!!! Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful
4
LolitaJan 8, 2004
Crying at the ending of this movie, pleeeeze? Sorry, not my cup of tea either.
3 of 10 users found this helpful
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
7
tonyGreenMay 27, 2011
For me the least of the trilogy, Nevertheless still a good film. A few snags such as Orks with **** accents, and a love-story element that seems superfluous (for then boys at least), and the last half-hour did seem to drag on.
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
0
JDec 12, 2003
All of these movies are no good at all! It's just one gigantic battle scene, that is boring after about 1 minute. Everything is too weird with all these hobbits and dwarves and wizards and magical people that don't exist. All ofAll of these movies are no good at all! It's just one gigantic battle scene, that is boring after about 1 minute. Everything is too weird with all these hobbits and dwarves and wizards and magical people that don't exist. All of this is too fake and I can't believe that so many people love these worthless movies so much. How can you sit through 3 straight hours of junk like that? Expand
1 of 5 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
0
NekuuOct 26, 2014
I absolutely hated this movie, the acting was terrible, who the **** likes hobbits. The ****ing main character is a douche that has no friends. Overall I rate this movie -2/10 but 0 is the lowest for this **** website
2 of 11 users found this helpful29
All this user's reviews
5
JohnF.Jan 21, 2004
If you like to see creatures banging hammers on the heads of other creatures, this is the movie for you. Otherwise, it is pretty boring.
1 of 6 users found this helpful
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
0
JRJan 2, 2004
Peter Jackson has taken a beautiful story and ruined it. Lost is the scope, theme, and moral of the story. Changed are the plot and characters. Added is Hollywood sap and cheese. Sickening.
1 of 8 users found this helpful
3
JamesP.Feb 29, 2004
I think that I would give 1 point for the cinematography, 1 point for the use of New Zealand as the shoot location, and 1 point for the selection of actors to portray the characters, but the movie was a different story from the book. I find I think that I would give 1 point for the cinematography, 1 point for the use of New Zealand as the shoot location, and 1 point for the selection of actors to portray the characters, but the movie was a different story from the book. I find it hard to believe that Peter Jackson could make all of the plot changes that he did and still get away using the book title: The Return of the King. The left out a Pippin and palantir scene, added and took away plot points to the Battle of Pelennor Fields, added Gandalf attacking Denethor, left out the Grey Company and added Elrond giving Aragorn "the" sword, left out all of the Houses of Healing, I guess that they just lost the gates of mordor part of the book and rewrote it, on every scene with Sam and Frodo I wanted to stand up and chant "Rudy!" for Sam's over-dramatized monologues and corny one-liners, the final scenes of the movie were a crock! they seemingly made a commentary on society through Aragorn's final and put in the movie but isn't in the book speech, and three(3) chapters worth of story were left out at the very end! I will say thank you for the scene with Cirdan the Shipwright at the end of the movie, but with all of these special effects you would think that Bilbo would not look like an alien at the end in the Grey Havens. Expand
1 of 8 users found this helpful
0
ForwegMar 5, 2004
Tolkien deserves better than this trash. I miss you, Ghan-buri-Ghan.
1 of 11 users found this helpful
3
DavidR.Jan 5, 2004
Much ado about nothing. Too long.
1 of 12 users found this helpful
3
CormacP.Jan 15, 2004
It's a very messy, dull and unfaithfull retelling of a silly, confused and overrated book.
1 of 12 users found this helpful
0
SallyL.Jan 1, 2004
This film screams "OSCAR!" and it got annoying about half an hour into the film.
