Available Quality: DivX, DVD, Hi Def, iPod, Hi Def, Hi Def
Director(s): Peter Jackson
Country: Germany, USA, New Zealand
IMDB Rating: 8.9
The Fellowship divides to conquer as Frodo and Sam, with the help and hindrance of Gollum, continue their way to Mount Doom. Gandalf and Pippin ride to Minas Tirith to help defend Gondor while Merry remains with Eowyn and the other Rohan fighters. Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli seek aid from those that live in the Cursed Mountains. All these battles have one goal in mind distract the Eye of Sauron and buy Frodo a little more time to destroy the ring. HD 720p PC, Mac, PS3 and XBOX 360 COMPATIBLE
|The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (iPod)||Resolution: 480x272 px||Total Size: 770 Mb||
|The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (Hi Def)||Resolution: 852x480 px||Total Size: 1606 Mb||
|The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (Hi Def)||Resolution: 1920x1080 px||Total Size: 7685 Mb|
|The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (Hi Def)||Resolution: 1280x528 px||Total Size: 3455 Mb|
|The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (DVD)||Resolution: 720x288 px||Total Size: 627 Mb|
|The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (DVD)||Resolution: 720x288 px||Total Size: 640 Mb|
|The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (DVD)||Resolution: 720x288 px||Total Size: 628 Mb|
|The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (DivX)||Resolution: 592x238 px||Total Size: 554 Mb|
|The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (DivX)||Resolution: 592x238 px||Total Size: 556 Mb|
We have taken some photos of "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King". They represent actual movie quality.
Namgnihton (12 May 2013)
I like to go to these movies with people who have not read the book. Itallows me to appreciate the point of view of a LOTR 'virgin' and keeps incheck my desire to see every nuance of the books portrayed onscreen.I understand that adaption is necessary. The geeks might be a powerfulforce, but are still the minority of the film-going public and these arealready complex movies. The Return of the King is another masterfuladaption. It is easily understood, but with enough depth if you care totake notice. There are plot differences, additions and omissions fromthebook, but there are enough iconic moments and lines lifted directly offthepage to satisfy this fan. The visual look of the film faithfullyrepresentsmiddle earth as many fans have envisioned it - perhaps because John HoweandAlan Lee's illustrations have inspired our imaginations long before thesemovies were conceived.This is my favourite of the series simply because it was my favouritebook -with my favourite part of the two towers (Shelob) thrown in for goodmeasure.
theeviltritone (12 May 2013)
This movie was a decent piece of entertainment for the most part, right upuntil the ring gets destroyed...then we have to sit through seemingly endless series of "goodbye"vignettes.the most offensive of these is the scene on the dock where everyone islooking at one another for 10 friggin minutes.to people who go see this movie: ONCE THE RING DISAPPEARS, YOU SHOULD TOO!-- you can leave after the ring sinks into the lava, 'cause there's notmuchworth watching after that.6/10 'cause the ending made me really cranky!
hshowe (08 May 2013)
In an era when filmmakers of mediocre ability can get financing to dogrunge slash thrillers or sex-pie college comedies of Farrelly-manquenonsense, this poll serves to illustrate the gratitude of fanseverywhere at being served such a luscious 9 course meal of a film. Or3 of them. At the Director's own insistence, the writing, theproduction, the editing, the art design, the sound planning, theactors/characters, the costumes, the music, the effects. Everything wasdelivered until the limits almost gave.None of these and ALL of them are the stars.To say this vote reflects only appreciation of the special effects isto disingenuously shoulder aside the leadership and dedication andcommitment from ALL teams required to produce not just one but allthree films to such incredible standards of consistency to the books,while pleasing worldwide fans, and new audiences, as well as all ages.Schindler's List was not Spielberg's story by authorship any more thanTolkien's was Jackson's, both borrowed a cultural event, onehistorical, one literary, story to exploit on the big screen using theappropriate talent. That's what filmmakers do. And if they're smart,they get the right material. I don't think Spielberg could havedelivered LOTR. But I have a funny feeling PJ might have come close toSL. Both proved their genius by traveling outside their closeststrength positions and moved to new arenas. Both borrowed from pastprojects and knowledge of film to create the dramatic impacts theyengineered in those films.You cannot say because one was historicallybased then it was by that ilk superior.Schindler's List may be the most sociologically impactful movie evermade, but it was not the best. There was exploitation, and the Nazi'scharacter was colored fancifully, and Schindler was not the spittingimage of Liam Neesam, etc etc. You can read history without the womenprostituting themselves and children lying in outhouse filth. Spielbergmade the same kinds of decisions making that movie Jackson did makingrings, but each used "special effects" of a different kind. Did Naziismhappen in black and white?That anyone would seek to disprove Rings popularity by citing the moreproximate (and non-disputed) sociological consciousness raised by SL isgaging on the wrong scale. I would not pay to see SL again, once asenough. But I've paid a dozen times (X3)and for the extended DVD's torelive Tolkien's world, because like those characters "I believethere's something good in this world worth fighting for". And Jackson'sworld gives me and others a place to go to encourage us. The films areabout Hope.Wasn't THAT the message from Schindler as well?
