The Return of the King (1980)

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

In the wake of Peter Jackson's incredibly successful Tolkien series, this movie tends to get a lot of flak. Yet in some regards, I actually prefer this version, and I'll explain why:The difference of opinion is basically generational and dependent on what the viewer is looking for. If you are hooked on stunning visuals and "epic" proportions in every estimable regard, there is no denying that Peter Jackson's films are better. While this film deviates from the plot in several instances--no doubt a consequence of condensing so much material into an hour-and-a-half--it does maintain some of the better quotes from the books; keep in mind that these lines are delivered in the style in which they were written, not watered down the way some of the most powerful quotes are in more modern versions. Combine this with a cast of amazing voice actors (Brother Theodore is the best, creepiest Gollum, hands down; Paul Frees orc voices are chilling; Roddy McDowall and Orson Bean do incredible things; and, of course, John Huston; I am not familiar with the actor that plays Denethor, but I love that performance as well) and you've got what is basically an Elizabethan drama with watercolor backgrounds and animation. The other major reason why people dislike this film, and again it was a creative choice, is the inclusion of songs. Peter Jackson made films for adults; these animated films are intended for children. I admit that the ratio of song to plot can get tedious in this film, but the reasoning is noble. If you've ever read The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings, you know it is absolutely packed with poetry. I am sure it was this film's intent to preserve this feeling while at the same time emulating the musical style which has been popular with children's programming for years.In conclusion, people often criticize this film on matters of taste rather than actual merit. If you enjoy animation and well-written dialogue, this is definitely worth a look.

Because I felt that the Ralph Bakshi adaptation wasn't as entertaining as I thought it would be, I wonder what ABC and Warner Bros were thinking when they decided to adopt one of the most beloved books in the whole galaxy into a cartoon that starts its main story late into the book. By the time the cartoon starts the main story, so many important events that the viewers may not know about have seemingly passed. The Bakshi cartoon ends with Frodo and Sam capturing Gollum. This take on The Return of the King starts with Sam searching for Frodo in Cirth Ungol causing the story to skip about half of The Two Towers. They also skipped over the parts with The Witch King of Angmar which include very important parts of the book. Another portion of the story that was skipped, was where Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli go into a cave to search for the Undead Army of Rohirrim that was cursed by Isildor, an ancestor of Aragorn, for not helping him in The Battle of Mount Doom at the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring. Each part that I just mentioned takes up about an hour or more of movie that could have made the cartoon easier to understand. This cartoon is so awful I don't think even deserves a 1 out of 10 and it makes the other one, which is based on the first two books look like Godfather or Pulp Fiction. If you want to watch The Lord of the Rings movies without reading the books and enjoy them, I highly recommend skipping this cartoon that is not even at home video quality and watch the Peter Jackson films.

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.

I never thought I would be forced to rate anything this low, but my respect for the book compels me to just that. This is the worst crap I have ever seen. The makers should be crucified. J. R. R. Tolkien, rest his soul, would cry in the view of this utter destruction of his phenomenal work. I weep while I force my self to watch it to the end. Why it was made in the firs place one can only wonder. Characters personalities are warped, they are used in wrong context and even left out. The meaning and point is lost. What is left is a dish without texture and taste which should never have been. There is but one reason to watch this and that is to know how it was utterly destroyed.