1 of 13 users found this helpful
0
RyanSAug 7, 2009
This movie, along with the entire series, is a slap in the face to J.R.R. Tolkien. Besides for changing the characterizations of nearly all the major characters (aka Pippin, the idiot in the book, tricks Treebeard, one of the smartest This movie, along with the entire series, is a slap in the face to J.R.R. Tolkien. Besides for changing the characterizations of nearly all the major characters (aka Pippin, the idiot in the book, tricks Treebeard, one of the smartest characters, into invading Isengaurd????????) changing the basic mythology about dwarfs and elves ( The first scene in the two towers i EXACTLY OPPOSITE as it is in the book. You couldn't make it more opposite if you were actively trying to destroy Tolkien's work.) It also adds a pointless and time consuming romance between Aragorn and Arwyn that was just plain cheesy. And finally, in the book, if any character could kill a OLIPHAUNT you would have expected it to be one of the MAIN characters such as Gandalf or Aragorn or even Frodo. But no. Instead, Legalas, in the books one of the supporting characters but in the movies he might as well have been the star considering the airtime he gets compared to other supporting characters such as Gimli, kills an OLIPHAUNT. I have never seen anything more ridiculous in my life. Meanwhile, scenes that ACTUALLY HAPPENED in the books such as Pippin defeating TWO CAVE TROLLS is cut in favor of more shots of Legolas's face and more romance crap between Aragorn and Arwyn. And don't even get me started on the camera work. It's like all the cameramen took a bunch of speed before shooting and were unable to prevent the camera from shaking uncontrollably. All in all I'd have to say congratulations Peter Jackson you managed to turn a masterpiece into a sensationalized, special effects ridden piece of Hollywood crap that any real fan of the books would be utterly disgusted with. Expand
1 of 18 users found this helpful
0
IsaacMDec 18, 2007
Whoever gives this movie anything higher than a 1 needs their head checked. That goes for The Two Towers as well. The Fellowship of the Ring well I gave it a 4. These movies are just an over rated and disappointing adaption of the book I was Whoever gives this movie anything higher than a 1 needs their head checked. That goes for The Two Towers as well. The Fellowship of the Ring well I gave it a 4. These movies are just an over rated and disappointing adaption of the book I was looking forward to great things and I heard about how close it was to the book I thought this is going to be great. When the 1st of the Trilogy came out I thought ok this is doing a pretty good job of capturing the feel of the book and its been nicely adapted however there were parts that I dearly wanted to see. Then the 2nd came out yuck I fell asleep halfway through the movie and walked out of the cinema angry that Peter Jackson was allowed to make such a mess of the book. This 3rd part of the Trilogy I walked out after 30 minutes peed off to the extreme. I even asked for my money back I was so angry. Tolkein would be rolling in his grave. The essence of the books was entirely missed. Parts were added to the movie that were never in the book as well which completely ruined the entire experience. Jackson cut out much of the books why couldn't he just use some of the material that he cut instead of adding his own quasi-creative bits in. Its overacted, fails to immerse the audience, and grates on and on. Peter Jackson is a talentless fraud who deserves everything bad in life and I will never watch another movie made by him ever again. Expand
1 of 18 users found this helpful
2
PatrickSJun 22, 2004
While some of you, given the great reviews this stinker has gotten, may be brainwahed, or rather pressured into loving this trilogy of CGI crud, I ask everyone else to stay far away. This movie is obviously inspired by some sort of Al QaedaWhile some of you, given the great reviews this stinker has gotten, may be brainwahed, or rather pressured into loving this trilogy of CGI crud, I ask everyone else to stay far away. This movie is obviously inspired by some sort of Al Qaeda training video, teaching us how "the enemy" (the good ole US of A) can not be reasoned with and therefore must all be slaughtered. You who live by this movie should rethink your life. And about three-quarters of the way through, Return of the King suddenly becomes laugh-out-loud awful, with dreadful, lame lines delivered painfully badly - as if a different screenwriter and director had taken over for the movie's final act. From Gimli's "we'll surely die... let's go" speech to anything coming out of the mouth of neurotic man-beast Elijah Wood, this movie is a clunker. And why'd they have to kill Legolas? It doesnt work, and wasnt in Tolkiens original book. They also should have kept in the scene where Frodo and Sam fight the spyder. I was sad to see that they left it out of all three movies entirely. Overall, miss this crappy movie and see a real mans movie like Dirty Dancing 1 or House Party 4. Avoid this torrid flimsy piece of messy crap at all costs, unless you wish to be overtaken by boredom. This is one ring you won't want to be the lord of.
