Disc Specs

  • Region:
    1
  • Released:
    Out now
  • Country:
    United States of America
  • Running Time:
    200 minutes
  • Screen Format:
    2.39:1 Anamorphic NTSC
  • Discs / Sides / Layers:
    2 / 1 / Dual
  • Soundtracks:
    English Dolby Digital 5.1 EX
    English Dolby Surround 2.0
  • Subtitles:
    English
    Spanish
  • Special Features:
    The Quest Fulfilled: a director's vision
    A Filmmaker's Journey: making The Return of the King
    National Geographic Special
    Lordoftherings.net featurettes
    Theatrical trailers
    TV spots
    Trilogy supertrailer
    EA video games trailer
  • Distributor:
    New Line

Film Specs

  • Certificate:
    PG-13
  • Released:
    2003
  • Country:
    New Zealand
  • Director:
    Peter Jackson
    Fran Walsh (opening sequence)
  • Starring:
    Elijah Wood
    Ian McKellen
    Liv Tyler
    Viggo Mortensen
    Sean Astin
    Cate Blanchett
    John Rhys-Davies
    Bernard Hill
    Billy Boyd
    Dominic Monaghan
    Orlando Bloom
    Hugo Weaving
    Miranda Otto
    David Wenham
    Karl Urban
    John Noble
    Andy Serkis
    Ian Holm
    Sean Bean
  • Genre(s):
    Action
    Blockbuster
    Fantasy
    Film
    Live Action

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

24-06-2004 16:00 | 12079 views  |  Michael Mackenzie  |  Show Backlinks  |  Other "The Lord of the Rings" Content

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is a film that needs no introduction. The third and final part in New Zealand filmmaker Peter Jackson's big-budget movie adaptation of the novel by JRR Tolkien, it set box office records and was the winner of eleven Academy Awards. Films such as these have a tendency to generate a bandwagon fan-base, with critics and viewers alike praising them to the heavens, regardless of whatever flaws they might have. This jaded reviewer, a fan of the original book, maintains the opinion that, while the film adaptations are good, they are vastly overrated. This review will attempt to explain why.

At the start of The Return of the King, the Ringbearer Frodo (Elijah Wood) and his gardener Sam (Sean Astin) are being led towards Mordor by Gollum (whose voice and motion capture reference are provided by Andy Serkis), on their quest to destroy the One Ring. Meanwhile, fresh from their victory against Saruman, the rest of the Fellowship head back to Edoras with King Théoden and his men for a night of partying. The festivities are disrupted, however, when Pippin (Billy Boyd) looks into a mysterious glass ball that was found among the wreckage at Isengard. This seeing stone reveals him to the Dark Lord Sauron, who becomes convinced that he is the Ringbearer. Sensing an opportunity to distract Sauron, Gandalf (Ian McKellen) takes Pippin to Minas Tirith, the last bastion of defence against Sauron's forces, hoping to keep the focus on Minas Tirith to buy Frodo some time. The trick works, and Sauron sends all his forces against Minas Tirith. Meanwhile, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) decides that the best way of aiding the beleaguered forces of Minas Tirith is to take the Paths of the Dead and enlist the aid of the Oathbreakers, an army of ghosts cursed to remain on the mortal plain until the oaths they broke are fulfilled.

It's an incredibly complex story, due in part to the massive number of characters, locations and agendas, and those who have not seen the first two installments in the trilogy will be at a complete loss if they even try to figure out what's happening. I suspect that such individuals will be few and far between, however, and it is to the filmmakers' credit that they assume at least some form of basic intelligence on the audience's part, rather than spelling everything out.


The film begins with a scene directed by Jackson's wife, co-writer and producer Fran Walsh. It deals with how Gollum game upon the Ring, and was originally intended to appear in The Two Towers, immediately after Frodo called him by his real name. It's a shame this scene was moved, since while it makes for a strong opening to this film (indeed, it convinced me that Walsh is a better director than Jackson), it indiectly refers to a number of moments that would have surrounded it in its original location (the use of Gollum's name and the cry of "murderer", for example).

