This 200-minute long film is as lean, mean, and keen as it needs to be..

Rating: 10/10 (23 April 2006)

The final installment of The Lord of the Rings trilogy was a make-or-break preposition. After building up so much expectation and anticipation amongst hardcore Tolkien fans with the first two episodes, whether New Zealand director Peter Jackson could finish them wih necessary flourish remained to be seen. If Return of the King failed, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, celebrated for its detail and energy, would end up being as disappointing as the final stage of The Matrix films. In its original version, this 200-minute long film is as lean, mean, and keen as it needs to be to tie up all the loose plots lines. Return of the King necessarily has many, many endings but that is its purpose. Newcomers and non-fans will not be able to see Return of the King as a stand-alone feature, as there is very little exposition (even less here than in the previous The Two Towers). Elijah Wood's painful adventure as Frodo, the ring bearer, finally comes to a close but not after the most harrowing threat yet (those frightened of spiders be warned). Gollum, the trilogy's most fascinating character, made actor Andy Serkis a household name. Released in a year full of cinematic disappointments, Return of the King has a giddy perfection about it. Its success made The Lord of the Rings series a new benchmark of excellence that future trilogies, sequels, and prequels must try to match or surpass. As a three-part film, The Lord of the Rings can transport viewers effortlessly to other lands where heroism, love and sacrifice make perfect sense.