The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (Theatrical Version) [VHS] [2003]

All those of you who get this and intend to get the extended version as I shall - there is coupon to get bucks back so don't lose that.

Simply amazing to put all three movies on and let them runs one right after another.

Brilliance, magic, a century from now the power will still be there! This is the Gone With the Wind, Wizard of Oz and Star Wars of our era. Long may it reign!

The film makes many small changes to the book's plot and some more substantial ones. In the great majority of cases, my feeling is that Jackson's alterations respect the logic of visual as against literary drama and therefore help the thing to work as well on celluloid as on paper. A few changes, however, go further and I would like to hear the views of others.

First up, Frodo plays a bigger part in destroying the ring in film than book. In the book Frodo fails at the brink and the final victory is delivered by Gollum's crazed celebrations unaided. Frodo is thus more the hero in the film than the novel, with more now depending on his returning to the fight with Gollum and thus less on his earlier act of mercy. For me, this diminishes the (positive) ambiguity of the ending where Frodo cannot make a real return to his Hobbit life because he has not fully purged himself of evil. Anyone any thoughts ?

Jackson also builds up the theme of "Will Aragorn accept his destiny ?" and adds a drama unknown to the book on the theme - will Arwen stay true ? I think Jackson's instincts here are largely sound: the book's Aragorn never takes a step wrong and thus is not that interesting dramatically. The problem is that we never for a moment doubt where Arwen will end up, and in fact she seems to have made her decision in both Fellowship and Towers, so that when she makes it yet again in Return there isn't much surprise or relief. Similarly, Jackson moves the symbolic reforging of the sword to the last movie but does anyone really feel he has been hiding from his destiny before that point ?

Eowyn's act of heroism stands out less in the film than the book because the shock of a woman on the battlefield is reduced both by our real history and by Jackson's handling. In the book her action is as much scandal as triumph, as witnessed by the Gondorian soldier who asks amazed whether Rohan even sends its women to war. One of the most distinctive aspects of Tolkein's vision is that, while in the Silmarillion and the LOTR Appendicies he created a static and hierarchical world, in the LOTR narrative he undermined this by having the weak and the dispossessed intervene to change history. To this theme, Eowyn is as important as Frodo or Sam. This is where you find Tolkein the radical rather than Tolkein the conservative. I can see why Jackson wanted to reduce the "males only" atmosphere of much of the novel, but ironically it undermines the greatest female scene.

LOTR the novel has now long been a popular classic and has won that status in the face of literary establishment disapproval. At its core, it is a modern parable about the power of ordinary people to change history. Peter Jackson deserves our thanks for respecting and embodying that vision.

All the main actors have by now confidently settled into their roles and their character’s development is really embodied through their performance. It’s remarkable how these protagonist have transformed over the ten and a half hour course of these movies, compared to when we first meet them in The Fellowship of the Ring. Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Philippa Boyens especially need to be commended for giving all the important characters that kind of substantiality, by paying attention to the personal journeys taken and showing the genuine growth undergone by each of them.

In technical terms The Return of the King is undeniably the most accomplished film in the trilogy. All the post production and art departments really present their best work of the series here, from the special effects, the costume designs, through to the breathtaking miniatures. The cinematography is especially noteworthy, experimenting with unconventional, exciting points of view and subtle colour grading that help to deliver even more memorable shots than in the first two movies. A word also has to be said about the music, because it has been the backbone of the trilogy in many ways. Howard Shore has brilliantly captured the depth and scope of Tolkien’s world since the first soundtrack and has developed this vision from movie to movie creating a film score magnum opus. He has been particularly successful in rendering the operatic epic-ness of The Lord of the Rings and this characteristic truly comes to shine in the third instalment.

It must be remembered, that an essential contributing factor for the success of this final part is the effectiveness of The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers to generate the level of anticipation and narrative tension, that makes the climax so emotionally involving and rewarding. The sense of closure is in every respect satisfying and considered as one creative achievement from beginning to end, it becomes clear what a cinematic triumph the trilogy really is. It has become the film event of our generation, with all three among the top ten highest grossing movies of all time and the popular passion with which they all have been received. The Return of the King sets a new benchmark for the fantasy/adventure genre and The Lord of the Rings has given new meaning to the concept of epic filmmaking. It has arguably become the best trilogy of them all. A title it will deservedly keep for a very long time.