Indeed, it soon becomes clear that poor planning and bad scene placement are the film's biggest problems. Thanks to these films essentially being assembled in the cutting room rather than at script level, it becomes clear that Jackson changed his mind about several elements, even when different parts of the trilogy had already been released. The most publicized of these is Saruman's confrontation with Gandalf and subsequent denouement, which was originally meant to come at the end of The Two Towers, then at the start of The Return of the King, then dropped altogether. (And nothing anyone says will convince me that keeping the defeat of a major villain off-screen is a good idea.) Equally clumsy is the treatment of the character of Arwen, who in the first half of The Fellowship of the Ring was depicted as something of a battle-savvy ranger, and indeed was intended to appear in the battle at Helm's Deep in The Two Towers, before her character was altered to that of a simpering fairy princess. In fact, her arrival at the end of the film as Aragorn's token bride makes you wonder what the big deal was (you're better off with Éowyn, Aragorn).

As was the case with The Two Towers, a fair amount of the film's running time is comprised of epic battle scenes. While well choreographed, and impressively managing to mix CG with live action almost seamlessly, they all follow a rather predictable pattern, with each battle being played out in the same manner: they all begin with troops charging at each other and bombastic music soaring; then, the troops collide and the music stops; we are now treated to various shaky-cam shots of soldiers fighting, generally with each shot lasting less than a second; eventually, the tide of the battle turns in the enemy's favour, the action goes into slow motion, and a female solo voice begins singing a mournful, wordless tune; various shots are now shown of one of the film's heroes looking around in wide-eyed horror as he sees various comrades being cut down. The tide of the battle then either turns in the heroes' favour, or we cut to a different scene. While this could have been a successful model if used sparingly, the fact that each fight receives the same treatment means that, after a while, I no longer care.


That's not to say that there aren't a number of good elements in the film. Indeed, a number of set-pieces are impressively well-handled, for example the rousing speech Aragorn gives to his troops as they prepare to face off against Sauron's forces outside the Black Gate, even if it is more or less cribbed from a similar scene in Braveheart. Additionally, the moment where Éowyn (Miranda Otto) confronts the Lord of the Nazgûl is beautifully performed and very emotional. Every now and then, Jackson throws in some very impressive imagery, even if his composition for the 2.39:1 frame is at times inept. In terms of acting, there are a number of superb performances, especially Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn who, for someone who had never read the book and was only cast after principal photography had already begun, seems to be more in touch with his character than anyone else. Yet for every Viggo Mortensen and Ian McKellen, there is an Elijah Wood and an Orlando Bloom (Legolas). Bloom in particular is as wooden as the arrows he fires from his bow, and Wood is thoroughly outclassed in every single scene by Sean Astin. Liv Tyler (Arwen) is also woefully miscast, since while she handled the swashbuckling ranger of the first half of The Fellowship of the Ring with ease, she it out of her league when trying to portray her character as written in the rest of the trilogy. It is also somewhat disappointing to see a number of the characters left behind in this third chapter. In particular, Legolas and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) become little more than window-dressing, and Éomer (Karl Urban), Éowyn and Farmir (David Wenham) all seem to be brushed to one side after the Battle of Pelennor Fields in the middle of the film.

The most publicized aspect of these movies has probably been the portrayal of Gollum, often inaccurately credited solely to Andy Serkis - a true shame, because it means that many people ignore the outstanding efforts of the various character designers, modelers and animators who made him so much more than a man in a white latex suit. Certainly, Gollum represents a milestone in computer graphics, and while he never actually convinced me as a real person (he often stands out too much from the background, and his interactions with the real actors look unnatural), he is undeniably a superb technical feat.

Overall, The Return of the King is my least favourite of the trilogy, and while I certainly enjoyed it slightly more when watching it again on DVD than I did when I saw it at the cinema, it has too many flaws for me to appreciate it fully. While The Fellowship of the Ring felt like a road trip adventure and The Two Towers was an action movie, The Return of the King comes across as something of a tangled web, without a definite idea of where it wants to go. It also doesn't help that, at 200 minutes, this is the most bloated of the three films. While individual elements are quite successful, as a whole it is rather inconsistent, and I simply don't believe it to be deserving of the praise it has received.




Picture

The film is presented anamorphically in its original 2.39:1 aspect ratio. (A separate pan & scan version is also available.)

The image quality of this release is slightly better than that of the previous two Lord of the Rings films (both the theatrical cut and extented edition DVDs), in that it shows a little more fine detail. A great deal of filtering is still being applied, destroying the filmic look and reducing entropy by a fair amount, but at least now some detail is visible. The colours are alternately rich and muted when the occasion calls for them to be, and the contrast is very deep. I spotted no compression problems, which is a pretty impressive achievement given that 200 minutes of material is crammed on to a single disc, and the average bit rate is a low 5.18 Mbps. It does at times have a slightly crushed look, something that the Extended Edition, which will split the film over two discs, will probably improve on.

