Customer Reviews

The Return of the King (Full Screen Animated)

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(15)
3 star:		(14)
2 star:		(12)
1 star:		(19)

 

 

I have to confess that I have a great deal of affection for this animated version of ROTK. In some ways it conveys the spirit of the book much better than the Peter Jackson film, particularly in the parts with Frodo and Sam. The character of Sam comes across as more complex and convincing than Sean Astin's portrayal in the film, although I don't want to criticise the actor as I suspect this was mostly the fault of the screenwriters. And Frodo's sense of resignation is also well captured here, again much more true to the book than his terrified portrayal by Elijah Wood in the film. Much more of Tolkien's original dialogue is preserved here, which helps a lot. For instance, more of Denethor's best lines are preserved in this 90 minute cartoon than was the case with the 3+ hour movie. I also think that the music overall helps to convey the heroic and lyrical tone of the book, compared to the unrelenting horror-movie feel of the Mordor scenes in the live action film, even though much of it is admittedly silly, although even the much ballyhooed "Where There's a Whip There's a Way" has some basis in the text. I think the voice actors were excellent overall, even though I didn't particularly care for Casey Kasem as Pippin, and the Nazgul Lord did sound a little too, well, cartoonish. Still, John Huston's Gandalf will forever be the voice I hear when I read the books; a classic performance. Even though you can poke holes in this version if you want to, I suppose my only real complaint is that it failed to establish any connection between Aragorn and Frodo. Since the entirety of "Fellowship" and "Two Towers" was summed up with something to the effect that Frodo and Sam had "come far and through many brave adventures," I don't think it would have been unreasonable to provide some similarly cursory treatment to establishing that the the march on the Black Gate was for the purpose of helping Frodo and Sam. One final word: I don't mean to come across as overly critical of Peter Jackson's films. In fact I enjoyed them tremendously. However, I think this version also has a lot to recommend it. Also, please forgive me for coming across as a "Tolkien geek" but I couldn't help myself.

Having watched "Return of the King"and"Willow", again,I came to
the conclusion that this film is better than "Willow"(No offense to any "Willow"fans;Remember,this is only a review and these
are only my opinions).Gollum is a villain you love to hate-he's
creepy,sneaky and dispicable;he possesses all the qualities that make him a great villain!Frodo is very brave and loyal,and he fights for what's right!The storyline is good,the scenery is well-done and the songs are good.Who needs nelwyns when you can have Hobbits?

The review here dated May 24, 2004 from an anonymous viewer in NJ (my home state) has CONFUSED this animated movie with the recently released Peter Jackson- Return of the King DVD.

THESE ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FILMS MADE MORE THAN 20 YEARS APART.

The animated Return of the King was a TV special released in 1980. For its time, it was an entertaining look at the last segment of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Keep in mind that this was targeted at a younger audience, especially those who watched the animated Hobbit film. I recall watching this in middle school, my first taste of the fantasy genre.

And I will admit, I did compare one scene from the animated Return of the King (1980) with the live-action Return of the King (2003). It was the scene with Eowyn facing off against the Lord of the Nazguls. The animated movie hewed closer to the book in that more of the actual dialogue was used.

Eowyn's speech is a bit wordy and seems more at place in a stage play than in a fast moving battle. But I did enjoy how it paused the momentum of the Battle of Pelenor Fields and you get this beauty standing on the battlefield with her long blonde hair flowing in the wind like a banner of courage. I was hoping for equal treatment from Peter Jackson, but he kept this scene short. It is a critical moment in Eowyn's character development.

To be accurate, Ralph Bakshi's animated version of "The Lord of the Rings" only made it halfway through "The Two Towers" before suddenly concluding. My understanding was that because Bakshi did not get to "The Return of the King," the rights were available for Jules Bass and Arthur Rankin, Jr. to do their own version for television in 1980 in the same style they had employed for "The Hobbit." In fact, Orson Bean is back to do the voices of not only Bilbo but also Frodo, and John Huston returns to provide a perefect voice for the wizard Gandalf.