HernÃ¡n (07 May 2013)
The expectations for the third part of The Lord of the Rings were extremelyhigh, which usually leads to a mass deception Âthere are many good examples offilmmakers who were not able to meet the expectations of the audiences; The Wachowski brothersand George Lucas pop up in my mind immediately. Though, Peter Jackson surpassed thehigh hopes laid on The Return of the King. His ability as a filmmaker has never been indoubt, not even in his glorious and gory beginnings, but he really went over the top with the thissaga, proving himself careful, passionate, imaginative and respectful to the work ofJ.R.R. Tolkien (the changes he made actually work out for the best.) Introducing us into thefilm with the back-story of how Smeagol became Gollum Âwhich is not included in the actualbooks of The Lord of the Rings, but in the Silmarilion, also by J.R.R. Tolkien,Â Jackson neverlets the peace slow down. The quest to destroy the Ring in Mount Doom continues for Sam andFrodo, meanwhile the remaining of the Fellowship embrace war as the only option togive more time to the forsaken Hobbits. Aragorn has his hands full: he has to lead thepeople of Rohan and Gondor to an almost inevitable suicide, demand allegiance from the mostdangerous army in Middle Earth (the Army of the Dead,) and accept, once and for all, hisposition as the King, the true heir of Issildur. Not an easy task for actor Viggo Mortensen, whonone the less got away with a brave performance: eyes full of pain, heart drowned in doubtsbut, above all, his loyalty and courage shining from within.As in the previous instalments, the photography and landscapes from NewZealand are enough to make your jaw drop, let alone the special effects.This time Jackson sets his eyes in the development of the characters,leaving the action scenes aside. None the less, whenever they come the results are amazing: ifyou thought the battle in Helms Deep portrayed in The Two Towers was amazing, you gotanother thing coming. It seems that every character of this trilogy gets their chance to stand outÂFrodo (Elijah Wood) and Gandalf (Ian McKellan) in the Fellowship of the Ring; Aragorn(Viggo Mortensen,) Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Gimli (John Rhys) in the Two TowersÂ and, thistime, Sam (Sean Astin), Pippin (Billy Boyd) and Merry (Dominic Monaghan.) Seems impossibleto leave Gollum (Andy Serkis) out, who since his first appearance is magnificent. Thenumerous endings of the movie Âfive in totalÂ may dishearten some casual viewers, but they're inthe book (actually, Jackson even left out a whole chapter,) and they work perfectlyon screen to tie a sorrowful journey, that even with some smiles, ends up with a sad andbrilliant tone.
Twilights_Dawn (03 May 2013)
OOOHHH walking out of the cinemas after 10 hours of drooling all overorlando bloom and elijah woods. Seeing all 3 movies one after the othermadthe experience all that much better they flowed on brilliantly fromeachother. I found the only flaw was the battle scenes were rush althoughthat could have been because i was practicly up the front nearly in sleepmode, but i managed to stay away. The ending superb, balwed my eyes out.Itwas brilliant showcase of Tolkiens books and seeing it all alive in frontofmy eyes. WOW.Music, oh my god Billy Boyd singing that song, haunting, i could not gethisvoice out of my head.SEE THIS MOVIE OR MY TRAKKER BEAST WILL TAKE YOU THERE4 and 1/2 outta 5
MusicChick929 (02 May 2013)
During the end of the movie, while everyone was crying, I replayed themoviein my head, then I began to cry. If I hadnt read the book I couldnt tellyouwhat the ending was.At first I thought I hated it, when a few days later I realized I didnt.Itall went too fast. They find Merry and Pippin, go to Rohan, go to Gondor,itis literally that fast.All I can say about this movie is it was wonderful, but in truth, it was a31/2 hour long summary of the best book in the world.
