User Score
9.0

Universal acclaim- based on 2250 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Joek.
    Dec 19, 2003
    9
    Deserves a 9. why? ... it missed some important scenes that were in the book, endings should have somehow been merged into one, and finally the evolution in character of aragon, gimli, legolas should have been portrayed onscreen rather than off. If gandalf can get a scene from grey to white, why cant aragon? .. nevertheless, the movie is a work of art. Although the emphasis on battles isDeserves a 9. why? ... it missed some important scenes that were in the book, endings should have somehow been merged into one, and finally the evolution in character of aragon, gimli, legolas should have been portrayed onscreen rather than off. If gandalf can get a scene from grey to white, why cant aragon? .. nevertheless, the movie is a work of art. Although the emphasis on battles is more than I expected, it is something i can't complain about. Expand
  2. SweetAngel
    Dec 19, 2003
    0
    So boring!
  3. Dave
    Dec 21, 2003
    5
    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 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
  4. MikeY.
    Dec 20, 2003
    9
    Awesome. if a bit long...
  5. BillJ.
    Dec 23, 2003
    7
    Overall, I enjoyed the movie and think it is worth seeing. However, it was a bit slow in parts and seemed somewhat disjointed. The special effects and scenery shots were stellar. But I felt the movie getting tedious and was just too long. I was aching for it to end 30-40 minutes before it did. The young kid (about 15?) sitting next to me went through 2 big bags of popcorn and fell asleep Overall, I enjoyed the movie and think it is worth seeing. However, it was a bit slow in parts and seemed somewhat disjointed. The special effects and scenery shots were stellar. But I felt the movie getting tedious and was just too long. I was aching for it to end 30-40 minutes before it did. The young kid (about 15?) sitting next to me went through 2 big bags of popcorn and fell asleep for about 30 minutes in the middle {grin}. There should have been an intermission somewhere in the middle. In the end, about half of the audience clapped. The rest, just headed out the door. There wasn't much buzz. I left feeling a bit flat, not elated or excited at all, just sort of glad it was over and that I had seen it. Which I found to be a strange feeling. Oh well. Expand
  6. JudeT.
    Dec 30, 2003
    3
    A well-made movie, i suppose, but -- except for the battle scenes -- a thoroughly boring movie. Hokey dialogue, syruppy music (in the slow scenes), bad bad acting (especially Elijah Wood, Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett and that guy from the Matrix). The New Zealand scenery really adds to the grandeur Jackson was trying to depict. The problem these days with really appreciating an "epic" A well-made movie, i suppose, but -- except for the battle scenes -- a thoroughly boring movie. Hokey dialogue, syruppy music (in the slow scenes), bad bad acting (especially Elijah Wood, Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett and that guy from the Matrix). The New Zealand scenery really adds to the grandeur Jackson was trying to depict. The problem these days with really appreciating an "epic" movie is the computer generated visuals dampen the whole epic feel. Sure, there are some four-hundred thousand Orcs (or whatever) gathered in a big field, but it's only cut and pasted there. The FX are still getting in the way of effectively getting into the world of movie storytelling. Expand
  7. DaveC.
    Jan 1, 2004
    8
    The Return Of The King is the Return Of The Jedi of LOTR. The inferior third entry. I was really disappointed. Gone is the dark, stylised tone and cohesive plot of FOTR and TTT. The Return Of The King just feels so by the numbers compared to the first two films. Nevertheless, this still IS Lord Of The Rings and really is something to behold. You must see it before you die.
  8. DanP.
    Jan 1, 2004
    9
    It was a good clear visual interpretation of the book. The book is a big story to fit into 3.5 hours and some stuff was left out. The themes of fall, redemption and hope were clear. Also a theme of the need for help from the others and perhaps from beyond what men alone can do.
  9. TeddyB.
    Jan 14, 2004
    1
    Is it over yet? Sorry, but it did not move me at all. Overrated terribly.
  10. DetroitConnection
    Jan 16, 2004
    2
    Perhaps I am in the minority here but this flick was too over the top for me. I do not understand how everyone thinks this is the second coming of Gone With The Wind. Plain and simple I found parts of it boring with poor acting and directing. Overrated.
  11. Scott
    Jan 17, 2004
    6
    Put simply, after reading the books, those who praise it, don't know great and amazing it could have been. Pity.
  12. TinaL.
    Jan 17, 2004
    0
    The fact is the film doesn't deserve this rating. But it does deserve it because it is that overrated. I went in expecting the second coming of christ. What I got was an average action adventure.
  13. AM
    Jan 2, 2004
    8
    Obviously, this is a well-made, often thrilling, and gorgeous looking movie, but I must admit to a feeling of "is this it" afterwards. The battles were wonderfully shot, and aside from Eowyn, Theodan and Merry's contributions, entirely devoid of emotion. Denethor's character was muddled, to say the least. Orc deaths took precedence over the ringbearer himself. Something in this Obviously, this is a well-made, often thrilling, and gorgeous looking movie, but I must admit to a feeling of "is this it" afterwards. The battles were wonderfully shot, and aside from Eowyn, Theodan and Merry's contributions, entirely devoid of emotion. Denethor's character was muddled, to say the least. Orc deaths took precedence over the ringbearer himself. Something in this movie is distressingly off kilter, unbalanced. I realize it was an enormous task to translate such a literary work to such a visual medium, and applaud Jackson's zeal in making it work to some extent, but really: best motion picture of the year? Of all time? A perfect film, this is not. Expand
  14. AM
    Jan 2, 2004
    7
    Obviously, this is a well-made, often thrilling, and gorgeous looking movie, but I must admit to a feeling of "is this it" afterwards. The battles were wonderfully shot, and aside from Eowyn, Theodan and Merry's contributions, entirely devoid of emotion. Denethor's character was muddled, to say the least. Orc deaths took precedence over the ringbearer himself. Something in this Obviously, this is a well-made, often thrilling, and gorgeous looking movie, but I must admit to a feeling of "is this it" afterwards. The battles were wonderfully shot, and aside from Eowyn, Theodan and Merry's contributions, entirely devoid of emotion. Denethor's character was muddled, to say the least. Orc deaths took precedence over the ringbearer himself. Something in this movie is distressingly off kilter, unbalanced. I realize it was an enormous task to translate such a literary work to such a visual medium, and applaud Jackson's zeal in making it work to some extent, but really: best motion picture of the year? Of all time? A perfect film, this is not. Expand
  15. DianeP.
    Jan 25, 2004
    3
    Sorry Annette, we must have been watching two different versions of the same movie. I found it flawed and way too long. Way overrated in my book. To call this the best movie of all time does a great disservice to the all time classics. To be perfectly honest, I thought it was below average and thus the 3 rating.
