one fabulous film split in three great parts

Rating: 10/10 (17 December 2003)

I must disagree with the previous comment... I think the key to enjoy the film is never forget it's ONE story made into three parts which are only and exclusively meaningful as a part of a whole, therefore judging them separately seems to me a little pointless as well. Of course character development was way better in The Fellowship of the Ring, because it was the "calm" introduction to the whole ongoing net of conflicts and allegiance, races and people... The Two Towers was devoted to development of action and this one to solving all the pending problems. Classic book structure really. In any case, Tolkien wasn't known for coherent structure and rhythm so adapting such a complex, "untidy" story can't be easy for anyone and certainly it would be nearly impossible not to make the same narrative mistakes the original author did. It has to be said that, for me, The Two Towers would stand out as to how deep (regardless of commercial dictatorship) it takes the story, especially with the addition of scenes in the DVD extended version.
I think The Return of the King and the whole trilogy are a brave, spectacular and generally inspired rendition of Tolkien's idea. Maybe ROTK relies too much on special effects, and this is a good idea today that it's all so new for us but how about 20 years from now, when it will all look obsolete and kitsch? The battle scenes are magnificent, in full daylight et al (battles in the rainy dark -Two Towers- looked gloomier and much more dramatic, but must be also easier for technicians to "ornate" digitally), and nearly 3 hours and a half go by incredibly fast considering the slow pace and density of the movie... I NEVER got bored.
I sincerely doubt LOTR could have been made any better. I will miss a fourth part.