ixtar1 (01 May 2013)
***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***That's right; too short. While no one could have included all thewonderfulsequences contained in the book, there are several omissions here thatdiminish narrative flow and character development. The four biggestbeing:1. The failure to explain Denethor's madness, and his foreknowledge ofAragorn (both born from the same source). The film wants us to believehejust went mad or that he lost it to grief over Boromir, and that justdoesn't work.2. No mention of the romance between Faramir and Eowyn. In a film withlittle love story, this should have been included.3. Leaving out the development of Eomer as Aragorn's friend, and Gimli'srival. In the film version, Eomer is little more than anextra.4. Eliminating the confrontation with Saruman at Orthanc and the Scouringofthe Shire. This omission is huge. One of Tolkien's great themes was thegrowth of the young hobbits, especially Merry and Pippin. The chapter ontheir return to the Shire is the real climax of the book. It is whereMerryand Pippin's growth as leaders of their people really shines. Also,Tolkienwanted to show how even the Shire could not escape the war. A definitemissed opportunity.Part of the problem is that The Two Towers was cut short. Theconfrontationwith Saruman and a short sequence on Denethor could have (and shouldhave)been included in the middle film. That having been said The Return oftheKing is still a wonderful film. The action sequences are breathtaking.Thecharacter development is at the right times inspiring and heartbreaking.Easily one of the best films of the year.
Aidan Gill (01 May 2013)
OK I know I am in a very small minority of people who aren't fans of theLOTR trilogy (book and film), but hey for what it's worth...Thinking of this as a film in its own right (imagine never having read thebook or having seen the first two films), ROTK is a real mess. The first1.5hours or so are spent plodding along, introducing very confusing plotsidelines and small details that do nothing to further the story. You'd behard pressed to name anyone whose acting actually made an impact - thoughthe notable exception for me, at least, was Sean Astin who really is veryconvincing as what I would describe as a'young man far from home, havingtogrow up far too quickly, but keeping to his own straightforward ideals'.Hisis the one character I really believed in, that drew me in and tugged myemotions.The film taken as a whole shows up the way it was filmed - this feels likeaload of bits of scenic and studio film, with a director with far too muchmaterial to play with, cutting and splicing bits here and there, in alooseand sometimes bizarre manner. (Imagine having never read the book. Thenexplain for me, if you will, why exactly Arwen is well, then has dreams,then chooses mortality over elf life, then mysteriously gets sick anddoesn't put in any appearances till near the end ... far toosketchy!).Once again Gollum the animated character leaves me totally cold - I justdon't get it! To me he is a cartoon character and no matter howbrilliantlyAndy Serkis portrays the voice, I cannot be convinced. I don't sense evilorsplit personality at all, except in the dialogue.Frodo - to me, Elijah Wood is just not a good actor. It's all wan face andbig eyes.However, he does have the best bit of the movie - the encounter withShelob,the great spider. Finally a piece of animation that really convinces, andterrifies if you're in the mood to be frightened! So much better and moreintimate than the rapid-angle-change battle scenes that litter this film,and were such a drag in Two Towers.And finally, the ending(s) - all 6 or more of them! I thought that thescenewhere Aragorn is crowned would be the end, a fitting climax. But no, wejustkeep getting more endings! By the end instead of crying at the sadness Iwaschuckling, it was like hearing a symphony where the composer can't workouthow to make the ending really satisfying, so keeps putting in more andlouder chords in a transparent effort to heighten the drama.I, for one, am not sorry to see the end of this series of films. Aphenomenon, yes, but not a classic trilogy at all. An even moredisappointing final instalment than to the Matrix (but before you accusemeof wholesale negativity - I thought Matrix 1 and 2 werefantastic).