  16. PollyJ.
    Jan 28, 2004
    4
    As far as I'm concerned this overrated turkey got 11 Oscar nominations too many. Can't understand all the hoopla? It was just okay but nothing spectacular.
  17. KrisD.
    Jan 29, 2004
    6
    This movie is pretty good, with an "all happy ending" sort of, but there was just too much fighting for my taste. True some people really enjoy action movies with a bit fighting, but from begginning to end to be honest it is really just all fighting. Too much credit from critics in my opinion. Honestly, do you want to see dead, chopped up heads thrown around?
  18. MistressMalevolent
    Jan 31, 2004
    0
    Seriously, save your money and time!
  19. CarolAnnC.
    Jan 31, 2004
    3
    Just didn't do it for me.
  20. LeighC.
    Jan 7, 2004
    1
    This film is too long compared to the other two and the ending dragged on and on. The last 30 minutes or so could've been summed up in a voice-over epilogue like the way Fellowship of the Ring began.
  21. TammyD.
    Feb 13, 2004
    2
    Finally got around to watching LOR. I expected much more from a film that is expected to win every major award? Terribly disappointing as far as I am concerned. About an hour too long and just over the top to suit my taste. However, I can see that the majority of you compare this to Gone With The Wind? C'mon be serious.
  22. DeloresH.
    Feb 15, 2004
    0
    Already, some critics are backpeddling and claiming that the Oscar for Best Picture this year should go to Mystic River. I think that this film was overrated, and rode on massive hype and hysteria by its fanatics to a lot of critics awards and 11 Oscar nominations. But I think (I hope) that's as far as the hype and hysteria will take it. If you scratch the surface, all you're Already, some critics are backpeddling and claiming that the Oscar for Best Picture this year should go to Mystic River. I think that this film was overrated, and rode on massive hype and hysteria by its fanatics to a lot of critics awards and 11 Oscar nominations. But I think (I hope) that's as far as the hype and hysteria will take it. If you scratch the surface, all you're left with is an empty visual effects portrait. Expand
  23. CamronF.
    Feb 27, 2004
    8
    I loved the movie, but at the point in the minas tirith war when the green ghost army swept through and killed everyone, i almost left the theater, the "epic battle" didn't last nearly long enough to be epic or of the proprotions that it was, seems like all the effort was for nothing. other than that the movie was great.
  24. Tina
    Feb 4, 2004
    0
    Arrogant and egotistic.
  25. JimL.
    Mar 10, 2004
    2
    Derivative, no characterisation, maudlin, and why did gollum look like a rubber version of ET ?
  26. BillR.
    Apr 6, 2004
    8
    Ah, my final word on the Rings cycle, taking the world by storm. Never really cared for the books, honestly, but these film adaptations are so anti-Harry Potter and BBC miniseries in their sensibilities and visuals that as bound as they may ultimately be to Tolkien's overrated, doddering text......I just can't help but like them, even feel they are better than Shakespearean in Ah, my final word on the Rings cycle, taking the world by storm. Never really cared for the books, honestly, but these film adaptations are so anti-Harry Potter and BBC miniseries in their sensibilities and visuals that as bound as they may ultimately be to Tolkien's overrated, doddering text......I just can't help but like them, even feel they are better than Shakespearean in many areas. And the action - rampaging elephants and all - an inexplicable thrill to watch, to say the least. The Extended Edition in this case will make for a very precious DVD in my growing collection, alright. Though not quite as airtight, character-driven and brashly irresistible as The Two Towers IMHO, Return of the King is a very impressive finale, the rare kind that thankfully doesn't hold anything back and thus has me melancholy to see end. (Where it does exceed TTT, however, is the "Into the West" number over the end credits, without a doubt. And simply put, most end credit numbers are utter sh*te.) Again, anything Gollum-related was a hoot and then some. Could any other filmmaker dig into this kind of overstuffed source material and yield such a watchable, 100% fantasy-steeped trilogy? Not only that, but one filled with as much refreshing vitality, willing experimentation and dramatic fearlessness as this it could *only* be traced back to Mr. 'Heavenly Creatures' Jackson? I think not. (Best of luck on Kong, sir.) Even Fellowship of the Ring, more than ever now, remains a skillful, humble road trip that still proves more lively and amounts to greater, more resonant levels than the majority of movies with clearly higher ambition. Overall, I daresay no other undertaking (individual or series, of epic or intimate proportions, not even the modest HC, really) in cinematic history manages to maintain *this* much dramatic investment in so many characters for three-hour blocks, yet for stretches has several dangerously absent at a time. This ensemble cast is absolutely first-rate, once more rising far and above what could have been potentially leaden, mumbo-jumbo stage-bound dialogue. A few undervalued actors in particular (i.e. Sean Astin, Miranda Otto) finally get the kind of screentime and focus they deserve, that's for sure. Even Elijah Wood finally hit some kind of a personal best in his sympathetic struggle with the Tolkienesque (perhaps as much as with the One Ring!). Expand
  27. [Anonymous]
    May 10, 2004
    8
    Max C. gave it a 7: I was somewhat disappointed in this film. Having been very impressed by the first two, I expected a great deal. I was looking forward to seeing certain characters portrayed such as the Mouth of Sauron, Ghan Buri Ghan and some of Aragorn's fellow Rangers. There was no mention of the houses of healing and no scouring of the shire. I understand that films need to Max C. gave it a 7: I was somewhat disappointed in this film. Having been very impressed by the first two, I expected a great deal. I was looking forward to seeing certain characters portrayed such as the Mouth of Sauron, Ghan Buri Ghan and some of Aragorn's fellow Rangers. There was no mention of the houses of healing and no scouring of the shire. I understand that films need to have pace and need to edit source material heavily. I felt they achieved that balance in the first two installments. However in this one they left out a lot and it still felt long. Overall I think everyone did a good job with attention detail, however in ROTK I found myself "seeing" the CGI stuff instead of it blending in as in the previous two. And for those of you arguing about whether Tolkien is art or not, that is just silly. Tolkien falls somewhere between the Sistine Chapel and a velvet painting of Elvis. Where on that continuum he falls is up to the individual, do not be snobs. Expand
  28. YoonMinC.
    May 25, 2004
    5
    Give that spiggo guy a t-shirt at least. aint it cold up in the mountains? and give him nasal spray; he sounds like marge simpson. long, dreay, and repetitious but it has 3 genuinely great action moments. for those who wondered why sam the hobbit remains fat throughout, i think it's because he killed and ate that elephant sized spider.
