Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

funkyfry First of all, let me say I'm a big fan of the other Rankin/Bass Tolkien film, "The Hobbit." Not that "Hobbit" is ideal in a lot of ways either -- the story is truncated (although not much changed), the music is quite cute and dated (my girlfriend always says it's like James Taylor's stunted half-brother). But at least it has a complete story to tell, and even the annoying music at least preserves more of Tolkien's poetry than the more ambitious Peter Jackson films of "LotR" managed to. I can't really get behind this "Return of the King" though.Maybe it would have been different if Ralph Bakshi hadn't won the contract to do "LotR", a job that he was clearly not equipped to accomplish. I can understand why the people who controlled "Lord of the Rings" used Bakshi instead of Rankin/Bass. Rankin/Bass are very decidedly kiddie-oriented, even if "Hobbit" is more mature than their holiday specials. That treatment was appropriate for "The Hobbit" which is more of a children's tale although of course it's pleasing to people of all ages. However "Lord of the Rings" is a darker tale and deserved a more adult treatment. Bakshi's "Wizards" is very impressive, melding documentary footage of nazi war machines with fantasy animation of faeries and goblins. He was given the job of doing "Lord of the Rings" basically on the strength of that film.With all of this in mind though, in retrospect it still might have been better if Rankin/Bass had done the whole thing. Bakshi ran out of money in the middle of making his movie, defeated by the demands of rotoscoping technology that had to be invented just to be used for the film. His version was perhaps too ambitious, and when the money ran out they had to cut short the process and the resulting film is not what Bakshi planned nor what fans wanted. It also failed to include this final chapter of the story -- Bakshi had hoped that if his first film made enough money there would be impetus to finish it. So Rankin/Bass was given the sloppy seconds, and they produced a sloppy film that probably doesn't really represent the scope of what they had hoped to do with "Lord of the Rings" themselves in the first place.Where Bakshi's attempt was sprawling and relatively faithful, this R/B version of the final chapter paints in very broad strokes. Legolas and Gimli are never even on screen, and Aragorn appears less as a character than as a concept. Considering the length of the movie, such truncations are perhaps necessary. But it's very disheartening for example to hear Frodo yell "Out of my way, you scum!" to Gollum, all the depth and nuance of their relationship totally gone. This is not a case like with "Hobbit" where leaving out a particular story element like the Arkenstone or Beorn leaves the whole still intact -- with a lot of things missing, even the elements that remain only appear in a warped and inappropriate form.Worthy of praise is much of the voice work on this film, with John Huston returning to anchor the film as Gandalf and narrator, Roddy McDowall lending nuance to Sam, and Theodore is priceless as Gollum even if the character is here robbed of the pathos that he deserves in the books and that he showed in the Rankin/Bass "Hobbit." But some of the voice talent is questionable... perhaps it's just a function of his fame, but it's jarring to hear Casey Kasem as Merry. I think they should have avoided people who had done a lot of voice work in the past and would be recognizable even to children.Much of the actual animation is very poor compared to "Hobbit", with only the close-ups having the good quality Japanese style that elevates that film. Whenever characters are seen in a long shot in this film, they look like a children's coloring book. The ringwraiths look comical, like Scooby Doo villains, except for the Witch King who for whatever reason still resembles the scarier wraiths from the Bakshi version. A lot of elements that could have been very cool, like the Army of the Dead, are completely missing from this film and I have to assume it was because they would be too costly and difficult to animate.We're left with a very inadequate film, although it's still good that they finished the trilogy. When I was very young, I had seen these films and could enjoy Tolkien's story through them even though I was too young to appreciate the books. This film in particular was very sought after in the 1980s, because unlike the other two it was not widely available on video. I remember my brother and I had a copy that we had taped off TV which was missing the beginning of the film, and that was the version we had to live with for years. For those who might have spent years searching for it, this version is certainly a disappointment. But it leaves me wondering mostly what the Rankin/Bass effort would have been like if they had been able to do the entire trilogy. Maybe they could have put more effort into some of the characterization and animation. And hopefully someday we will see the books adapted into a really excellent animated film.