Expand
1 of 19 users found this helpful
1
TacoM.Oct 9, 2006
At last it is over. The most horrifying trilogy of movies to ever insult the screen are finished. Made me wretch almost as much as the new episodes of Star Wars. These movies, like Titanic and Star Wars, are made popular by morons who listen At last it is over. The most horrifying trilogy of movies to ever insult the screen are finished. Made me wretch almost as much as the new episodes of Star Wars. These movies, like Titanic and Star Wars, are made popular by morons who listen to what the movie industry tells them. Anyone who can seriously step back and evaluate this movie will see that is a joke. If you read the books, you are completely let down by the stupifyingly modern take on everything and the fact that most of books have been left out. If you didn't read the books and could follow what was going on, well good for you. Peter Jackson: next time you attempt to turn a book into a movie, try reading the book first! Expand
1 of 20 users found this helpful
0
bwDec 16, 2003
this movie was pathetic, why would gandalf get his head cut off. in the book, aragorn never died...but in the movie, that damn arwen chick shot him! gimli's legs got chopped off by legolas, and then legolas died of old age! saruman diedthis movie was pathetic, why would gandalf get his head cut off. in the book, aragorn never died...but in the movie, that damn arwen chick shot him! gimli's legs got chopped off by legolas, and then legolas died of old age! saruman died from drug overdose, and frodo and sam were too high to throw the ring in the fire! gollum committed suicide after the movie, and the ring was made of see through plastic! stupid stupid movie Expand
1 of 21 users found this helpful
3
ChristopherEMay 7, 2009
Half way through this movie, my girlfriend and I lost interest and started talking instead - luckily, we were at the drive-in.
3 of 67 users found this helpful
8
J.S.Jan 10, 2004
Ahh? glorious hype! There?s nothing better ? except when that hype is realised and a film actually lives up to a monstrous billing. And I for one had no doubts at all that RotK would be every inch the film I dreamed it would be. Problem is, Ahh? glorious hype! There?s nothing better ? except when that hype is realised and a film actually lives up to a monstrous billing. And I for one had no doubts at all that RotK would be every inch the film I dreamed it would be. Problem is, having seen it I realise that I was wrong. Okay, before I get into the meat of the review, let me first garnish it with a little perspective: 1. I absolutely loved FotR, I came out the cinema describing it as ?a mother###### of film? and I found the extended edition to be substantially better. 2. TTT was better than FotR. 3. I HAVE NEVER READ THE BOOKS. Actually, this last one is the only garnish you need. As far as I can tell, whether you merely like this film (or are disappointed) versus whether you think it?s the greatest thing since [insert great film here ? let?s say Shawshank] depends almost wholly on your ability to fill in the gaps in this film with your knowledge of the novels ? after all, no film can be convincing unless the audience believes in what they are seeing. But this raises an interesting question; is this a film in its own right, or a adjunct to the book? Or is the book an accompaniment to the film in this final completion of a grand LotR story? I?m sure Tolkien did not write it with the film in mind and given that the film does not hold to the book?s plot, is it not right to view this trilogy of films in isolation? Is it not right to expect to be able to watch and enjoy this film without having read the books? I would like to think so. And I certainly never doubted that throughout the first two films. Sadly this did not last through RotK. I would dearly like to wipe every over-ecstatic reviewer?s memory of any knowledge of Middle-Earth and sit them down to watch the trilogy from start to finish (okay, brain-washing is a little harsh; I?ll let them have toilet breaks between films :P ) I wonder how many would give it the same mark? How many people can honestly say that had they not known (and bought into) the story before-hand that Aragon finding himself next to an evil mountain full of easily-influenced dead warriors a little too convenient? What about the conspicuous absence of the Dark Lord Sauron then? Would making one of the nine Nazgul tougher than the others seem a little like last-minute compensating if you hadn?t known about it in the book (and even worse if it is the same in there!)? Maybe Gandalf leaving in the middle of the potential massacre of the inhabitants of Minas Tirith to stop a king killing his already half-dead son (who let?s be honest isn?t going to help all of his people if the hordes of Sauron get through the gates) seemed somewhat tactically naïve? Well, I can go on and on with such instances ? it?s my pet hate in films; lack of believability ? okay one more: Did Arwen?s fate being ?bound to the ring? make no sense at all?? Yet no one who had read the books complained ? even a little ? clearly they had remembered these characters their motivations and relevance, or perhaps it is enough to have known that you enjoyed the book to accept the reality you are presented with? There were other issues I had with the film; Gollum disappointed me ? his language and grammar started to sound a little