Return of the King

I just saw The Return of the King. Love it.
Can’t what for the extended DVD version. :D
What’s the opinion on it??

Without any argument, I would say it is the best of the three. I loved this one much more than the previous two for a few reasons. One of them being the pacing, it was much smoother, and, compared to the other two, there was little “drag” time. Our characters were already so well developed from the previous two that there was no need to drag-on with some boring detail. We did manage to get a few new details, but they were brief and did not dull the story telling. However, looking back on the pervious films, all the minor flaws from LOTR1 & LOTR2 begin to make sense, now, as everything is sown up so neatly in “Return of the King.”

The characters quests are still split as we endured in “The Two Towers,” but the cuts between each characters adventure is put together much better in ROFK. I really cannot think of a time I was confused, distracted, or bored with the films overall flow and delivery. The films “eye candy,” alone, was enough entertainment to satisfy my senses for years to come. To me, it was a film that delivered the traditional elements that any moviegoers enjoy: action, adventure, romance, comedy, an entertaining story and some of the best cinematography to hit the big screen.

The only thing I could complain about is the ending took a long time to happen. However, it was necessary in order to tie up all the loose ends and bring the tale into full circle. In other words folks, there is a load of loose ends to cover, so be patient because it is well worth every minute. Not that I find this a flaw in the film, it’s just one of those movies that tricks you into thinking the credits are going to roll up, but instead, you get tossed into another closing chapter. However, as I said, it is necessary in order to complete the story.

In the end, I was very satisfied, and looking back, the entire trilogy is a remarkable achievement in film history. ROTK is by far my very favorite of the three. It is definitely my favorite film of 2003 and probably my very favorite of the new millennium. I strongly advise catching ROTK on the big screen before you miss the opportunity.

10/10

;) :D

I agree!! What an incredible movie! Visually phenominal... CG effects outstanding... it even had me cheering for Eowyn after she sliced off the head of the Fell Beast that the Witch King was riding on! I love it when movies give you the "wow" reaction! I have never read the books, but a couple of friends that went with me said that they didn't see anything that was left out from the book... ergo, they didn't see anything they could add to the "extended edition" when (if?) it comes out. Speaking of the dvd... with this being the last of the films, there's no reason for the studios to wait to release the "extended edition" until next November... so logically speaking can we reasonably expect a standard dvd release date of 6 or so months from now?

- Nachtkriechen

Just saw this last Saturday and all I can say is....Whoa!

I enjoyed this film tremendously. The denouement is definitely long with several false climaxes, but all was tidied up without feeling overly sentimental. It felt like all involved were legitimately motivated to do what they did. And I know everyone keeps saying that Andy Serkis deserves an Oscar nod, which he does, but I would have to say that Sean Astin pulled of an incredibly moving and genuine perfomance as Sam. Funny to think I mainly remember him from the Goonies! Seems he might actually have some chops!

Also, Eddie, I recall you were not too impressed with Two Towers. I'd love to hear your thoughts on Return of the King (as well as everyone else's of course!). :D

don't be awed simply by the effects.

As a budding screenwriter, its the story that matters the most. Case in point. I slept through most of the action sequences in Reloaded and Revolutions. the diff with ROTK is that its shot at once and the characters are interesting...

I would much rather hear a great record on vinyl than a mediocre record on the top of the line, technically superior CD format :D

The great thing about the stroy is that it came from one of the masterworks of literature in the last century, so that probably helped, unlike those damned Matrix movies. I was just awed by the entire film. I checked my watch once in the film and 2 hours had gone by! This is easily the best film of the year, decade, millennium. Porbably passing my old favorite Pulp Fiction. Now I can't wait for the extended cut, because geeks like me knew what was lacking (though I wasn't as bothered by it as some other people I saw it with). One great film.

I haven't gotten around to watching "LOTR 3" because I was in Las Vegas for a few days, and I want to avoid the crush of people in theatres for it. However, since my colleague Olen Anderson wrote a theatrical review for the movie, I won't be saying anything about it until John and I write our joint review of the 2-disc DVD release (assuming that New Line is releasing the theatrical version first before releasing a 4-disc EE). I do like what I saw in the trailers, so hopefully, I'll like the movie a lot, too. :)

Skspence, I understand your use of the words "film" and "movie" to differentiate between memorable and disposable motion pictures, but when you think about it, that's just a play on words. "Film", "movie", and "motion picture" all mean the same thing. Given that, I don't think that we can ever be "too serious" about movies because they can be as much "high art" as a great book, painting, symphony, etc. It's only "too serious" when someone thinks that there's nothing else in the world but movies (in which case that person needs to be put in an asylum anyway).

I too am working on a screenplay, so yes, of course the story is the most important aspect. However, there is nothing wrong with enjoying a film based on its technical merits and story. Heck, sometimes it's fun to watch a brainless movie just for the effects, sound, fights, etc.

Am I writing an effects-laden story? No, mine is a very personal story. But not everyone likes the kind of story I want to tell, so they write their own stories (sci-fi, fantasy, action, thriller, horror, etc.) to appeal to people with similar interests. This is their art, and should be judged as such subjectively.

Not everything needs to be a literary masterpiece. Popcorn fluff can be just as entertaining if that's the mood you are in. This can be construed as the difference between a FILM and a MOVIE as many are often in the habit of doing. As my wife likes to remind me, in her eyes a FILM stands the test of time; it is a classic touching on deeper themes, but a MOVIE is entertainment only. Though it may be fun, it tends to skirt deeper issues and go simply for entertainment value. Both a FILM and a MOVIE can be enjoyed in its own right.

I think we miss the mark sometimes when we expect our entertainment to be on par with Shakespeare, Marlowe, Steinbeck, etc. Movies are a form of mass entertainment, just as books are, and as we all know, there are just as many, if not more, stinkers in print as there are on the screen. Taste is extremely subjective, and that is what makes it such a refreshing quality. Our personal idea of aesthetic is what makes art what it is.

However, I do feel that just as some stories tend to be universally loved, others are likewise universally abhorred. It's very much like the idea Joseph Cambell puts forth. If the story contains those fundamentals of myth that seem to tap into something inside of all of us, then it is generally regaled. But if those fundamentals are lacking, the story will meet with negative criticism.

One reason I enjoy this site so much is that the reviewers give their thorough opinions, but do not attempt to foist those opinions on the reader; they simply base their comments on their personal aesthetic and leave the reader open to determine his/her own like/dislike of the movie.

Whoa, waxing way too philosophical! (Personal note: these are just movies!)

Thanks for the great site! :D

Calling it "LOTR 3" makes you sound bad. Just a word of advice, its called ROTK, or LOTR: ROTK.

Ok anyway, yeah it was a great movie, I cant wait for the Extended Edition (its going to be over 5 hours, according to Peter Jackson), theres a ton of stuff that I could tell wasnt in the theatrical version.

Predator, have you not been reading any of the discussions that have taken place here at DVD Town? There's nothing wrong with referring to "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" as "LOTR 3". In fact, "LOTR 1", "LOTR 2", and "LOTR 3" are abbreviations that have been in common use amongst people who discuss the three parts of Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings", which is actually supposed to be ONE book and not three anyway. The fact of the matter is that the titles "The Fellowship of the Ring", "The Two Towers", and "The Return of the King" were applied by Tolkien's publisher when "LOTR" was split into three books, and Tolkien detested the titles. Therefore, the argument could be made that making/watching three movies based on "LOTR" is a continued blasphemy against Tolkien's wishes.

The question is, do we continue to nitpick over what abbreviations to use, or do we discuss the movies that were made? Your choice, people.