As was the case with the previous two films in the trilogy, note that the theatrical trailers presented on disc 2 are noticeably sharper than the film itself, especially the first trailer, pictured below:


Above: DVD transfer.

Above: theatrical trailer 1 transfer.


(Differences in colour are the result of digital grading applied to the finished movie by the filmmakers.)

Look at how much more detail is present in Miranda Otto's face and hair, and in Bernard Hill's hands. Notice also how much finer and more film-like the grain is, visible even in this static shot. These static images don't do this comparison justice, however: they really have to be experienced in motion, side by side, to appreciate the difference in quality. Had the film itself featured a transfer of the same quality as this trailer, I would unequivocally have handed out an all-too-rare 10/10 for image quality. As it is, though, this is merely a good transfer rather than an excellent one. I would like to think that New Line might improve the transfer for the upcoming Extended Edition, but I hoped for exactly the same thing with the Extended Editions of the previous two films and was disappointed both times.



Sound

As is customary with the 2-disc releases of The Lord of the Rings, The Return of the King gets a thunderous Dolby Digital 5.1 EX track. Loudness is the name of the game here, and as befits the no-holds-barred action of the film itself, there are plenty of split channel effects and lots of bass. Past experience has shown, however, that the DTS-ES 6.1 tracks of the Extended Editions have improved on their Dolby counterparts, so there is probably better still to come.

English and Spanish subtitles, as well as English closed captions, are included.




Packaging

The two discs are housed in a dual amaray case. The cover and insert artwork is fairly good, in keeping with the look of the previous two 2-disc sets. The insert includes listings for all 60 (!) chapters, as well as a list of bonus features and instructions on DVD handling. Also included are a rebate for the Extended Edition and a catalogue for various overpriced tie-in trinkets, neither of which will be of any use to UK customers.




Menu

The menus are fairly attractive, but their transitions are a little over-long and too frequent. We don't really need extensive fading animation just so we can switch from one screen of extras to the next, do we?




Extras

As with the 2-disc releases of the previous two films in the trilogy, this set features no commentaries or extras specially produced for the DVD. Instead, it is comprised of trailers and various made-for-TV documentaries, none of which match the scope or quality of those present on the Extended Editions, but nonetheless are fairly interesting. All the extras are on disc 2, and all include English and Spanish subtitles.

The Quest Fulfilled: a director's vision - Unlike previous featurettes included on the 2-disc releases, this 22-minute documentary actually takes a fairly in-depth look at the genesis of the films, covering Peter Jackson's early struggles to interest studios in the concept, as well as problems that faced he and his writers during the process of adapting the book to the screen, casting, reshoots, and so on. I expect a number of readers will have already seen this documentary on ITV1. Presented in non-anamorphic 1.78:1. Image quality is acceptable, but suffers from quite a lot of dot crawl and smudging.

A Filmmaker's Journey: making The Return of the King - This 30-minute documentary repeats a number of the interviews and is along much the same lines as the previous one. Essentially both give the same information, only with different narration, graphics, music and film clips. Presented in non-anamorphic 1.78:1, the image quality is not particularly good, consistently soft, with uneven colours and a fair amount of bleeding, especially for the clips from the films themselves.

National Geographic Special - This 45-minute documentary attempts to draw parallels between the events in the films and actual historical events. This is the kind of thing that would have annoyed Tolkien no end, since he despised allegory, but it makes for a relatively interesting, if completely speculative, piece of work.

Lordoftherings.net featurettes - These six short featurettes were originally created for the internet, and as such they are brief, relatively lightweight, and quite poor in image quality. There is some interesting material here, but ultimately they do not go into enough detail to be particularly informative. Generally, what we're seeing here is the kind of thing that is greatly expanded on in the Extended Editions' extras. Presented in anamorphic 1.78:1.

Two theatrical trailers and thirteen TV spots are also included, as well as a trilogy supertrailer, which has a 6:30 running time and essentially gives a condensed overview of the first two films, as well as including much of the material from the trailers for The Return of the King. A neat feature, but essentially a useless one.

Finally, there is a three-minute EA video games trailer, briefly covering the game adaptations of the trilogy. No more than marketing fluff, actually.