too? contemporary for my liking (like his MTV award acceptance speech). And it was a shame that the dichotomy of the Gollum character was solidified in this film ? no more wrangling between friendship with Frodo and seizing the ring which was part of what made the TTT so superb, in RotK he chooses evil and stays that way. I know a lot has also been said about the omission of Saruman and I will say only this; the film missed Lee. Gone was the embodiment of evil (and what a magnificent embodiment he was) and it made the hurried introduction of the leader of the Nazgul even harder to stomach and the war of good against evil somewhat unfocused. And why should everyone live? (Did Galadriel not say that Frodo came to realise that the quest would claim his life?!). This is a story about the how the next age of middle earth began, surely these heroes are some of the greatest ever remembered? Nothing frames a hero quite like death. Perhaps when Frodo fails to throw the ring into the fiery chasm, Sam grabs him and takes them both over the cliff into the lava? Or how poignant would it have been if Frodo and Sam had been enveloped by lava on the slopes of mount Doom, forgotten heroes? There are any number of endings that the trilogy could have had, but instead they chose an hour of schmaltz ? and even that failed to make sense until someone later told me that ring-bearers could not stay on Middle-Earth (and Sam consequently has to leave too). And that made me realise that not having seen the film was not the only problem with seeing this film; that it had to stick to the fundamental storyline of the books is also a problem. That the ending chapter and its own end was not altered to make it ultimately more of a message and less of a curtain-call lessened the impact of the whole trilogy. So we come full-circle; expectations. I expected to come out of the film having learned something about sacrifice. Some truth about humanity that I and my friends can celebrate, a realising that while something may be the right thing to do, it may not come without great cost. That some beliefs are so great that they are worth fighting for and maybe even giving your life for should the need arise. But I learned only that people like happy endings. So I have to rate this now, and before I do, I had better just say this: believe it or not, I enjoyed the film. I sat through 3h 20 and didn?t even think about the toilet. The CGI were good, acting good enough ? and I was never bored (except at the end). It was a really good film. It was also well below my expectations given LotR and TTT. Ultimately, the greatness of the trilogy lies in how it was made, the vision that was realised, the spectacle that appears on screen rather than the intricacies of the plot and character motivations. Viewed as a 10h trilogy, it is an exceptional piece of work, viewed individually, it is 2/3rds exceptional, 1/3rd very good. I just wish that third had come first. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
1
KateKimJan 20, 2004
This whole thing just doesn't make sense. 1 star for the pretty nice visual effects.
0 of 9 users found this helpful
2
HarrietJan 2, 2004
Extremely long winded and surprisingly boring. As far as I am concerned it is much overrated. Should appeal to children as the accolades it has received are not justified.
0 of 7 users found this helpful
7
AlexinCanadaJan 2, 2004
Awesome but kind of weird. There's cool sequences, like when the guy from Master and Commander lights these beacon fires, and when Legolas takes out a heffalump, but why does Faramir's dad want to burn him alive? And why is this Awesome but kind of weird. There's cool sequences, like when the guy from Master and Commander lights these beacon fires, and when Legolas takes out a heffalump, but why does Faramir's dad want to burn him alive? And why is this dad being so crazy and such a sloppy eater? I didn't understand that dad's story so I just had to enjoy how cool it was when he threw himself off the top of the city--even though it kind of interrupts this way better battle scene. It made me think the film-makers were just sticking in stuff, hoping it would all work out. Plus, the only people who had changes in their stories were Gollum and the fat hobbit. The others have to stand around and say the same things a lot. But that heffalump scene is pretty awesome. These 14 year-old kids behind me all yelled and started applauding. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
8
ChewbaccaJan 3, 2004
Darned good movie, and a very entertaining series, but nothing compared to the original Star Wars trilogy. Those films were technically magnificent, exciting, funny, captivating. The LOTR films do a nice job of bringing the literature to Darned good movie, and a very entertaining series, but nothing compared to the original Star Wars trilogy. Those films were technically magnificent, exciting, funny, captivating. The LOTR films do a nice job of bringing the literature to life, but they certainly don't do what the first 3 Star Wars films did. Generation Y never got a chance to see the originals on the big screen AT THAT TIME, when nobody was doing movies like that. Props to Peter Jackson, but let's lighten up with the "Best Ever" comments, Kids. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
ArleenJan 4, 2004
Found it very childish with redundant battle scenes. Not my cup of tea. Sorry.