"The Return of the King" certainly begins in the middle of things, with Sam (Roddy McDowell) trying to rescue the captive Frodo from the orcs and Gollum scrambling after his "precious" ring. Those who have read the trilogy will be able to pick up the narrative without any problem, but for the uninitated who have to try and enjoy this without some sort of "Previously on 'The Lord of the Ring,'" it is going to be quiet disconcerting. Clearly this version is geared for the kids, in the grand tradition of "The Hobbit," which was far and away the best of these three animated Tolkein films. Adults will undoubtedly cringe at some of these moments, as when the Orcs sing "Where There's a Whip There's a Way," but hopefully you will find a few small moments that you can enjoy. The chief charm of "The Return of the King" for me is that it does a decent job with my favorite scene of the Trilogy, when Éowyn, the shield maiden of Rohirrim engages the Lord of the Nazgul in mortal combat during the Battle of Pellennor Fields.

Glenn Yarborough again does the music, as he did with "The Hobbit," but with notably less success. Except for the first little ditty about "Frodo of the Nine-Fingers and the Ring of Doom," the songs this time around add nothing to the telling of the tale. When you consider all the great moments from the book that were cut because of time constraints and then add to that list those that were jettisoned because of Yarborough's songs, it is the proverbial example of adding insult to injury.

The best case scenario is to show young children "The Hobbit," and use that as a way of inspiring them to read the book and then move on to the Trilogy or the Peter Jackson film's. If your children got a kick out of Gollum in "The Hobbit," then they might be interested in seeing what finally happens to him, but it does give away the climax of the Trilogy. So I am back to my original position, that you should whet their young appetite's with "The Hobbit." "The Return of the King" is made with affection, but it lacks the time and money to make it a worthy presentation of Tolkien's story.

I like the style,sound,and feel of this cartoon.The music reminds me of the Majestic metal band Blind Guardian and the fantasy power metal band Rhapsody.Band's that should of been on any of the Peter Jackson film's,but aren't.Instead we get enya.I'm sorry, but a women that writes songs about africa, don't make me think fantasy.Plus her background music sounds like wind chimes.Unlike Blind guardians album Nightfall in Middle earth,and Rhapsody's Power of the dragon flame album's.I mean come on,do I have to show Peter Jackson what good fantasy music sound's like.Although his big budget movie's aren't horrible,I only read half of the Fellowship of the ring's,and noticed he left out a bunch of really importent stuff.Like the part when farmer Magget was going to feed Frodo to his viscious dog's.And the dog's weren't the least bit afraid of Frodo, but ran totally in fear from the Ring Wraith's,that's makes for good contrast.Plus the Black Forest, and all of the part's with Tom Bombadil were taken out.Plus I think the colars in his movie's are dark,and dull.Unlike the cartoons,where the hole style seems fantasy.For a book that has plenty of singing,colars and some lite heartedness.The big motion picture had none of these thing's.It felt like I was watching the Matrix with sword's,the way their outfit's were so dark.And I like the Matrix,but that's not J.R.R.Tolkien.And I admit some of the stuff in this cartoon is a bit to litehearted at times maybe even cheesy,but at least they got the feel right."Plus it's a cartoon".The first big movie was a snooser to me,a total bore.But the second ones not bad.It still has a sorry sound track,a little bit briter outfit's,except for Aragorn's his outfit is dark and boring,and his hair alway's looks oily,I think the lush landscapes and special effects keep you'r mind off some of their really drabby outfit's.Anyway's, I grew up on this cartoon, I liked it then,and I like it now, before I even read the book.I guess some of J.R.R. Tolkien's lite hearted stuff isn't edgy enough for the ever so complaining pop cult phenomina,but in alot of way's I think he might of liked this cartoon better than some of the movie's.Anyway I highly recommend this classic cartoon, along with the Hobbit...

I watched this movie again for the first time since I was a child. Having read the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings Several times since then, I can only use one word to describe how watching this movie now that I am an adult made me feel: aghast. The movie starts off with Bilbo's final birthday before he leaves Middle-Earth, the number of which they promptly got wrong, and Bilbo cannot remember why Frodo no longer had the Ring. Then they bring a minstrel out to tell him why. The tale they tell from that point is very much disjointed and far removed from the story that the Professor created, touching it and coming back to it only when whatever demagogue who controlled this production's direction felt like a little veracity. The whole story is given as a narrative from the point of view of Gandalf, and Gandalf in this story is not even a shadow of the one in the books.