  29. AdrianH.
    May 27, 2004
    9
    It's interesting to see these people vote 0-3 on this movie. Makes you wonder how they'd rate truly bad movies. This is an excellent movie, and I think criticism falls into 2 areas: 1) wasn't faithful enough to the book or 2) was too long. Those people who thought it was boring, probably didn't see the first 2, they'd know what to expect. If you enjoy the first It's interesting to see these people vote 0-3 on this movie. Makes you wonder how they'd rate truly bad movies. This is an excellent movie, and I think criticism falls into 2 areas: 1) wasn't faithful enough to the book or 2) was too long. Those people who thought it was boring, probably didn't see the first 2, they'd know what to expect. If you enjoy the first two, you will LOVE this movie. Expand
  30. DennisP.
    May 29, 2004
    9
    Long live the King! Great fun. I expect to feel a little empty this year when I don't get a new LOTR movie for Christmas.
  31. GustavoH.R.
    May 29, 2004
    7
    Forgettable and overrated. The ending is so slow it hurts. Far from perfection.
  32. JohnnyD.
    May 29, 2004
    1
    Long, dull, extremely boring fighting scenes, and a stupid, endless ending. This movie is simply too overrated. People must have gone mad to really hail this piece of crap.
  33. KevinF.
    Jun 7, 2004
    8
    Great to look at, but the least amazing of the series. It feels as if Jackson's creativity meter has been tapped out by this point, and he relies on scale to compensate.
  34. GregT.
    Jun 7, 2004
    9
    I don't know if this series of movies were true to the books. I don't read fiction. However, I watch fiction and this movie involved so much effort on the part of the people involved in it that you would have to give them "A" for effort in any case. Great special effects, lots of action. A keeper.
  35. IllyaZ.
    May 30, 2005
    1
    100+ Million Dollars = Good VFX/SFX That's about it; 1 out of 10. Unimaginative fools watch the film over reading the novels.
  36. AlexC.
    Aug 3, 2005
    2
    How the hell did this movie (and the others for that matter) do so well at the box office, clean-up at the Academy Awards and now rate within the top 100 movies of all time. People these days must only admire films which feature brilliant editing and sound. This was a torturously boring saga which I would rate on a par with the new Star Wars series. Don't waste your time watching it!
  37. AnonymousMC
    Jan 3, 2006
    9
    If "Fellowship" and "Towers" were considered epic filmmaking, "The Return of the King" is super-epic. The battles are bigger, the emotions are stronger, the scenery is grander. You don't want the story to be over quite yet, and Jackson does his best to stretch it out as long as he possibly can! It's a culmination right to follow the previous two films and worthy of the awardsIf "Fellowship" and "Towers" were considered epic filmmaking, "The Return of the King" is super-epic. The battles are bigger, the emotions are stronger, the scenery is grander. You don't want the story to be over quite yet, and Jackson does his best to stretch it out as long as he possibly can! It's a culmination right to follow the previous two films and worthy of the awards bestowed on it. Expand
  38. ChristopherJ.
    Mar 17, 2007
    7
    The trilogy is pretty good, but this one dragged. "I know how we can fend off evil!! With an army of ghosts!! Yeah!!" What a lame ending!
  39. Marionm
    May 1, 2008
    4
    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 as a when-you-have-nothing-to-do FILM!!!! but ist just wayyyyyyyyy tooo long!!!
  40. sd
    Mar 28, 2009
    9
    To everyone who rated this at 0 or 1(and used the word hoopla)I physically shudder to think of the movies you rate highly.White chicks springs to mind.
  41. ButtahBiscuit
    Dec 12, 2003
    9
    Amazing! I am the 41st reviewer of a movie that has 5 more days to be released! This is almost like Minority Report - we find you guilty of being about to see this movie and rate it with a 9. Remarkable - What'll they think of next?
  42. JohnS.
    Dec 13, 2003
    0
    The worst film I've ever seen.
  43. MattR.
    Dec 17, 2003
    0
    Memo to Keith W: if you're trying to appear literate, do try to put together a coherent sentence. Tolkien as art? You must be joking!
  44. JeffreyG.
    Dec 17, 2003
    0
    I have to agree with Maria T. This movie is very long, and poorly acted. The books had a lot more potential, and it's unfortunate the way that Peter Jackson decided to edit the film. The previous two movies are great, but this one has very poor acting, and gets extremely cheesy in the endings...come on, let people leave.
  45. RickG.
    Dec 17, 2003
    9
    This is a better adaptation than Two Towers. Return of the King actually picks up where the Two Towers book ends. The scene with Shelob is covered in the Two Towers book. I had hoped we would see more of Saruman at Isengard and the Shire, as we do in the books. I really wanted to see Saruman get his staff taken from him by Gandalf, which is also covered in the Two Towers book. Those This is a better adaptation than Two Towers. Return of the King actually picks up where the Two Towers book ends. The scene with Shelob is covered in the Two Towers book. I had hoped we would see more of Saruman at Isengard and the Shire, as we do in the books. I really wanted to see Saruman get his staff taken from him by Gandalf, which is also covered in the Two Towers book. Those reservations aside, I enjoyed watching this last enstallment of the trilogy. It's more true to the source material than Two Towers and it's dramatic action sequences have the purpose of bringing the main character full circle to realizing their destinies. There are a lot of high spots. The climax at Mount Doom, what I had been waiting for throughout the entire movie, was slightly different than the book but true to the spirit of the ending of the book. I really like Gollum fitting the ring onto to his finger in his last moment of life. I liked what they did with Eowan, making her a kind of Joan of Arc of Middle Earth. I really enjoyed the descent of Denethor into madness and his son Faramir's suicidal ride into Gondor. Lots of high spots in this film. Its scale and special effects are awesome. Expand
  46. MarcusB.
    Dec 17, 2003
    1
    So this is what passes for great cinema? I suppose when a nation considers Tolkien to be "literature" then we're all in trouble.
  47. MariaT.
    Dec 17, 2003
    0
    What, is there some spell that makes people love this really long, badly acted, tedious and contrived piece of excrement? The only good thing about ROTK is that it's the last LOR film, and then we can get back to non-geek fantasy entertainment.