0 of 7 users found this helpful
2
RobertH.Jan 8, 2004
Bambam BooBoo you're name is redundant and I have now seen all three sagas and it is not my cup of tea either. Too long for my taste and that ending, well I thought it would never end? But I am glad that the majority thought it was wonderful.
0 of 5 users found this helpful
8
MatiasP.May 2, 2004
Far too overrated, but still pretty good.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
C.B.Oct 20, 2005
More like "Lord of the Borings."
0 of 2 users found this helpful
0
BassApr 20, 2006
I hate all the Lord of the Rings films, there all pathetic works of cinema that should have never been made. If you ever see a copy of any of them on dvd somewhere, stop what ever you're doing and make every attempt to destroy theI hate all the Lord of the Rings films, there all pathetic works of cinema that should have never been made. If you ever see a copy of any of them on dvd somewhere, stop what ever you're doing and make every attempt to destroy the disk-you'll be making the world a better place. Expand
0 of 8 users found this helpful
6
DankoDec 17, 2003
Veeery slooow movie.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
NhatT.Dec 18, 2003
Despite the fact that I had to sit in the second row of the theatre and practically didn't see much of the action sequences, I enjoyed the movie very much. The movie made me stuck in my chair, and my bladder felt like it was going to Despite the fact that I had to sit in the second row of the theatre and practically didn't see much of the action sequences, I enjoyed the movie very much. The movie made me stuck in my chair, and my bladder felt like it was going to explode. But all in all best out of the three and just a beautiful peice of artwork. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
1
MikeG.Dec 18, 2003
I don't understand why this movie is getting such great reviews, everyone i know loves it. It's a very plain, boring, average movie just like the other movies in the trilogy. I could understand why someone who had read the book I don't understand why this movie is getting such great reviews, everyone i know loves it. It's a very plain, boring, average movie just like the other movies in the trilogy. I could understand why someone who had read the book would like it, but there are too many characters and this is not a novel so there isn't enough character development. The story is very simple, the movie slows down to a crawl, the action has been done before and the story leaves much to be desired. -Mike Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful
9
CharlotteKateC.Jan 1, 2004
I think it was a very good movie, although it was kind of long. Peter Jackson should get Best Director for all the hard work he has put into the trilogy. The thing I liked least about the movie was the ending, it seemed to have several. I I think it was a very good movie, although it was kind of long. Peter Jackson should get Best Director for all the hard work he has put into the trilogy. The thing I liked least about the movie was the ending, it seemed to have several. I also wished it had been more faithful to the book and had Saruman in it. But all in all it was a great film. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
BobB.Jan 1, 2004
BORING.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
BobB.Jan 1, 2004
BORING.
0 of 2 users found this helpful
8
MichaelR.Jan 1, 2004
Yes, it's very good. A million times better than the third part of any other trilogy I can think of. Peter Jackson has done an incredible job with this. But I'm surprised by the relentlessly laudatory reviews of the critics. This Yes, it's very good. A million times better than the third part of any other trilogy I can think of. Peter Jackson has done an incredible job with this. But I'm surprised by the relentlessly laudatory reviews of the critics. This is easily the weakest of the three movies (and books), but to be fair, I've seen both the original and extended versions of the other two. Like Fellowship, but not the Two Towers, I expect the extended version will correct some of the obvious oversights (and I certainly don't mean cutting out the unnecessary Scouring bits). To my surprise, the dialogue really started to sound wooden in this one and the battles reached the point of overkill--two things that never happened in the others. Is it great? Not as a standalone movie, but as the final installment, absolutely. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
1
AndrewK.Jan 10, 2004
Very uninspiring. I actually loved the first one, liked the second and now hated this one. What is it with sequels?