Overall, this is a below average line-up of extras, but that was to be expected given past experiences with the 2-disc editions of these films. One thing I missed seeing was a preview for the Extended Edition, which was included on the 2-disc releases of both The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers.




Conclusion

While not perfect, this release of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King should tide fans over until the Extended Edition is released in November/December this year. Whether or not the longer cut of the film will actually improve it is anyone's guess, but I personally found this to be the weakest of the three. For fans, however, this DVD features a technically strong although imperfect audio/visual presentation that is more or less in line with the 2-disc releases of the previous two films and should therefore make for an enticing stop-gap between now and the release of the Extended Edition.

DVD Times Ratings

  • Film:
    7
    7 out of 10
  • Video: 
    8
    8 out of 10
  • Audio: 
    9
    9 out of 10
  • Extras: 
    4
    4 out of 10
  • Overall: 
    6
    6 out of 10

Reader Ratings

  • Film 
    8.4
  • Video 
    0
  • Audio 
    0
  • Extras 
    0
  • Overall 
    0

Comments

#1 Posted: 24-06-2004 20:03
Darth_Fisto
Account Disabled
Posts: 162

Report this post
Good review, but I don't agree with you on the film :D
At present, my favourite film is The Two Towers: Extended Edition. And my least favourite is The Two Towers Theatrical Version... go figure :p
I loved Return of the King at the cinema (all 4 times), and I still love it on DVD. Some of the editing is very poor, but I'm sure that will be fixed in the EE. I think ROTK: EE will be the best in the trilogy to be honest (hopefully).

But on your comment:
"it convinced me that Walsh is a better director than Jackson"

??? :confused:
To me, some of the actions in that scene come off as play-acting. Such as when Smeagol first tries to snatch the ring. And that is poor direction, as she was obviously unable to notice that the shot wasn't good enough to warrant a re-take. It was a good intro to the film though, because it reminds us that Gollum is a nasty piece of work.
Quote this post
#2 Posted: 24-06-2004 20:21
Michael Mackenzie
Contributor
Posts: 1647

Report this post
I liked the way the opening scene was shot and acted. I found that the shots were, on the whole, more imaginative than those in the rest of the film. The opening close-up of the worm, for example. I also loved the whole feel of the strangling scene -- the tall trees, the swaying camera, the gradual subsiding of Deagol's struggles. I was always under the impression that Smeagol's first grab of the Ring was MEANT to be playful -- he gets more enraged with subsequent tries.
------

Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site

Quote this post
#3 Posted: 24-06-2004 20:24
Michael Mackenzie
Contributor
Posts: 1647

Report this post
Quote:
Some of the editing is very poor, but I'm sure that will be fixed in the EE.
I'm sure it will, but the theatrical cut was released as a finished film, and therefore I feel that it should be accepted as is, rather than accepting its flaws with the expectation of them being fixed at a later date. If the theatrical cut is incomplete, they shouldn't have charged money for it. :p
------

Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site

Quote this post
#4 Posted: 24-06-2004 20:29
Richard Booth
Contributor & Filmmaker
Posts: 980

Report this post
Mike - If Fran Walsh was co-director on the film, why didn't she win the Oscar as well?

However, this was another insightful and engaging review - well done. :)
------
We do not tell time, time only tells us.
Quote this post
#5 Posted: 24-06-2004 20:42
Michael Mackenzie
Contributor
Posts: 1647

Report this post
Can you win an Oscar for directing a 5-minute sequence in a 200-minute film? Her contribution may not be officially recognised, but it has been widely publicised (since before the release of THE TWO TOWERS) than she was responsible for this sequence.
------

Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site

Quote this post
#6 Posted: 24-06-2004 22:27
badblokebob
The Duck
Posts: 708

Report this post
FotR still strikes me as the best film. It oddly feels like a complete experience in many ways, whereas the other two are very much continuations of the story (or, indeed, conclusions in the case of RotK). I quite disliked TTT in the cinema, but the EE on DVD impressed me greatly and I enjoyed it a lot more. RotK I felt was good, but over long.