  48. MaxC.
    Dec 18, 2003
    7
    I was somewhat disappointed in this film. Having been very impressed by the first two, I expected a great deal. I was looking forward to seeing certain characters portrayed such as the Mouth of Sauron, Ghan Buri Ghan and some of Aragorn's fellow Rangers. There was no mention of the houses of healing and no scouring of the shire. I understand that films need to have pace and need to I was somewhat disappointed in this film. Having been very impressed by the first two, I expected a great deal. I was looking forward to seeing certain characters portrayed such as the Mouth of Sauron, Ghan Buri Ghan and some of Aragorn's fellow Rangers. There was no mention of the houses of healing and no scouring of the shire. I understand that films need to have pace and need to edit source material heavily. I felt they achieved that balance in the first two installments. However in this one they left out a lot and it still felt long. Overall I think everyone did a good job with attention detail, however in ROTK I found myself "seeing" the CGI stuff instead of it blending in as in the previous two. And for those of you arguing about whether Tolkien is art or not, that is just silly. Tolkien falls somewhere between the Sistine Chapel and a velvet painting of Elvis. Where on that continuum he falls is up to the individual, do not be snobs... Expand
  49. LegionODorkS
    Dec 19, 2003
    0
    This ZERO is for the pinheads rating this movie as 'BEST MOVIE EVER'. Yes, if you've seen only three movies in your life-- including the first two installments of this outrageously overrated series-- than yes, FANBOY, this is the best picture ever. If, on the other hand, you're over 3 years old, you may have seen... oh... I don't know... 200 better films,This ZERO is for the pinheads rating this movie as 'BEST MOVIE EVER'. Yes, if you've seen only three movies in your life-- including the first two installments of this outrageously overrated series-- than yes, FANBOY, this is the best picture ever. If, on the other hand, you're over 3 years old, you may have seen... oh... I don't know... 200 better films, conservatively? Let me guess: George W. Bushole.. best President EVER?!? I thought so... Expand
  50. Dave
    Dec 21, 2003
    5
    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 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
  51. DamianP.
    Dec 21, 2003
    6
    The acting did annoy me in parts, and I didn't feel drawn into the movie the way I was with the others. Overall, it was still a good movie and I could watch it again.
  52. JoyceT.
    Dec 20, 2003
    0
    A terribly long, tedious movie; the technology is wondrous, but the fact is this thing is freaking silly and the acting (with only a few exceptions) really sucks.
  53. AntonioA.
    Dec 23, 2003
    3
    Baaah! I hate this movie! I've read all the 7 JRR Tolkien's books and the only thing I can say is: This movie sucks! Compared to the Return of the King novel, this movie is some kind of resume of all the history, so if you don't read the 3 main books, you will understand nothing of the history. This happened to a lot of people I know. And why does this happen? Because Baaah! I hate this movie! I've read all the 7 JRR Tolkien's books and the only thing I can say is: This movie sucks! Compared to the Return of the King novel, this movie is some kind of resume of all the history, so if you don't read the 3 main books, you will understand nothing of the history. This happened to a lot of people I know. And why does this happen? Because several parts that were described in the book were cut off, making the movie less comprehensive to the people who know nothing about the Middle Earth. Some parts aren't played as it is described in the book, for example: when the palantir is found; the meeting with Shelob and the return to the Shire. This was the worst movie of the triology. Expand
  54. PhilD.
    Dec 26, 2003
    9
    Wow! The third LOTR movie is definitely the best. Battle scenes are amazing, the acting is near perfect and the runtime is just okay (doesn't feel like 3+ hours). I'll be waiting for The Hobbit, Mr. Jackson!
  55. PeterA.
    Dec 29, 2003
    9
    The biggest testament to this movie's success is that it took a source that many might consider "dorky" or "fringe" and made it appealing to nearly 100% of people in a way tha doesn't sell out using typical Hollywood-style tricks. Go see it, but not before seeing the first two!
  56. Fantasy
    Dec 31, 2003
    2
    I have now seen the entire trilogy. I know that everyone is raving about this piece of work, but quite frankly I just don't get it. It is not that I do not like fantasy movies because I most certainly do. For some reason, the movie just dragged in places, and I kept thinking to myself, c'mon get it moving again. The battle scenes were predictable and redundant which removed any I have now seen the entire trilogy. I know that everyone is raving about this piece of work, but quite frankly I just don't get it. It is not that I do not like fantasy movies because I most certainly do. For some reason, the movie just dragged in places, and I kept thinking to myself, c'mon get it moving again. The battle scenes were predictable and redundant which removed any element of surprise. The movie should have ended with The King stating that the Hobbits did not have to bow to any man, but instead they kept dragging it on ad nauseum. The FX took away from the acting, and at best the acting was spotty. The point is that if you gave my a free DVD or put in on TV I could not sit through this again as it was just way too long. Sorry, but to me it was just not a masterpiece. Expand
  57. MooCowMoo
    Dec 30, 2003
    9
    The thinking man's (or Hobbit's!) pop-corn flick! Huge, sprawling epic serves as a fitting end to one of the moost remarkable achievements in film history - and it shows what magic can occur when moovies actually have a STORY to work with. Superb elements from all; still have problem with the whole Arwen-thing, and they denegrated poor Denethor's character w/out The thinking man's (or Hobbit's!) pop-corn flick! Huge, sprawling epic serves as a fitting end to one of the moost remarkable achievements in film history - and it shows what magic can occur when moovies actually have a STORY to work with. Superb elements from all; still have problem with the whole Arwen-thing, and they denegrated poor Denethor's character w/out explaination, but over-all still a wonderful undertaking. I never though I would live to see this put on film, on a quality film in any case, and I am glad to see cow wrong I was. Hope "The Hobbit" is next! :=8D Expand
  58. DevonN.
    Dec 30, 2003
    8
    Great movie! But dang did it drag. And way to much CGI. Awesome movie though.