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
RachelW.Jan 17, 2004
Extremely dissapointed as I was expecting to see an artistic masterpiece which it was not. Do not understand all the hoopla about this film. Below average and definitely about 40 minutes too long.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
RichardL.Jan 19, 2004
To call this the best film of all time is simply ridiculous. It is entertaining but way too long. Some of the acting and directing was atrocious. Too much emphasis on FX and not enough character development to suit my taste.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
JoeB.Jan 2, 2004
BORING and a massive waste of time. The ending is as predictable as a soap opera. Crap.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
JawadS.Jan 2, 2004
They say it's the greatest trilogy ever. Please! Save that title for The Godfather, these two shouldn't even be mentioned in the same line. This is a just a visual FX show folks, save your money.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
MikeB.Jan 20, 2004
While I loved the movie from start to finish, I would have also like to have seen more of the book. I know I am asking for a lot but there you have it.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
JoelCamboJan 23, 2004
This movie was really good, just like the previous two. Acting was great, and the action flowed well. I give this movie a 9 because the conclusion took too long. It made me keep thinking "Frodo, please just get on the boat and get on withThis movie was really good, just like the previous two. Acting was great, and the action flowed well. I give this movie a 9 because the conclusion took too long. It made me keep thinking "Frodo, please just get on the boat and get on with life,". The goodbyes didnt need to take 15 minutes. It could have ended with a bang, but the ending dragged on a little and kind of ruined an otherwise perfect final chapter. Too bad. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
WaltD.Jan 24, 2004
Having seen all three I thought the trilogy is really overrated. I do not understand the ranting about how wonderful this film is? I found it very busy, loud and way too long for my taste.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
D.TankJan 24, 2004
This movie definitely rocks. Why? Because it just does. Peter Jackson's attempt at making this movie has gone successfull. He has stayed as loyal to the book as he can, the special effects are unlike anything seen before, the music is This movie definitely rocks. Why? Because it just does. Peter Jackson's attempt at making this movie has gone successfull. He has stayed as loyal to the book as he can, the special effects are unlike anything seen before, the music is extremely moving, and in my opinion, this is the greatest cinematic epic ever. Period. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
GoliathJan 2, 2004
Saw it this weekend and was not impressed. Thought it was boring to say the least. Not my cup of tea.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
1
DwayneR.Jan 3, 2004
Slow in places with a predictable ending. Too much emphasis on FX which took away from the acting. Overrated as far as I am concerned.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
RichieJan 6, 2004
All right.. I believe no movie can be a 10 because of the high prices of movie tickets. But here we go....This movies is a great ending to probably the greatest trilogy so far. Peter Jackson has definitely risen the bar when it comes to All right.. I believe no movie can be a 10 because of the high prices of movie tickets. But here we go....This movies is a great ending to probably the greatest trilogy so far. Peter Jackson has definitely risen the bar when it comes to movie making. He has practically done the impossible. He has satisfied the die hard Tolkien fans and the main stream fans while keeping ever single person in the theatre entertained which is a difficult balancing act. Also a special thanks to New Line for having the "balls" to make this movie and having enough sense in letting Jackson do his thing. Jackson continues to improve on his movies through his Extended Edition DVD. Finally I 'd like to thank Mr. Jackson for entertaining us and for being a dreamer that makes his dreams come true and in the process showing us all that through hard work dreams can come true. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
SimonK.Jan 8, 2004
I only saw this because some friends dragged me to see it. Much ado about nothing, really! What's all these critics raving about? It's an average action flick at best.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
SteveI.Jan 8, 2004
ZZzzzZzZzZzZzZz, thank god this boring trash is done and finished with. I didn't think this movie would ever end. We won't have to deal with it next year. THANK GOD.
0 of 2 users found this helpful
3
FreidaL.Jan 8, 2004
Not my cup of tea either. The battle scenes seemed to never end and were totally predictable. Too much FX to suit me. The acting was at best passable.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
JasonA.Feb 10, 2004
It's big and at times visually thrilling, but even the CGI has moments of uncertainty. People seem to be blinded by the films size- anyone who really knows films should know that they get a lot better than this...
