A complete ending to a highly anticipated trilogy.

Rating: 10/10 (10 January 2004)

I never thought, when I went to see `Bad Taste' in a film festival in Hamilton, New Zealand, those many years ago, that the director of that low-budget hilarity would eventually be making The LotR's trilogy to an eager world-wide audience.
Let me say that the first time I saw RotK, I didn't think it up to par with the first two parts. However, after a second viewing (where I didn't sit as close to the screen) and some time to digest it all, I rate it just as good.
In reality, I don't consider this to be a single entity, just the third section of an extended movie. Therefor, saying whether RotK is better or worse than FotR or TTT, doesn't make sense to me. As a complete story, they are incredible in depth, breadth and scope. For those of you out there who give it negative reviews, take a bit of time and think about whether or not you could pull off something so huge and to satisfy so many.
A point to note: A number of reviewers comment on the trilogy not being true to the book, and state that an adaptation should not change or modify the original, merely visualise the exact words and scenes already created. Firstly, let me point out that the Miriam Webster dictionary defines adaptation to mean "modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment" or "a composition rewritten into a new form". This second meaning hits the point home. Note the words "rewritten" and "new form". It is a director's job to ensure that they bring to the screen a fresh, exciting and thoughtful version of a work. In that regard, Peter Jackson has succeeded. Give him his due. Just a mention to those of you who give Shakespeare as an example of something that should never be re-interpreted, I have seen a number of productions of the bard where scenes are cut or rearranged to allow for the director's vision to shine through. I don't judge these as being bad, just a new way of looking at things, and I enjoy being exposed to differing points of view on how things are interpreted. Personally, I hate seeing movies that are an exact replica of the book. Why on earth would I want to see the movie then????
Okay, one last gripe, and notice my gripes are about the negative reviewers, not the movie itself (despite the fact that all movies have flaws). The ending is NOT 35-45 minutes as one reviewer stated. It is approximately 23. Considering the trilogy is about 9 1/2 hours in length (more when you consider the EE's) this amount of time is not excessive. It equates to around a 4 or 5 minute ending on a 2 hour movie. Allowing the audience to experience a satisfactorily wrapped ending is obviously NOT what some viewers want. I thought it a pleasant change to actually have a movie end without loose ends or parts unexplained. (another recently concluded trilogy that introduced many irrelevant concepts and failed to explain even the relevant ones will remain unnamed).
All in all, a thorough job well done! In some ways different from the book, but better because of it! Peter Jackson and crew, I hope you get all the credit and reward you deserve for this incredible feat. Many thanx from a fellow Kiwi, albeit uprooted. I can't wait for King Kong.
P.S. Peter, maybe you should consider doing `The Hobbit', as the rumours indicate there is a lot of interest from the movie-going public.