  59. MichaelC.
    Jan 13, 2004
    9
    While most I've spoken with have said that this is their favorite in the trilogy, mine was definitely The Two Towers. However, this movie does a great job of wrapping up the story. My main complaints are that battle scenes went too quickly and there wasn't a more rewarding finale. However, for the purposes of brevity, I understand why this was the case. An awesome movie overall, While most I've spoken with have said that this is their favorite in the trilogy, mine was definitely The Two Towers. However, this movie does a great job of wrapping up the story. My main complaints are that battle scenes went too quickly and there wasn't a more rewarding finale. However, for the purposes of brevity, I understand why this was the case. An awesome movie overall, but I'm waiting for it to come out on video with the extra hour of footage. Expand
  60. LanceEcnal
    Jan 15, 2004
    6
    [***SPOILERS***] -Oh ye who think this movie is the greatest and anyone who disagrees must be an idiot, read and read well. This movie has many faults, not only as a translation of the book, but as a movie in itself. I will state what's wrong with it and give reasons behind it explaining WHY so. -PLOT: Since the movie decides to go off on a tangent from the book, a problem arises.[***SPOILERS***] -Oh ye who think this movie is the greatest and anyone who disagrees must be an idiot, read and read well. This movie has many faults, not only as a translation of the book, but as a movie in itself. I will state what's wrong with it and give reasons behind it explaining WHY so. -PLOT: Since the movie decides to go off on a tangent from the book, a problem arises. They include Shelob, the spider, in this movie instead of the third. The problem is that if it had ended as the book did, then we would have left off at the second movie thinking Frodo was dead--which is much better than this. In this movie, the scene where Frodo supposedly dies is reduced to a mere few minutes, and as a result, THE most vital part in the second chapter was lost and made unimportant in this. -Also, for those who complain that the books were long and the movie can't fit everything in, why would they cut out the Shelob scene in the last movie and move it to this just because they could make the Battle of Helms Deep central to the last movie? -The ending is terrible for this movie. People say it's supposed to bring everything together, but guess what? The ending in the novel is MUCH longer. And who cares about the DVD, the theatrical experience is more important. -Since Peter Jackson so stupidly loves to take out important scenes and create his own, THE ENDING HAS SUFFERED. How so? Well much of it didn't make sense to those who haven't read the novels. For example, "The eagles are coming!" Many people didn't understand that. Many didn't understand why Frodo and Gandalf left Sam at the end to the Gray Havens. And most did not understand that Gandalf possessed one of The Rings and that he too was going to die. Yeah, great job Jackson. -SCRIPT: For those who think the script is top-notch, just know that it was dumbed down greatly. Every time Jackson added a new scene that wasn't in the book, such as the one where Merry and Pippin are dancing on the table and the others are having a party; the script is terrible. Then Aragorn steps out of the building and talks to Legolas and the Elve talks about how "the eye is moving" and what he says is so moving in words and possesses such grace and fluidity. So it becomes easy to see that Tolkein's writing is on another plane than Jackson and his poor prose. Also, the whole movie has been reduced in intelligible speech because the regular, non-literary audience wouldn't understand. Don't believe me? Read the books. ACTING: Decent at best. Ian McKellen shines, Viggo is rather good, Orlando Bloom is apt, as well as Elijah Wood, but many of the actors CANNOT ACT. For example, Hugo Weaving as Elrond is very poor to the role. The scene where he gives Aragorn the sword in the tent is just an example of how poor an actor he is. (Watch his facial expressions) Let's not neglect to mention Arwen's acting, or Denethor. -Music: Perhaps the best part of the movie. However, the second movie, which was the most horrid and untrue of the series, had the best music, which they did not seem to include in this movie. The commercial for the TT had some amazing and epic compositions, this one lacks it. For example, the theme in the TT where we first see the search party that is looking for the two Hobbits was amazing; the main theme I think it was. It was played only once at the end when Aragorn visits Frodo after the ring has been destroyed. -OTHER PROBLEMS: The movie is purely based on the battles and is focused on the "big heroes" such as Gandalf and Aragorn. This is not in keeping with the essence of the novels, which is about the Hobbits and the whole concept of "size doesn't matter." -Also, the movie is VERY DISJOINTED. It's like watching episodes of a TV show and the transitions between the different character stories isn't done well. -The plot has also suffered because Jackson decided to cut out scenes from previous movies. For example, the orb (Palantir) that the Hobbit looks into and Sauron managing to see him was supposed to be in the second movie. As a result, the effect of foreshadowing is diminished and it doesn't prove a surprise when Aragorn was supposed to look into it and warn Suaron that he was going to come for him. -CONCLUSION: So in summary, this movie IS overrated. It is NOT the greatest movie of all time. It has been dumbed down greatly in plot, script, made more action- oriented and has pretty bad acting on some parts. It does NOT retain the essence of the novels, and for those who have read them and think they do, then ask yourself, "What was the essence of the novels?" The answer is, the characters. More precisely, the Hobbits. That however, has been changed greatly due to the poor direction Jackson has taken it to make it an action adventure which is propelled by the "big heroes". Expand
  61. JeffreyS.
    Jan 19, 2004
    9
    Overall, the third installment was incredibly crafted and visually stunning. Unfortunately after the first two movies and 3 hours of the third, Mr. Jackson chose to trash the ending in the final 30 minutes. The cinematography/direction of the final scenes in Gondor were horrible and the blatant omission of the 'Scouring of the Shire' left me extremely disappointed. I just hope Overall, the third installment was incredibly crafted and visually stunning. Unfortunately after the first two movies and 3 hours of the third, Mr. Jackson chose to trash the ending in the final 30 minutes. The cinematography/direction of the final scenes in Gondor were horrible and the blatant omission of the 'Scouring of the Shire' left me extremely disappointed. I just hope it was filmed and be added to the inevitable extended version DVD. Expand
  62. IlzeS.
    Dec 26, 2004
    5
    This was really great action movie,the effects are cool, but movie is empty. I think that "King Arthur" is better. But this movie is much more better than "Alexander". Just a fairytale!
  63. Henry
    Jan 29, 2004
    2
    Much ado about nothing.
  64. CaptainStarr
    Feb 14, 2004
    3
    Disappointing.
  65. Deuce
    Feb 15, 2004
    9
    This was movie was extremely well done. Jackson stayed true to the novel as well as he could and made sure that the film was engaging at all times. The only thing that disappointed me was the fact that they cut out Saruman's part in the movie at the very end. If they had left that in, I would have given it a ten.
  66. Jajabobo
    Feb 24, 2004
    6
    Without a doubt, this movie is one of the most overrated movies of the year. With that said, I won't take away from the story and rate this movie a 0. I didn't particularly like the way Peter Jackson approached the "huge battle" but ROTK is what Tolkein designed and Jackson did a good job following that design.
  67. DelmarH.
    Mar 18, 2004
    0
    Best picture? How could a the best picture be a movie that gets advertised on pepsi bottles? Best Picture? Only in world that is so bland that it is evil. This is f..king garbage.
