Impressive, intense, visually stunning epic extravaganza, but vastly overrated

Rating: 5/10 (22 August 2007)

The Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King (2003)
Note: This review both applies to the original 201 minutes cinematic version and the 251 minute Extended Cut.
Well... It is an exhaustive experience, it isn't easy sitting without disruption through four hours of monsters, CGI beasts, prolonged battle sequences and a storyline that surpasses the length of all the stories of the Holy Bible. Don't get me wrong this is a beautifully made film, faithfully adapted from Tolkien's thick, detailed novels revolving around that precious ring.
I watched both 201 minutes and 251 minute versions. If you are a fan of the film, I also recommend the longer version. 50 extra minutes of footage that you will be able to cherish and appreciate. It doesn't flaw the film it just boosts it.
Still all the fantasy distilled from every corner of the mind and put into this blockbuster does not, somehow, doesn't justify a Best Picture Oscar for me; Mystic River was a finer film.
Did I Like the Film? Does it matter? A box office gross in excess of $1.1 billion, what does it matter? A film with 11 Oscars and a heap of critics praising it... Well I don't think this film should be in the top 100, 50, 20 or 10 films. It just doesn't have that drive. Jackson's technical and directorial achievements deserve every single praise, the film's style, art direction, effects, cinematography deserve all the accolades, but this isn't a best picture. It isn't a 10/10 masterpiece. No it is just a big, visually spectacular extravaganza. Watch it, love it enjoy it. I don't in any way disregard the praiseworthy elements of the film, but I don't consider it a masterpiece. No not a masterpiece. Just a solid, filling epic fantasy film. The best of the trilogy? Yes. The Best Film of 2003? No.
"The BEN-HUR of fantasy films"