The specific points that make this production so horrid are:
Aragorn is portrayed as a lord driven into exile, as opposed to the heir of a line of kings who have stopped claiming the title of king because they are too busy trying to rebuild their kingdom in the North, as well as supporting the kingdom in the South;
the whole story is supposed to take place according to a Prophecy, when in fact the Lord of the Rings had nothing to do with prophecy and the only foretelling in it was about the paths of the dead;
the voices, while all talented, were miscast, particularly the Lord of the Nazghul and Meriadoc(Kasey Kasem just does NOT work as a hobbit);
they had to throw in the element that this was a proto-history that took place in our world which was exactly not what the Professor intended(Gandalf's disertation and ascertation that hobbits were going to evolve into men at the end of the movie was really, really too much);
the dialogue of the hobbits was almost completely made out of anything other than what the Professor wrote,the dialogue of the other characters being not much better;
they cut out all mention of the quest, the fellowship, the dwarves, and stripped out of it all the background history that makes this such a rich story. To sum-up, they raped this story, and raped perfectly describes it. I see no merit in any adult watching this production.
As to why this production is so bad, I can only speculate. My hypotheses are as follows:
they could not finish it before they ran out of money;
they needed a quick influx of cash to keep from going out of business;
they thought that nothing could be worse than Ralph Bakshi's production( they could not be more wrong:this production's existence makes that production five star by comparison/at least he tried to not mess anything up);
they thought they were untouchable;
mass-insanity;
someone influential in the production had an attack of megalomania;
several people important to the production died or were lost in a contract dispute and they had to go with an out-line;
or they simply wanted to anger the family of the Professor to such a degree that they would never give permission to cinema-ize the works again.

I have tried to keep my possible explanations from being too far-fetched, but this is the worst adaptation of any book that I have encountered. The best thing about it is the animation, and the best thing that can be said about that was that it was a knife taken to a gunfight. It is written as propaganda that has no ideal to uphold, and I had to force myself to finish watching it, several hours later than I started it. I would give it no stars if the option were availible, and if this production were a book, the publishing house would have burned it.

If you've seen Ralph Bakshi's animated Lord of the Rings, and want to buy this to get the rest of the story, be warned: The Return of the King totally dispenses with many characters from the books & previous movie, such Legolas & Gimli.

The characters of Sam and Frodo are the primary focus of the film, as they struggle along on the final leg of their quest to reaach Mount Doom, and dispose of the Ring of Sauron. (They stop to break into song every three minutes, only a few of which are tolerable once, let alone 5 or 6 times each.....) The animation is clean and attractive, and the voice acting is pretty good. My only beef on that front is Casey Kasem....YUCK! Fans of the book will probably get a kick out of seeing the characters on the screen, non-fans will like the story, and fanatics will be angry at the stuff they left out. Decide which catagory you're in before you buy.

The DVD has little in the way of extras; just a few text features. Hopefully, seeing the animated films will persuade a few people to move up to Tolkien's wonderful books.....

MOVIE:
I love this movie!!!!! They really caught it beautifully on the screen. There are only a couple of parts that make no sense:
1. When Frodo and Samwise are sleeping in that hole and Frodo has that weird dream.
2. When Sam is walking down from Cirith Ungol and he dreams of himself being a father.
TYhose scenes really don't add to the story. They really embelished some brief scenes in the book, like when Sam dreams of himself being 'Samwise the Strong' and the Mouth of Sauron part.

SONGS:
The songs are superb. My favorites are "Where There's a Whip There's a Way" and "Frodo of the Nine Fingers". Only two songs don't make sense: "Less Can Be More" and "Leave Tomorrow Till it Comes". Another good song is "Win the Battle, Lose the War".

CHARACTERS:
Once again, they captured the characters perfectly. I am kinda mad that they didn't include Legolas, Gimli, Faramir, or Beregond. Denethor is pictured exactly how Tolkien described him. John Noble's Denethor isn't old enough.

VOICES:
The voice talents are once again great. William Conrad dishes out a great Denethor. Casey Kasem and Sonny Melendrez are great at Merry and Pippin. Roddy McDowall outshines Sean Astin in the role of Samwise (no offense to him), but they are all left behind when it comes to John Huston as Gandalf. He is THE BEST!!!!!