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
RogerK.Feb 11, 2004
Not impressed at all. Too busy and long.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
ArthurF.Feb 18, 2004
I could take it or leave it. Not deserving of the raves it received.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
SusanA.Feb 19, 2004
Way overrated. Below average.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
RyanN.Feb 2, 2004
A great movie that deserves a lot of credit. The only disappointment is Saruman's sudden disappearance.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
SerenaFeb 6, 2004
11 Oscars? It should've been 11 Razzies especially in the acting department.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
8
MikeC.Feb 6, 2004
Very impressive effects and production, but the movie overall is let down by weaknesses of acting, screenwriting and poor directorial choices of how to handle certain elements of the book. A case in point (**SPOILER**) is the arrival of Very impressive effects and production, but the movie overall is let down by weaknesses of acting, screenwriting and poor directorial choices of how to handle certain elements of the book. A case in point (**SPOILER**) is the arrival of Aragorn with an army of ghosts at the siege of Minas Tirith. The ghosts easily chew through the Orcish horde in seconds, making the Ride of the Rohirrim seem utterly pointless by comparison. I also thought that much of the battle scene was unrealistic and existed mainly as an exercise in CGI for CGI's sake. The acting overall is not especially strong and the writing has a annoying "Hollywood Screenwriting 101" quality to it. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
GregoryS.Mar 1, 2004
This movie is incredibly overrated and did not deserve all the oscars. I find that it becomes tiresome after watching the first, and then second movie to even get a glipse of LOTR:RotK. I also feel that they chose this movie, not only This movie is incredibly overrated and did not deserve all the oscars. I find that it becomes tiresome after watching the first, and then second movie to even get a glipse of LOTR:RotK. I also feel that they chose this movie, not only because of the bandwagon that everyone has been hopping on, but also because it is fantasy and no fantasy has ever made it to the oscars. I also felt that this movie unfairly overshadowed other great movies of this year, such as Mystic River. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
brandonbMar 27, 2004
i enjoyed the previous two but as i was watching ROTK, i started to ask questions like what is the eye going to do with a ring?, or if it was forged from the other rings, then why it it better than the other rings? it's a fake!, andi enjoyed the previous two but as i was watching ROTK, i started to ask questions like what is the eye going to do with a ring?, or if it was forged from the other rings, then why it it better than the other rings? it's a fake!, and lastly, why diddnt they go to the ghosts sooner? it would have saved everyone a whole lot of work and agony since the ghosts killed ALL the bad guys in 5 minutes without casualty. someone please explain these things and maybe i'll reconsider. maybe i wasnt paying attention, maybe im thinking too much, or maybe i should read the books. till then, this movie definetely doesn't deserve 11 oscars and it definetely won't get a 10. it was long, cheesy, and dissapointing. Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful
8
BenE.Mar 29, 2004
This was one of the greatest action, adventure, fantasy and epic films of all time. It had everything but was possibly a bit too long with too many false endings. Only film that is better is The Two Towers.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
DaveB.Apr 9, 2004
Shining proof that SOMEONE out there still gives a damn about filmmaking. With the majority of movies (equally mainstream and independent if you ask me) getting crappier every year as we speak, this Kiwi is looking more and more like part of Shining proof that SOMEONE out there still gives a damn about filmmaking. With the majority of movies (equally mainstream and independent if you ask me) getting crappier every year as we speak, this Kiwi is looking more and more like part of a dying breed indeed, by my reckoning. Good thing he was able to contribute one last hopeful muster - Middle-Earth will be sorely missed. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
JeffL.Jun 14, 2004
I really enjoyed the lord of the rings movies. There are so many themes and characters in these movies that there is something for everyone. I really love the ending except for the fact that i don't understand it. When Froddo, Bilbo, I really enjoyed the lord of the rings movies. There are so many themes and characters in these movies that there is something for everyone. I really love the ending except for the fact that i don't understand it. When Froddo, Bilbo, Gandalf and the elves sail away on the boat are they simply leaving Middle Earth or are they dying in a sense and going to heaven? Expand
0 of 1 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
5
AndyM.Jun 4, 2004
Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Boring ending, the script has nothing to do with the book. Much, much, much overated.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
ShanimalR.Jun 4, 2004
The end, or should I say ends, were a little drawn out, but overall the movie was excellent. I love Aragorn!