  68. SeadN.
    Mar 21, 2004
    4
    I think that academy awards are going too far about this movie, i dont think that the "RETURN OF THE KING" is so good to get 13 oscar for movie included oscar for the best picture. The Academy Awards are not what they used to be in 1950 to 1990.
  69. Flat23
    May 29, 2004
    8
    OVERATED by far... i gave it 8 cause i am not saying it SUCKED, but i am saying i dont think it deserved all the hype! TH
  70. KevinM.
    Jun 23, 2004
    0
    That was an awesome movie, you can really attach to the charactors, you feel that you know them. The battles are great and also the acting. Overall, one of the best movies I have seen in my life.
  71. PaulShooman
    Jun 23, 2004
    0
    Peter Jackson seems to specialize in making uncalled-for remakes of moribund 1950s movie genres that aren't exactly aching for callbacks. House of Ghouls was a fitfully funny, successfully stupid pothead gloss on the Dracula movie series. This one, however, fails on just about every level. Not only have Wes Craven, the Wachowski brothers and Ed Wood (of all people!) pretty muchPeter Jackson seems to specialize in making uncalled-for remakes of moribund 1950s movie genres that aren't exactly aching for callbacks. House of Ghouls was a fitfully funny, successfully stupid pothead gloss on the Dracula movie series. This one, however, fails on just about every level. Not only have Wes Craven, the Wachowski brothers and Ed Wood (of all people!) pretty much squeezed every drop of blood out of the Fantasy concept, but ROTK commits the unforgivable sin of movie trilogy endings: it eventually becomes the exact same thing it's a sequel of! To add insult to injury, the brilliant 1950s spoof Cheaper By the Dozen, which almost completely reinvents the movie-parody genre and was released at virtually the same time, makes this mess look even more like a total failure than it already is. I guess Petey J can go for lambada movies as his next target.
    Expand
  72. PeterJackson
    Jun 23, 2004
    0
    Hello, Peter Jackson here. Just wanted to apologize for this terrible piece of crap I made. Looking back, I realize how stupid it was of me to make this movie. First of all, I really need to learn how to direct and make real characters in my movies. Sorry about that. I guess if you want to see one of my good movies, see House of Ghouls. I musta had an extra bottle o scotch when we startedHello, Peter Jackson here. Just wanted to apologize for this terrible piece of crap I made. Looking back, I realize how stupid it was of me to make this movie. First of all, I really need to learn how to direct and make real characters in my movies. Sorry about that. I guess if you want to see one of my good movies, see House of Ghouls. I musta had an extra bottle o scotch when we started making this movie. Again, I apologize, and I hope you ignore my crappy movies in the future. I'm only out for the money, you silly lorries.
    Love,
    Peter Jackson
    Expand
  73. MaidenW.
    Jun 28, 2004
    8
    Visual FX were well done! I do not think they deserved 11 oscars, but it was a very good movie. You either liked it, or despised it. I have to hand it to Pete, it's very hard to please everyone...and doing all three movies, he has shown his visions of Tolkien's world. If you didn't like this movie, the fans and those who truly do appreciate this movie don't gave a f...
  74. patrickd.
    Nov 12, 2005
    9
    Beautiful camerawork, breathtaking shots, majestic action and a perfect fantasy enviroment make up this conclusion. It's really long though, and I still believe it's overrated.
  75. JamesM
    Nov 19, 2005
    3
    What rubbish! After first and second chapters of magnificence and beauty, Peter Jackson inexplicably ruins the epic trilogy with a boring and overlong third installment.
  76. T.M.
    Jan 24, 2005
    4
    At one point at over three hours (!) into this bloated mess, I honestly thought it would never end. The previous two in the trilogy were enjoyable in their uninspired, pseudo-Masterpiece Theatre, workmanlike way, but this installment was just tedious, repetitive, disjointed, formulaic, maudlin, cheesy, and overwrought. And yet it won more Oscars than...any...movie...in...history. At one point at over three hours (!) into this bloated mess, I honestly thought it would never end. The previous two in the trilogy were enjoyable in their uninspired, pseudo-Masterpiece Theatre, workmanlike way, but this installment was just tedious, repetitive, disjointed, formulaic, maudlin, cheesy, and overwrought. And yet it won more Oscars than...any...movie...in...history. Unbelievable. A symptom of all that's wrong with Hollywood and our society. Where was the character development? Where was the soul? Where was the heart? Where was the decent dialogue? Nearly four -- yes, four -- the length of "Gone with the Wind" (a film that truly is an epic) -- hours of often obvious CGI, gratuitous gore, hammy acting, cardboard characterization, self-importance, and diarrhea of the screenwriters' pens. Sorry, but it could have been so much better. Maybe when our culture stops being so into "hype" (people buying into the hype, and the media's creating the hype), average to mediocre films like this one won't disappoint discerning viewers quite so much. Expand
  77. NikkoC.
    May 19, 2006
    6
    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 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
  78. MatthewP.
    Dec 15, 2003
    1
    Painfully boring, depressingly overrated.
  79. ChrisT.
    Dec 16, 2003
    9
    So this is how it ends... (sigh) Well, we can only hope that Pete Jackson hands the franchise off to someone just as talented for the fourth movie. (But just between you and me, I think the fourth one is gonna TANK. We'll just have to hope for a solid comeback with the fifth one...)
  80. DeanA.
    Dec 17, 2003
    9
    A great end to a truly great trilogy.
  81. EricM.
    Dec 17, 2003
    0
    How, how, how is this considered "good"?
  82. MatthieuB.
    Dec 17, 2003
    0
    I'm sorry, but since when did huge monster battle scenes become the standard of "good" cinema? Used to be that deep characters, good acting (both of which are absent in ROTK) and a compelling storyline were the norm. I swear that half of this movie is little CGI army men lunging at each other... OOOOH entertainment!
  83. AustinW.
    Dec 17, 2003
    6
    I was picking it for best picture... until I saw it. Way too long, and way too proud of itself. Too much CG and substandard acting - the 'frodo face' gets a little old. Sean Astin rocks as Samwise, though.