Good review, though. It's certainly given me some things to ponder next time I sit down to watch the film!
Quote this post
#7 Posted: 24-06-2004 23:39
kohlbek
Member
Posts: 20

Report this post
Thanks for the first realistic, objective, review of LOTR that I've read. I suspect that Jackson's trilogy will inevitably fall from grace. I don't think it's a bad film - but it just isn't sufficiently engaging - it fails to make you care enough about the characters and plot - an essential failing that will prevent it ever gaining the status of a classic movie in the future. Admirable technical achievement that it is, I just can't see that being a good enough reason for it to become a much loved or admired movie in years to come. (I suppose some people would say much the same about Citizen Kane though).
Quote this post
#8 Posted: 25-06-2004 01:21
Liber8or
Member
Posts: 103

Report this post
All i will say is:
11 Oscars and The Oscar Board does not give out "gimme's"....... ;)
------
One Must Appreciate Genius In Order To Become One.
Quote this post
#9 Posted: 25-06-2004 13:50
liverpool fan
Account Disabled
Posts: 41

Report this post
Just a couple of points. I personally hated FOTR in both versions but loved the EE of TT (the only version of it I saw). Thought that ROTK was in the middle. Some of the CGI in the film is appalling especially the ghosts. The witch king is so cool. the way it shrieks sent a shiver down my spine on numerous occasios during the film.
Quote this post
#10 Posted: 25-06-2004 20:15
Richard Booth
Contributor & Filmmaker
Posts: 980

Report this post
Mike - Even if you officially directed just one second of film then you should be credited by the Academy. Katia Lund was nominated as co-director on City of God, and she did very, very little I think.
------
We do not tell time, time only tells us.
Quote this post
#11 Posted: 25-06-2004 20:51
Darth_Fisto
Account Disabled
Posts: 162

Report this post
"- Even if you officially directed just one second of film then you should be credited by the Academy"

? :confused:
What a bizarre statement.
Think about it, and think about second unit work. All productions have them that are of reasonable size, even the small independent features. Even if it is a static shot of keys in the ignition of a car, and the film won best Director, you think the person that directed that shot should be credited along with the director of every other shot?

Best Director usually implies that the person had a good team of individuals. You may not hear their names come the (pointless) awards ceremony, but they are listed in that big 5 minute text sequence at the end of a film (or sometimes the beginning ;) ).
Quote this post
#12 Posted: 26-06-2004 12:57
chimera01
Member
Posts: 218

Report this post
I did like both EE of FOTR & TTT and am looking forward to the EE of TROK, these cinema editions are a nice passing of time but for me just a layover until the EE comes along.
My favorite charaters were the Ents and Bombadil, the Ents made TTT magic and Tom is not filmed (he will be missed).
Overall up to this point I will say mr. Jackson has made a magic trilogy which no amount of whining about what could have been better will lessen the final results. He put the capital in the word Epic movie.
Now hold on to your pants for all the copycats.:D
Quote this post
#13 Posted: 28-06-2004 09:41
cm-9
Member
Posts: 64

Report this post
Good review, very good, you put your finger on exactly the reasons why ROTK is unsatisfactory compared to the other two parts (in the battle scenes, it also suffers in comparison to Troy).

***As you say, the image quality of the R1 is disappointingly lacking in detail, being heavily filtered. It is worth adding that the picture quality of the R2 DVD is VERY MUCH BETTER (just as it is with FOTR and TTT). Apart from the minor quibble of the digital pitch correction, there is no reason to buy the R1 DVD.***
Quote this post
#14 Posted: 01-07-2004 11:13
Dodd
Member
Posts: 472

Report this post
My experience with these films has always been quite similar. First viewing I can't help but be faintly disappointed - not by changes to the books (can't stand Tom Bombadil, so good riddance there) but smaller details like drowning out Cate Blanchet's Galadriel-goes-bonkers scene in part one didn't work for me because Blanchet didn't need the special effects and voice distortion. Second time round however, I've really enjoyed each of them, flaws and all. I think largely because I know what to expect and can just sit down and enjoy them for what they are: hokey but involving escapism on a large canvas.
With ROTK, first time I saw it, I was very disappointed, the editing seemed disjointed and the ending - I could cope with it being long, but the soft-focus reunion scene made me want to vomit. Second time, it seemed better paced and many of my concerns (other than that bloody bed-jumping reunion scene) seemed misplaced. Odd.

I think as a whole it does work as a film itself, but given the vast leaps quality that the previous extended editions have shown, I am chomping at the bit for the extended version of this one.
Quote this post

Do you have a Times Network ID or DVD Times account? Sign in now!



Username:
Password:
Remember:


If not, why not register for one now and experience all the benefits of being a Times Network Member.