0 of 1 users found this helpful
1
DitchDiggernoMar 9, 2005
This movie is horrible. To those who gave this film a 10, ah hell even a 5 or better, you need mental help! It is too long, pertictable, unoriginal, and yawns a'plently.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
OliverT.Jul 14, 2005
A very, very, very good movie, one of best of the all time.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
NtranceD.Jul 18, 2005
What is wrong with the people that give this a 1? You have to have no taste at all just to give this masterpiece of touching editing and wonderful acting, combined with the best effects of all time, in a true Tolkien-worthy style, anything What is wrong with the people that give this a 1? You have to have no taste at all just to give this masterpiece of touching editing and wonderful acting, combined with the best effects of all time, in a true Tolkien-worthy style, anything less than a 6. Perhaps this movie is too deep for those shallowminded slapsticklovers who are cursed with a mind-numbing superficiality (if that's a word, and if it means what I think it means) to not recognize true perfection when it's playing right in front of them. Thanks, Illya Z, for ruining my day. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
8
JohnA.Jul 3, 2005
Good movie, but not the best in the trilogy. The best one is, in my oppinion, The Two Towers.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
KelvinL.Aug 14, 2005
It was okay but not the great masterpiece that a lot of people are claiming it to be. Too much CGI and no real suprises (I haven't read the book). Much too long especially the last tortuous drawn out ending! It was as if Peter Jackson It was okay but not the great masterpiece that a lot of people are claiming it to be. Too much CGI and no real suprises (I haven't read the book). Much too long especially the last tortuous drawn out ending! It was as if Peter Jackson could not bear to actually finish the project because he enjoyed it so much! People in the cinema fans of the trilogy included were laughing and cringing at the last 30 minute ending, it was that bad!! Less is most definitely more in this case!! Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
D.B.Feb 5, 2006
Boring, melodramatic, laughably cheesy at the end. And "The Days of our Lives" has more believable, authentic acting. When there are so many interesting things to watch, why spend (a ton of) your time watching this? It's proof that Boring, melodramatic, laughably cheesy at the end. And "The Days of our Lives" has more believable, authentic acting. When there are so many interesting things to watch, why spend (a ton of) your time watching this? It's proof that movie critics have become so jaded that they are only impressed by size, glitz, and visual grandeur ("Oooh! Look at the big mountain!). That's the only way I can explain the outpouring of praise for this mediocre, boring, self-absorbed, self-indulgent piece of second rate epic tripe. My precious? Not in the least. Expand
0 of 2 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
9
StarrettBJan 2, 2007
The acting by many of the characters was excellent and the cinematography was unparalleled. Congrats to Peter Jackson for accomplishing such an amazing epic in film especially with such a difficult series of books to convert to screen. While The acting by many of the characters was excellent and the cinematography was unparalleled. Congrats to Peter Jackson for accomplishing such an amazing epic in film especially with such a difficult series of books to convert to screen. While I would not call it the greatest movie of all time, I definitely would say that it holds its own against a vast majority of films. Oh and to Taco M...if you took the time to view any of the documentaries on the film, it would become evident to you that they read all three of Tolkien's books (including the Silmarrion) multiple times and in great detail in order to get as much as they could out of the stories. To include every minute detail and story within the books would result in at least three 6 hour movies (which no one would watch). The trilogy was an adaptation of the books, not a visual representation of them. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
JacksonG.Jan 4, 2007
Although it does have some gems, overall I'm glad that the trilogy is FINALLY OVER!!! I felt all three of them were incomparably boring.
0 of 2 users found this helpful
7
JasonJ.May 30, 2007
I love this series. The entire story is well organized and keeps the three long movies feeling short. Upon watching all three (again) recently, I have determined that the 3rd is the weakest. Maybe it was director fatigue. Maybe it was the I love this series. The entire story is well organized and keeps the three long movies feeling short. Upon watching all three (again) recently, I have determined that the 3rd is the weakest. Maybe it was director fatigue. Maybe it was the fact that all of the genius was spent. The ending of this movie was the disaster that pulled it down from a 9.5 to a 7. Too much crying and too many endings. It was like watching the extra Napoleon Dynamite scene (the wedding). It must be man's instinct to try and ruin something that was otherwise perfect. 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
0
JoeC.Dec 10, 2003
Boooring crap. Better than TTT, but not as good as FOTR.
0 of 1 users found this helpful