Review of "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" (2003)

[horror]

"Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" (2003) - Director: Peter Jackson - Starring Elijah Wood, Ian McKellan, Andy Serkis. [details (http://www.horror.com/php/article-349-1.html)]

[Unregistered]

Theoden is Eowyn's Uncle, not father. Sorry to be a nitpicker about this.

[Unregistered]

Besides your Théoden is Éowyn's father faux pas: a troll in the fellowship swearing to see the ring destroyed? What film were you watching?

[Unregistered]

Also, sorry to nitpick, but Philipa Boyens is not PJ's wife! Fran Walsh is his "life partner" (they're not actually married, I believe).

[Unregistered]

You people who complain about the "multiple" endings are just plain ignorant. There is only one ending here and it is exactly how it is supposed to be. Peter Jackson was finishing up not one movie here but three, and these are movies that detail the story of the ring and its consequences. You truncate the ending and then you wouldn't see the effects of the ring: "Time does not heal all wounds" is a critical and central theme. Lopping off the movie at the Minas Tirith celebration would be a glorious ending indeed, on the scale of the ending of Phantom Menace. But what makes this movie as great as it is, is the sensitivity to these critical themes, not relying on a crappy hollywood ending formula, and bringing the story back down to a human (well, hobbit) level. It's a beautiful ending. An incredible denouement that says that a "happily ever after" is simply not possible. Those who complain about this conclusion should give it a moment's thought. Please.

[Unregistered]

I agree. I actually went to the Trilogy Tuesday event, and saw all three movies in a row. And even though I have read the books 6 times, I have not read them in the last years. But I do the true ending, and Mr. JAckson did it right. I would have been very dissappointed with the hollywood ending. Aren't there enough movies that do that? This is better than a hollywood movie. This is a gift from fans, to fans of the story, the characters, and the long history of middle earth itself.

[coldwhisper]

Originally posted by Unregistered
You people who complain about the "multiple" endings are just plain ignorant. There is only one ending here and it is exactly how it is supposed to be. Peter Jackson was finishing up not one movie here but three, and these are movies that detail the story of the ring and its consequences. You truncate the ending and then you wouldn't see the effects of the ring: "Time does not heal all wounds" is a critical and central theme. Lopping off the movie at the Minas Tirith celebration would be a glorious ending indeed, on the scale of the ending of Phantom Menace. But what makes this movie as great as it is, is the sensitivity to these critical themes, not relying on a crappy hollywood ending formula, and bringing the story back down to a human (well, hobbit) level. It's a beautiful ending. An incredible denouement that says that a "happily ever after" is simply not possible. Those who complain about this conclusion should give it a moment's thought. Please.

I agree. Twas a great ending indeed! This movie ROCKS!

[Unregistered]

Grima Wormtongue was not in Fellowship - he was in Two Towers.

[Unregistered]

I'M GOING I'M GOING AGAIN TONIGHT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Unregistered]

It's a masterpiece.I will go again and again!! But one question.What about Sarouman's death?Hope it will be in the DVD special extended edition.

[Unregistered]

The first objector is right (and all those chiming in who agree with him or her)
You can't have a real telling, an honest telling, of the LOTR without the unhappy endings too--the passing of the elves from middle-earth, the Ringbearers going with them, the end of the friendship between Frodo and his brother hobbits. The big arc of the LOTR story is how the world once was full of the stuff of "magic" and "miracles" and how it came to lose its charm and became the plainer world that we know dominated by humankind and the humdrum forces of physics, chemistry and economics. That simple statement doesn't do justice to the sadness and sense of loss that haunts the trilogy. For following generations of mankind the world will lose a great deal of its color--no wizards, no elves, no titanic struggles of good (capital G ) versus Evil. The Hobbits will likely face an uncertain fate (what competing species have we ever let live? And do you seen signs of Hobbits ever making any longrange, outward looking plans, or cross-species threat assessments?) For the Elves and all the super-human grace, mysterious power, and natural harmony they represent, this is the Big Goodbye to the land of their birth, where all their cultural memories are rooted. Yes, most of them know Valinor's sights and sounds, but all the places named in their songs are here in ME. They're leaving voluntarily but they're taking what's left of the magic and the wonder with them. For those that know what will be missing, and will see the gaping hole in the new Reality everyday, like Frodo Baggins would, the pain of this knowledge will blight the rest of their lives, that is one reason he is compelled to leave with them. Which leaves Man in sole possession over the mighty Anduin, the Misty Mountains and several million acres of virgin forest. I think we know how that turns out.