OVERALL SUMMARY:
Great movie. Show it to the kids (although some of the younger ones might find it a little scary). Although this is a great movie in and of itself, Peter Jackson's outshines it by a lot.

Trash. I read the books of the "Lord of the Rings" when I was in grade 6, and then I rented this movie. I'm scarred for life. The plot is completely turned around. Not worth anyone's time.

First of, being a fan of J.R.R. Tolkien since I was 5, I quickly bought both of these DVDs when they become available when I live. I had noticed the poor sound quality of the Hobbit (ex. no roar of the dragon, no fluttering of the bird's wings, etc.) but lucky, this was not the case in "Return of the King". True, there seems to be extra sounds such as creepy orc laughter in the first war scene, but the additions work nicely. Unfortunately, some sounds are much louder than in the original. However, a problem never shows up in which you can't hear a character speak like in the Hobbit.

In addition, I have never seen Rankin-Bass so clear in my life and this version can truly stand up with any ancient Disney movie. The viewer can notice every stone under every horse's hoof, every spiderweb in every corner, and even Frodo's wounds look even more graphic. I look at my old version and I don't know if Rankin-Bass ever indicated for this film to be this 'light', but I think it works much better than their old misty versions.

Some viewers may complain of the ugly yet original style (and the "twitching") of the characters but the clarity of the picture makes it easier to digest. For those who still think it's horrible, make sure to check out the Ralph Bakshi's animation of the Lord of the Rings (1978) for some real pure "cavity-candy".

In my opinion, this version is more true to the book than the recently released non-animated version of The Return of the King. True, there is no battle between Sam and the spider and there is no Golem teaming up with Frodo and Sam but there are some major points mentioned in this movie that were not in the 2003 version. For example: Frodo and Sam both say much more lines straight from the book (ex. Frodo says, while he is at the edge of Mount Doom, "I have come...but I do not choose to do what I have come to do...", etc.).

More additional parts include: Frodo and Sam dress up like Orcs, there are Watchers blocking an invisible gate, and the fact that the viewer can feel their struggle a lot more in getting to Mount Doom in this cartoon (Frodo and Sam supporting each other up the mountain, Frodo having nightmares of when he was tortured, etc.) than the Hollywood version (I personally felt that the Sam and Frodo part in the Return of the King [2003] was rushed but the war scenes were well done). Finally, you could really feel Frodo's madness (...was Frodo's evil laugh too much, I wonder?...) and Sam's despair in Mount Doom unlike the non-animated movie version.

For the negative side of this movie, the war scenes were poorly explained (who's Aragon again?) and I found myself often fast-forwarding these parts because of the confusion. Repeated footage of the same orcs is used again and again. Looking back at it, the war itself just looks like the orcs are in the battlefield fighting no one but trying to get into a large castle. Also, all the men are cowardly and hardly put up a fight. Our favorite Elf and Dwarf from the Trilogy are also no where to be found unless you consider those 2 men by Denethor's side to be them but there is no mention of this (and no Elf girl either!). In addition, there is no real connection between Frodo and Sam and the war unfortunately. One last note - Golem calls Frodo "Maaasssster" near the end and the viewer has no idea why he called him this because there is no explanation and with the new clear picture, I noticed that Golem took off an invisible finger when he claims the ring.

Both Return of the King movies have their best qualities. This animation version should not be ignored and should be appreciated in its own way. Remember - this was the first attempt at making the Return of the King and I really don't think it was perfect but I don't think it was really that bad either. I call this version the "Brown" version (almost everyone has brown eyes) while the non-animated version is called the "Blue" version (almost everyone has blue eyes). These movies are basically different sides of the same coin.

To sum it up - If you can tolerate other animation styles besides Disney, can also tolerate folk songs and you are a fan of the Lord of the Rings, then I recommend checking out this movie on DVD if you haven't already. But, be warned - this movie has much more emotion than other animated movie I have ever seen. The DVD itself also contains extras such as explanations of other characters in the Trilogy, a small biography of J.R.R. Tolkien, and English, French, and Spanish subtitles - in other words, nothing to write home about. If you want to buy this movie, buy it solely for Frodo and Sam and not for any of the war scenes (and ESPECIALLY the extras) because you probably will be disappointed. For any Rankin-Bass fans, the Last Unicorn is coming to DVD during March 2004, so now all we have to wait for is "Flight of Dragons"...