ridiculionius (30 April 2013)
I would just like to take a moment to say; I loved all three Lord ofthe Rings books, and all three Lord of the Rings movies. The Two Towerswas actually the best of the books, (which is surprising because Ihated the second movie) but when it comes to the movies, Return of theKing takes ALL of the cake. We pick up where we left off in The Two Towers (the movie); Aragorn,Gimli, Legolas, and Gandalf reunite with Merry and Pippin after thehobbits have defeated Saruman with the help of the ents. Meanwhile,Frodo and Sam near the end of their journey, still on their way to the"short cut" into Mordor, led by the treacherous Gollum/Smeagol. Aragorn & co. split up, with the majority of them staying in Rohanwhilst Gandalf and Pippin travel together to Gondor, the kingdom thatby right should belong to Aragorn, and also happens to be next onSauron's hit list. However, Gondor is being run by the Steward, who isthe father of Boromir (remember him? the guy from the first one whodied?), and he doesn't really feel like trusting Gandalf, *or* handingthe kingdom over to Aragorn.Frodo and Sam face problems of their own; the Ring's power is growingand Frodo is suffering the same personality change that got poorGollum/Smeagol. Speaking of the little bugger, his dual persona's arebattling it out; the Smeagol part wants to be good again and help thehobbits, whilst the Gollum part wants to kill them and take the Ring.With this guy leading them, Sam and Frodo really need to watch theirbacks!Now, I love this movie and everything about it. The effects, theacting, the pure scope and brilliance of the plot meshed with theintricacies of fantasy... it all works. However, there is one. Little.Exception. Mr Frodo Baggins.I absolutely *hate* him! I can't stand him! All he does is wallow inhis own misery, he barely fights the Ring's influence at all, and he'salways falling over. Oh, gimmie a break, angsty boy! As far as I'mconcerned (and, according to my sources, JRR Tolkien felt the sameway), Sam is the true hero of the story. He faithfully went along withall Frodo's ideas, he kept him afloat, sacrificed his own food andwater to keep Frodo going, because he knew he couldn't take the Ring.He protected him as best he could from that conniving littleGollum/Smeagol. At Mt. Doom, he freaking' CARRIED Frodo up themountain!!! He rescued him when he was going to let himself fall intothe lava! And at the end, he had to deal with the pain of his bestfriend leaving him forever. A real trooper, a real, brave, selflessHero. Love the movie! Hate Frodo!
boobin024 (30 April 2013)
seriously....best movie ever....if Peter Jackson doesn't win an Oscar forthis i will be very angry.....go see it. its really reallygood......I love the books and am a devoted fan but they handled the moviesextremelywell. I wish that they would have left in the battle for the shire but iunderstand. the movie was fantastic..
Estella (27 April 2013)
This is definatly the best of the three Ring films. OK,so there was no needfor all the added bits on the end, (come on, we all know where it *should*have ended) but this is the only complaint. The cast are top notch. The hobbits, particulerly Elijah Wood and Sean Astinare outstanding. Eljiah's Frodo is my faveourite character, and I justcouldn't imagine anyone else playing him. Elijah makes Frodo totallyendearing (those beautiful big blue eyes only adds to his appeal)and SeanAstins' Sam is lovable and loyal, and several of Sam and Frodos secens mademe almost blub.(one scene involving Frodo trying to escape a certain creature made the ladynext to me gasp 'oh my god!' as it was so tense!)The battle scenes are brilliant and made you want to punch a fist in the airand yell.To quote Ron Weasley: 'Bloody brilliant!'
Roy Hamlin (27 April 2013)
As I exited from the premier showing, I could not get over the storylinefrom beginning to end. Most sequels get worse, but these are built oneachother culminating in the final episode being the best of all three.Frodo,Sam, Aragorn, Arwen, Theoden and the whole cast could never have realizedthe epic they were creating for all. These three movies will go down asthebest series, fantasy, action films of all time. Like the books thatbecametimeless, JRR Tolkien story was created visually by Peter Jackson for alltodive into and live through. The best movie and trilogy ever.
mnagoda (25 April 2013)
So here we are at the end of all things. ROTK is the best of Jackson'sLOTRtrilogy. It was very very close to the books. Acting is superb. The onlyproblem I had with it was Gandalf beating the snot out of Dethenor. Itjustseemed so out of character. Other than that, this is the year's bestpicture. Screw cold mountain and all that other americanized junk. This isthe film that deserves best actor for Elijah Wood and Viggo Mortensen.SeanAstin so deserves best supporting actor as does the magnificent AndySerkisand Ian Mckellen. It deserves best visual effects, best adapted screenplayand of course best director and best picture! IT IS PHENOMINAL. I loved itso much I cried twice. What you say? A man can cry during a film? Oh mygodhe must be gay! To all you homophobes out there I wanna say please growup!If you haven't seen this film yet, please GO!!!!!!!!