parkerr86302 Having recently seen this version for the first time in a number of years, I can see its faults, but many of the reviewers here are way too hard on it. Tolkien's masterful trilogy was unfilmable in live action before the advent of CGI, but fans were clamoring for film versions anyway, and then hated them when they arrived. Oy veh! While this Rankin/Bass version was not as good as their THE HOBBIT, I still found it to be quite entertaining on its own level, as long as you don't compare it to Peter Jackson's impeccable epics. The voice cast was great, and it was quite ambitious for Rankin/Bass, known chiefly for their animated Christmas specials.This film's haters should listen to the lyrics of one of Glenn Yarbrough's---It Is So Easy Not To Try. Rankin/Bass tried, and Tolkien fans who have expressed outrage over this would have been angrier if no one had tried back then. Everyone here needs to take a chill pill.

Genevieve Oh man. This movie is so bad, it makes me laugh. Here's why...Frodo and Sam seem to be the only characters who do ANYTHING in the film. The animation's so bad. Seriously, Gollum looks like a mutated frog. Hardly anyone else but Gandalf, Frodo, Sam, Gollum and the creepy Minstrel has more than five lines. The orcs (who aren't even the least bit scary) sing the dopiest song in the film. Legolas and Gimli aren't even mentioned, let alone in it. And Faramir gets a ten second cameo, only 'cause he's Eowyn's boyfriend. You don't even see the two have a moment to know that. And if you've never read the book, or seen the new movies, you wouldn't even know who that guy was. It was just bad.The only good parts? Eowyn gets to kick the Witch King's butt. Sam's little dream of Rosie is just cute. And the Eagles rock.But seriously, if you want to see a good animated adaption of J.R.R. Tolkien's works, get Ralph Bashki's "Lord of the Rings". But if you want to see this wad of crap, it does make a good comedy.

michael_the_nermal This movie is unfairly maligned as a cheesy adaptation. It is much closer to Tolkien's book than the big-budget live-action movie. Rankin-Bass did an admirable job attempting to piece together the final third of The Lord of the Rings without the first 2/3 of the plot as a back story. The animation is actually quite good for a made-for-TV movie. Since the book was so thick with plot and action, the movie's limited time and treatment seems rushed, and sometimes makes little sense unless you had read the previous two Lord of the Rings books. As was mentioned before, this movie includes important scenes from the novel that were left out of Peter Jackson's movie, making the Rankin-Bass version a relatively faithful adaptation. Keep in mind it was made for TV by an animation studio known for making cheesy Christmas and Easter specials. Tolkien's novel, while intended for young readers, was much darker in tone than anything Rankin-Bass had done. This studio did one hell of job translating the themes and dark tones from the book into a made-for-TV cartoon movie.I can tolerate the folksy songs. If you don't like sappy folk ballads, then this movie is not for you. This movie is full of 'em. I personally enjoyed "Where There's a Whip, There's a Way." Don't know why, but it's a catchy song. Rankin-Bass wants to explore the notion that the Orcs are not pure evil, which is fine by me, and that they have feelings too. It was done a little sappily, but at least it was an attempt at depth which I appreciated.Oh, I must mention the voices. John Huston is divine as Gandalf the Wizard; he has a magisterial voice that lends credence to the role. Orson Bean and Roddy McDowall are decent as the hobbit heroes. Brother Theodore, the famed performance artist, is excellent as the villain Gollum. I actually preferred Theodore's demented, crazed voice to the hisses of Andy Serkis. The Lord of the Nazgul has a cheesy robot voice, as filtered through a voice changing machine, but for a little kid, that can be quite intimidating. The Mouth of Sauron is one creepy dude, drawn with the same kind of skill Rankin Bass brought to their fantasy cartoons. Some may think the animation sucks, but I dug it. If you actually enjoyed the animation here, watch another good Rankin-Bass movie, "Flight of Dragons."