User Score
8.9

Universal acclaim- based on 2550 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream 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

User Reviews

  1. SallyL.
    Jan 1, 2004
    0
    This film screams "OSCAR!" and it got annoying about half an hour into the film.
  2. KateKim
    Jan 20, 2004
    1
    This whole thing just doesn't make sense. 1 star for the pretty nice visual effects.
  3. Harriet
    Jan 2, 2004
    2
    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.
  4. Arleen
    Jan 4, 2004
    2
    Found it very childish with redundant battle scenes. Not my cup of tea. Sorry.
  5. DavidR.
    Jan 5, 2004
    3
    Much ado about nothing. Too long.
  6. RobertH.
    Jan 8, 2004
    2
    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.
  7. Forweg
    Mar 5, 2004
    0
    Tolkien deserves better than this trash. I miss you, Ghan-buri-Ghan.
  8. Bass
    Apr 20, 2006
    0
    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 the disk-you'll be making the world a better place.
  9. MikeG.
    Dec 18, 2003
    1
    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 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
  10. BobB.
    Jan 1, 2004
    0
    BORING.
  11. BobB.
    Jan 1, 2004
    0
    BORING.
  12. AndrewK.
    Jan 10, 2004
    1
    Very uninspiring. I actually loved the first one, liked the second and now hated this one. What is it with sequels?
  13. CormacP.
    Jan 15, 2004
    3
    It's a very messy, dull and unfaithfull retelling of a silly, confused and overrated book.
  14. RachelW.
    Jan 17, 2004
    3
    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.
  15. RichardL.
    Jan 19, 2004
    2
    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.
  16. JoeB.
    Jan 2, 2004
    0
    BORING and a massive waste of time. The ending is as predictable as a soap opera. Crap.
  17. JawadS.
    Jan 2, 2004
    0
    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.
  18. WaltD.
    Jan 24, 2004
    2
    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.
  19. Goliath
    Jan 2, 2004
    3
    Saw it this weekend and was not impressed. Thought it was boring to say the least. Not my cup of tea.
  20. JR
    Jan 2, 2004
    0
    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.
  21. DwayneR.
    Jan 3, 2004
    1
    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.
  22. SimonK.
    Jan 8, 2004
    0
    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.
  23. SteveI.
    Jan 8, 2004
    0
    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.
  24. FreidaL.
    Jan 8, 2004
    3
    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.
  25. JasonA.
    Feb 10, 2004
    3
    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...
  26. RogerK.
    Feb 11, 2004
    3
    Not impressed at all. Too busy and long.
  27. SusanA.
    Feb 19, 2004
    3
    Way overrated. Below average.
  28. Serena
    Feb 6, 2004
    0
    11 Oscars? It should've been 11 Razzies especially in the acting department.
  29. brandonb
    Mar 27, 2004
    3
    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!, 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 guysi 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
  30. DitchDiggerno
    Mar 9, 2005
    1
    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.
  31. TacoM.
    Oct 9, 2006
    1
    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 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
  32. D.B.
    Feb 5, 2006
    3
    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 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
  33. JacksonG.
    Jan 4, 2007
    3
    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.
  34. ChristopherE
    May 7, 2009
    3
    Half way through this movie, my girlfriend and I lost interest and started talking instead - luckily, we were at the drive-in.
  35. JoeC.
    Dec 10, 2003
    0
    Boooring crap. Better than TTT, but not as good as FOTR.
  36. SammyK.
    Dec 10, 2003
    0
    How is this movie getting such good reviews. It was absolutely awful and extremely tedious.
  37. J
    Dec 12, 2003
    0
    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 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 junkAll 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? Collapse
  38. bw
    Dec 16, 2003
    0
    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 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 ofthis 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
  39. BrianK.
    Dec 18, 2003
    2
    The movie is way too boring. I almost fell asleep. I mean, seriously, the movie could have ended sooner but they have to draw it out.
  40. SweetAngel
    Dec 19, 2003
    0
    So boring!
  41. 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
  42. TeddyB.
    Jan 14, 2004
    1
    Is it over yet? Sorry, but it did not move me at all. Overrated terribly.
  43. 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.
  44. 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.
  45. 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.
  46. MistressMalevolent
    Jan 31, 2004
    0
    Seriously, save your money and time!
  47. CarolAnnC.
    Jan 31, 2004
    3
    Just didn't do it for me.
  48. 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.
  49. 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.
  50. 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
  51. Tina
    Feb 4, 2004
    0
    Arrogant and egotistic.
  52. JimL.
    Mar 10, 2004
    2
    Derivative, no characterisation, maudlin, and why did gollum look like a rubber version of ET ?
  53. 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.
  54. 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.
  55. 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!
  56. RyanS
    Aug 7, 2009
    0
    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 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
  57. JohnS.
    Dec 13, 2003
    0
    The worst film I've ever seen.
  58. 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!
  59. 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.
  60. 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.
  61. 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.
  62. 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
  63. 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.
  64. 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
  65. 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
  66. Henry
    Jan 29, 2004
    2
    Much ado about nothing.
  67. CaptainStarr
    Feb 14, 2004
    3
    Disappointing.
  68. JamesP.
    Feb 29, 2004
    3
    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. 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
  69. 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.
  70. PatrickS
    Jun 22, 2004
    2
    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 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 thisWhile 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
  71. 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.
  72. 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
  73. 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
  74. 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.
  75. MatthewP.
    Dec 15, 2003
    1
    Painfully boring, depressingly overrated.
  76. EricM.
    Dec 17, 2003
    0
    How, how, how is this considered "good"?
  77. 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!
  78. 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
  79. 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. Expand
  80. C.B.
    Dec 27, 2003
    2
    A long-winded, woodenly acted, suspenseless, humorless, violent, appallingly dull piece of computer-generated hype and hooey.
  81. 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.
  82. 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.
  83. IsaacM
    Dec 18, 2007
    0
    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 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
  84. Oct 26, 2014
    0
    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
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. 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.