As Gandalf reminds his Hobbit friends there are narrow limits governing the ability of mortals to imagine and dispose events "just right"-- which to exceed is arrogance and a come on to Tragedy. What if Gandalf had not advised Frodo of his pitiful powers to dispense justice and Frodo had let Sam kill Gollum when he first had a mind to? Likewise, he says, mortals should remember that no great triumph will be won without also a permanent loss and change. To want Everything to work out 100% to one's perfect satisfaction, without remainders, tradeoffs, without blowback of unintended consequences, or without sacrifices of a permanent nature, not merely temporary setbacks and easily repaired dings and vacancies, to expect total victory with a side order of Hollywood style "happy ending" gratis, and to act disappointed when you don't get it --well that's the kind of thinking that got Sauron in trouble in the first place. LOTR is and must be primarily an action picture, but to ignore Tolkien's ending altogether and write his wistfulness, regret and elegaic themes out of the picture would have been a betrayal so ironic and contemptuous that I feel sure Peter Jackson decided at some point that could not live with himself if he gave in to what likely was enormous pressure from Newline to end the pic with Aragorn's coronation and smiles all around. I'm very glad he didn't.

[Unregistered]

Great Review

[Unregistered]

Nice Review. But, I would have been terribly disappointed if the last spoken words, "Well, I'm back." had not been included. The ending at the Shire with Sam and Rosie was a must for me, as was the the farewell at The Grey Havens.

I think that they did a FANTASTIC job of melding the novels with the things necessary to bring it to the screen. I'm a huge fan of the novels and they did just enough to delight me without offending me. Could have been better, but was undeniably great nontheless!

[Unregistered]

What??? You mean Sauron loses? What a disappointment. Oh, drat. Now I don't have to go see the movie.

Same damn thing as Titanic. If someone hadn't tipped me off that the ship was going to sink I would have enjoyed that movie.

[Unregistered]

To end this movie on a "bang" is a tired, unamaginitive movie cliche, one which this film does not need. Short. plot based "Indiana Jones" movies need "bang" endings...not epic films of literary masterpieces. Anyone willing to sit through 3+ hours of movie can sit through 20 minutes of film Coda.

[mai]

This is in reply to 'About the endings'. You are so right. The movie had to show the sadness of the passing of elves and wizards and magic from Middle Earth. The time of Man had come, and how diminished it would be without all the beings that once shared Middle Earth with men.

I was disapointed not to see the four hobbits cleanse the Shire of Grima Wormtongue and his minions. I, for one, wouldn't have minded sitting there for another 1/2 hour.

[Unregistered]

I concur with everything already said here. The Grey Havens and Sam's return to the Rosie Cotton had to be included. otherwise how could the film stay faithful to the book's ending. Anyone who disagrees are sadly out of touch with the book's final message.

[Unregistered]

I read another review of the series which pointed out something about the elves which I had never thought about.
They are all about suspending change, not going with it. The magic of the rings was used by them as a preservative. Granted that their special enclaves were beautiful but I suspect that the reason JRR doesn't place Galadriel or the lord of Rivendell into the battle is that they are too much pressed with just keeping the status quo at home.
If LOTR brings anything home to me, it is that change is inevitable and thus working to affect the nature of changes is the only good option. This is why the third age ends with the destruction of the ring and why the elves leave. They cannot halt the changes that will come and so they choose to skip out instead.

[Unregistered]

how nice to see so many folk who really "get" the underlying theme of sadness that permeates the trilogy, as seen in the
responses defending the endings, particularly the farewell of Frodo as he sails off with Gandalf and Bilbo to the grey havens, and Sam's "Well, I'm back" as the final words to the story. I think in some way, LOTR was Tolkien's personal explanation of why he lived in a world that seemed bereft of magic and men living alongside magical races, and his elegy to that loss.

Of course the films had to end the way they did. The aftermath of the Quest is as important as the quest itself, and to give that short shrift would certainly have been to betray a major theme of the entire story.

[crazy clown]

i thought that the endings were needed.

[JCinKansas]

I will never forget how I felt at the end of the book, when Sam returns after all that has gone before in his experience (and mine) and says his 'Well, I'm back'. It was such an overwhelming sense of accomplishment and loss that I felt that I had completed the quest with all the heroes I had come to know. I have read it several times and at that moment each time, I don't know if I can leave it. I want to start again, to go back to the middle, anything so I don't have to leave that middle world for this one. The movie honors that feeling which I can recall having very few times in a long lifetime of searching for just such an experience. To have left the story before it was told could not have been done by Peter Jackson or anyone who had LOTR in their heart. And if there was one thing that was clear after all the story had been told, and I sat in the theater wanting to go back out and buy another ticket: Peter Jackson had LOTR in his heart.

[komosh]

I think this was a powerful movie to be reckoned with.