Jarofclay74 (24 April 2013)
... as in five stars for Peter Jackson's latest installment inthe Lord ofthe Rings "trilogy". What a spectacular film! Visually stunning andbreathtaking action sequences. The scriptwriters remain mostly faithfulthistime around to the source material. My main concern lies with the decisionthat was made to omit (in the theatrical version) the fate of Saruman andWormtongue (the latest was such an interesting character in the secondmovieand was underused in the films).I certainly look forward to the extended edition set!
kungen2050 (23 April 2013)
The Fellowship of the Ring was a magic movie magic when I first saw it,despite the lack of massive battle scenes, which I particuly like withthetrilogy. The Two Towers did an even greater job immersing oneself intothestory with the big battle of Helms Deep. The third and last moviesuccessfully combined them both and possessed both the good story and thekick-ass battle scenes, both in much larger scale.I long to see it again. Although I rather see the extended edition causeitgives you a more complete version of the plot (including the battle oftheshire).
hanzy_boy (22 April 2013)
The Oscar big pay off was, I thought, nothing but a pity courtesy handclap, while they left the way-better deserving Mystic River in thedust. It's hard to deny the great panorama the movie generated, the1000 minute-long battle scene, the over sized elephants. but theclichÃ©, flat dialogs that should be the spine of the movie, turned outto be an arthritis, that made me, as an audience, gasped and itchedlike I just saw one of those lifetime-channel original movie. There wasno real great dramatic acting, all actors seem weary and only put onone emotion, and unlike the excellent first part of LOTR, where theyhave frodo, an average-joe hobbit turned into the ultimate ring bearer,puzzled and over bared by this new-found strenuous job he now has, thedrama is alive by other characters struggle to convince frodo andthemselves to defeat their own fear to fight for humanity. I like tosee more of that than the battle scenes, and this I thought was a hugeloss. And lest us not forget the gazillion endings return of the kinghas.
ReelFreak (22 April 2013)
The Lord of the Ring trilogy is a cinematic masterpiece. This moviedeserves the Oscar for Best Picture, Best Director, Cinematography,ScriptAdaptation, Costumes, Special Effects, Sound, Editing andetc...etc...Thispicture could take them all, except for Best Actor/Actress. But whocares,it was great. Go and see it.
dmgreer (21 April 2013)
I'm really not inclined to say "best movie ever" about any film, so maybe Ishould wait until I have more time to digest this movie. But throughout thisfilm I was overcome by the sheer craftsmanship of it. From the production,to the acting, to the directing, to the cinematography, to the casting, tothe location scouting - and in how many more categories is this filmexcellent?Many, many times, it could have gone sappy, been overdone, been pretentious,been slipshod, but through even the most difficult scenes the quality waskept at the highest level.And the tension is excellenlty held and drawn out. Not having read the thirdbook, I was amazed at how many truly tense and fearful moments there were inthe movie, my teeth even started chattering a few times. But then, I've donesome acting myself, and when I go to a movie, I strive to keep myself as faras possible from a cynical state of mind, and I focus on letting the actorson the screen affect me how they will. Speaking of that, I cried many timesduring this film, and would have cried more had I beenalone.If not the best movie of all time, ROTK should at least win the Best Pictureaward, because that one goes the the producers, and the producers of LOTRdeserve such an award for having the guts and the vision to do the wholething in one shot, and to do it up right.
leopovoas (18 April 2013)
This is the best movie ever made, it is a masterpiece. I wish i couldthank Peter Jackson to just tell him how much of a masterpiece thismovie is. It is the movie that inspired me to make movies and it is myfavorite movie. Unless you don't understand the story you will like it.The whole trilogy is worth watching, but this one is the best, eventhough it is really hard to decide. Peter Jackson is the best directorI've ever seen and this looks like this is going to be the best moviefor a long time. I don't know how you can not like lord of the ringsbut I'm guessing it is cause people don't understand the story and getbored of it because its too long, but trust me, stop reading this andbuy the whole trilogy and then buy the whole trilogy's extendededition.
Maciej Cichosz (17 April 2013)
Once again, Peter Jackson proofed that he's one of the best visionarydirectors of his time. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King isyet another masterpiece. Frodo and Sam tight their bonds, so they cantogether cast the One Ring into the Mountain of Doom. With a lot ofpathos, action and emotional scenes, The Lord of the Rings: The Returnof the King combines every feature that movie should have. Excellentmusic from Howard Shore only suits this movie up - great brasses,violins and other string sections will make you cry, even after tenthshowing. It's long. In extended edition it has over 4 hours ofwatching, but believe me, you won't even blink an eye. Peter Jacksondoesn't make a mistake, like other directors, that are basing on books.Some moments are mixed, like PJ wanted, but the movie grip strong tothe book. In my last words, I want to say, that The Lord of the Rings:The Return of the King is a must-see position on your watchlist. It'san incredible masterpiece, that take my breath after almost ten yearsof watching.
Review total: 20, showing from 1 to 20