  84. BrentK.
    Dec 18, 2003
    9
    All you people who gave this film a 0 need to understand that people aren't going to a movie like ROTK to see Oscar-worthy performances, they're going to be entertained...and as far as that is concerned, this film was one of the most entertaining that I have seen. If you don't like CG, then you may as well never go to an "entertaining" movie again...'cause that's All you people who gave this film a 0 need to understand that people aren't going to a movie like ROTK to see Oscar-worthy performances, they're going to be entertained...and as far as that is concerned, this film was one of the most entertaining that I have seen. If you don't like CG, then you may as well never go to an "entertaining" movie again...'cause that's the way it's gonna be from now on! Great film! Expand
  85. RickS.
    Dec 19, 2003
    2
    Oh man, this is a nerds dream come true, i think i'm in heaven.. Peter Jackson is really fat and annoying but he really knows how to make a great movie..TAKE THAT MATRIX TRILOGY....I'm in nerd paradise, oh yea, TAKE THAT STAR WARS TRILOGY...I'm just so Ohhh Gee Golly happy, the effects was awesome, and the dialogue was...............Ohhh K well maybe the dialogue was bad, Oh man, this is a nerds dream come true, i think i'm in heaven.. Peter Jackson is really fat and annoying but he really knows how to make a great movie..TAKE THAT MATRIX TRILOGY....I'm in nerd paradise, oh yea, TAKE THAT STAR WARS TRILOGY...I'm just so Ohhh Gee Golly happy, the effects was awesome, and the dialogue was...............Ohhh K well maybe the dialogue was bad, but the effects, that was good right? Wait the acting was kinda slow and weak,so was the movie's pace and action, ah man i kinda fell asleep in the middle.. Wait!!! OH Nooo the whole movie was Boring.. Nooooo.. But the effects was good right, you know like in matrix revolution, right? So then this movie is killer, yup its good then, this movie is A class, so what if Return Of The King ended like Andy and Larry Wachowski's career as film makers, at least it had better acting than ms. portman in star wars....I'm just fooling myself it can't come close to the second one,you know LOTR:The Two Towers... Well lets put our hope now in stars wars(oh man), LucAss you better not mess up this one.. Expand
  86. JasonK.
    Dec 21, 2003
    8
    You know, if every review replaced "THE ______ MOVIE OF ALL TIME" with "ONE OF THE ____ MOVIES OF THE PAST YEAR OR SO" we would have a more accurate overall take on this film. if this is the best movie youve ever seen, you haven't seen very many. if this is the worst movie youve ever seen, then you're lying.
  87. JohnD.
    Dec 21, 2003
    1
    Sophmoric and melodramatic. Like a model with a plastic nose and silicon implants, it is visually stunning, and yet barren of any real substance, meaning or value other than eye candy. Changes made to character and storyline seem to merely support the screenwriters' simplistic, idealized view of what makes good entertainment. It is certainly not faithful to either the spirit or the Sophmoric and melodramatic. Like a model with a plastic nose and silicon implants, it is visually stunning, and yet barren of any real substance, meaning or value other than eye candy. Changes made to character and storyline seem to merely support the screenwriters' simplistic, idealized view of what makes good entertainment. It is certainly not faithful to either the spirit or the character of the series. It would be better if Tolkein's name were not associated with these movies, for neither his vision nor his son were consulted when it was made. Collapse
  88. NinjaMafia
    Dec 23, 2003
    8
    Ah, RoTK, the last film in the LoTR trilogy. So how does it stack up, well let us find out. Okay, the storyline everyone should have down by now, Frodo goes to Mt. Doom Gandalf and everyone else try to hold back an army of orcs and trolls and the like. I never read the book Return of the King, so I thought I would be a bit lost here and there, and I was. While I didn't get lost in Ah, RoTK, the last film in the LoTR trilogy. So how does it stack up, well let us find out. Okay, the storyline everyone should have down by now, Frodo goes to Mt. Doom Gandalf and everyone else try to hold back an army of orcs and trolls and the like. I never read the book Return of the King, so I thought I would be a bit lost here and there, and I was. While I didn't get lost in the story, a few of the characters had me bewildered. Like who the hell was that one girl by the boat at the end and who told Frodo to get up when he dreamt (?) he was in a field? I know this is targeted for people who have read the books, but I think a good book to movie transfer shouldn't have you questioning about who or what people are. Also, they didn't have enough of Arwen in this movie, hell, they didn't have enough of Arwen in all three movies. She was only at the begining and end of this one, hardly fitting for her. Also, during the big battle sequence beteween the orcs/trols and Gandalf and the elves and humans and such, there was one part of it towards the end that had me thinking, wow that is really cheap and extremely un-dramatic, I mean, they couldn't lose because of this. There also wasn't a lot that happened in this movie. It was three and a half hours long yet it seemed that movies that are and hour and a half long (not going to name any to protect myself, and those movies) seemed to have more done within them than this. Despite all these complaints, the movie does deliver on quite a few levels. The acting was great to begin with. The action was also really good. A few things here and there didn't make me like the action as much as I could have, but still, it was good. The movie's plot was also kind of good. But it feels that you need to have to watch all three movies in a row to get it, or you need to have just read the book. The entertainment was also pretty high. I found myself almost laughing at a few parts of the movie (It takes alot to actually make me laugh). I think alot of people will like this movie. Hell, a lot of people do like this movie. I just don't think that it should get as much praise as everyone is giving to it, maybe some of it, but I know someone out there has got to think that this is just an average movie. Also, to adress a few people here, King.... Mountain, first off, people like this movie a hell of alot more than Gothica, open your eyes, also, it is called fantasy, not role play. To everyone else out there that praises Peter Jackson, I have a little thing to tell you. Have you seen any other Peter Jackson movies? If not than stop crediting him as the best director of all time( although I have seen some of his other movies, like Dead Alive, and still find them extremely entertaining). Also, Carlos H., every emotion possible is not just Thrills, happiness, and sadness. There still fear and regret and a ton more. Also, I didn't feel alot of sadness when I watched this movie, maybe thats just me though. Anyway, I hope everyone goes and sees this movie, it is just a movie to be seen, even if you hate it . b Expand
  89. NinjaMafia
    Dec 23, 2003
    8
    Ah, RoTK, the last film in the LoTR trilogy. So how does it stack up, well let us find out. Okay, the storyline everyone should have down by now, Frodo goes to Mt. Doom Gandalf and everyone else try to hold back an army of orcs and trolls and the like. I never read the book Return of the King, so I thought I would be a bit lost here and there, and I was. While I didn't get lost in Ah, RoTK, the last film in the LoTR trilogy. So how does it stack up, well let us find out. Okay, the storyline everyone should have down by now, Frodo goes to Mt. Doom Gandalf and everyone else try to hold back an army of orcs and trolls and the like. I never read the book Return of the King, so I thought I would be a bit lost here and there, and I was. While I didn't get lost in the story, a few of the characters had me bewildered. Like who the hell was that one girl by the boat at the end and who told Frodo to get up when he dreamt (?) he was in a field? I know this is targeted for people who have read the books, but I think a good book to movie transfer shouldn't have you questioning about who or what people are. Also, they didn't have enough of Arwen in this movie, hell, they didn't have enough of Arwen in all three movies. She was only at the begining and end of this one, hardly fitting for her. Also, during the big battle sequence beteween the orcs/trols and Gandalf and the elves and humans and such, there was one part of it towards the end that had me thinking, wow that is really cheap and extremely un-dramatic, I mean, they couldn't lose because of this. There also wasn't a lot that happened in this movie. It was three and a half hours long yet it seemed that movies that are and hour and a half long (not going to name any to protect myself, and those movies) seemed to have more done within them than this. Despite all these complaints, the movie does deliver on quite a few levels. The acting was great to begin with. The action was also really good. A few things here and there didn't make me like the action as much as I could have, but still, it was good. The movie's plot was also kind of good. But it feels that you need to have to watch all three movies in a row to get it, or you need to have just read the book. The entertainment was also pretty high. I found myself almost laughing at a few parts of the movie (It takes alot to actually make me laugh). I think alot of people will like this movie. Hell, a lot of people do like this movie. I just don't think that it should get as much praise as everyone is giving to it, maybe some of it, but I know someone out there has got to think that this is just an average movie. Also, to adress a few people here, King.... Mountain, first off, people like this movie a hell of alot more than Gothica, open your eyes, also, it is called fantasy, not role play. To everyone else out there that praises Peter Jackson, I have a little thing to tell you. Have you seen any other Peter Jackson movies? If not than stop crediting him as the best director of all time( although I have seen some of his other movies, like Dead Alive, and still find them extremely entertaining). Also, Carlos H., every emotion possible is not just Thrills, happiness, and sadness. There still fear and regret and a ton more. Also, I didn't feel alot of sadness when I watched this movie, maybe thats just me though. Anyway, I hope everyone goes and sees this movie, it is just a movie to be seen, even if you hate it . b Expand
  90. C.B.
    Dec 27, 2003
    2
    A long-winded, woodenly acted, suspenseless, humorless, violent, appallingly dull piece of computer-generated hype and hooey.
  91. SimonL.
    Dec 29, 2003
    0
    I loved loved loved the books and am EXTREMELY disappointed by this effort from Peter Jackson. It's basically just a special FX extravaganza. Did they just get an special FX company to make the film or something? Where was all the emotional, dramatic aspects written in the books? They have gone for the big FX film, and they got it. It makes a lot of money but it has NO heart or soul.
  92. MPeterson
    Dec 31, 2003
    9
    LOTR:ROTK is grand cinema; telling well the story of redemption.
  93. RebeccaR.
    Dec 31, 2003
    0
    Very disappointing. I actually liked the first two movies, but this one screamed out "OSCAR! We want Oscars!". Sean Astin's scene next to Mount Doom is embarassing.
  94. Dec 30, 2011
    8
    Great, masterful work, would have given it 10 but Elijah Wood, Liv Tyler and the awful Cate Blanchett have way too much cheese in their acting, other than that, an epic adventure, and one of the best fantasy movies of our time. Funny though, George RR Martins 'Game of Thrones', is a far better book and far better on screen...
  95. Mar 29, 2011
    8
    In a way, this was better than the last two movies, but the reason I'm giving it the same score as the last two was because Christopher Lee's scene was deleted (which is such a big shame, considering he is one of the best actors ever).
  96. Oct 13, 2012
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The book could very easily have been made into two films; there is such a lot that happens and so many twists in the plot that it might have benefitted if that were the case. But we Expand
  97. Dec 26, 2010
    9
    You guys who gave this a 0 are trolling, right? I've read the books, watched the films, both are amazing, really can't see how people are giving this 0s and 1s.. that's about all.
  98. Dec 28, 2012
    8
    Though the ending is padded a bit, it is still another brilliant Lord of the Rings adaptation,and will forever stand as an example of quality big-budget cinema with impeccable acting and a satisfying climax.
  99. Nov 22, 2012
    9
    Not as good as people made it out to be. Visually, It's the best the series has been but story-wise it's rather stupid. The whole relying on ghosts thing just irks me for some reason. Action is suprisingly even better then the previous film and it's very satisfying to watch as well. A satisfying ending to the trilogy.
  100. Mar 17, 2012
    9
    To be honest, "The Return of the King", is truly a spectacular movie, however I can see why people dislike it, due to it's fantasy based story-line, and it's slight differences between the novels. However, it is still truly a stunning movie, both visually and mentally. It does an amazing job in capturing the sense of both dread and hope, particularly in the siege of Minas Tirith. However ITo be honest, "The Return of the King", is truly a spectacular movie, however I can see why people dislike it, due to it's fantasy based story-line, and it's slight differences between the novels. However, it is still truly a stunning movie, both visually and mentally. It does an amazing job in capturing the sense of both dread and hope, particularly in the siege of Minas Tirith. However I have to admit that it's epilogue is almost 20 minutes too long, and slightly "cheesy". But the main kill for this movie not being a 10, is the placing of the climax, the movie flows almost perfectly throughout the first half of the movie, then a truly amazing scene takes place, and due to the length of the scene and the emotions flowing through the audience, one really does feel that "this is it... that's the climax, the best part of the whole film", however it isn't and the rest of the hour was just looked at as a epilogue, which makes it boringly dull afterwards, also the true climax is nowhere close to the power shown in the previously mentioned scene. And this kills the movie's epilogue for me. Expand
Metascore
94

Universal acclaim - based on 41 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 40 out of 41
  2. Negative: 0 out of 41
  1. The conclusion of Peter Jackson's masterwork is passionate and literate, detailed and expansive, and it's conceived with a risk-taking flair for old-fashioned movie magic at its most precious.
  2. Reviewed by: David Hunter
    100
    An epic success and a history-making production that finishes with a masterfully entertaining final installment.
  3. Reviewed by: David Ansen
    100
    The second installment was better than the first, and this one is best of all. It has spectacular action scenes and imaginary creatures, and it’s by far the most moving chapter. The performances have deepened.