Good, but ultimately not great.

Rating: 8/10 (17 December 2003)

(Review contains spoilers)
I loved The Fellowship of the Ring. Aside from the expansion of Arwen's role, the portrayal of Elrond, and the reworking of the fords of the Bruinen, I do not have any problems with Jackson's interpretation. Above all, Fellowship managed to capture some of the magic of Tolkien's books; as much as I like the grander elements, it is the smaller touches, like Bilbo's song as he leaves Bag End, that have really stuck with me. The Two Towers was great in parts, but was very uneven. The usage of Elrond and Arwen, the changes to Faramir's character, and the addition of Elves at Helm's Deep all took away from the movie. As much as I liked Gollum, the Ents, and the non-Elvish parts of Helm's Deep, I was disappointed with the movie as a whole. Return of the King falls somewhere between Fellowship and The Two Towers; while its shortcomings are not as pronounced as those in The Two Towers, it does not capture the spirit of the books quite as well as Fellowship.
As should be expected, the visual effects in Return of the King are very good. Gollum is as well done here as he is in The Two Towers, and the battles of the Pelennor and the Morannon are amazing to watch. If nothing else, Jackson has crafted a technical masterpiece.
The acting in Return of the King is, like in the rest of the series, uneven. Ian McKellen, Sean Astin, and Andy Serkis turn in particularly good performances, while Hugo Weaving, John Rhys-Davies, and Orlando Bloom do the best they can with their bastardized roles. Viggo Mortensen continues to be mediocre as Aragorn, while Elijah Wood still tries to substitute forlorn staring for acting. Liv Tyler, in her mercifully short time on the screen, manages all the characterization of a piece of balsa wood.
The script, while good in parts, has its share of shortcomings. The use of Elrond is particularly weak; while Jackson seems fascinated by the aesthetic of the Elves, I do not think he truly understands them. In the movies, Elrond comes across as arrogant and condescending towards the humans, playing the overbearing, disapproving father more than the wise ring-bearer. Elrond's appearance in Rohan to deliver Andúril to Aragorn is an unwelcome detour, an uncharacteristic move that would not be necessary if Jackson had paid more attention to the books.
Return of the King is somewhat well paced, though it could definitely flow better. At certain points during the movie, particularly when the Shire theme played and the characters lapsed into overly long discussions of life and death, I felt like I was sitting through a three and a half hour movie. The various false ends during the denouement also interrupt the flow of the film.
The ending was fairly well done, but could have been much better. Gimli and Legolas, for instance, have no ending; after we see them at Aragorn's coronation, they never appear again. The same fate has befallen Faramir, Éowyn, Éomer, and most other characters. The only characters who are given a proper ending are Aragorn, Arwen, Elrond, Galadriel, Gandalf, Frodo, and Bilbo; even Merry and Pippin, whom we see at the end, and Sam, who has the final line, are left with uncertain fates. While I am sure this will be fixed in the Extended Edition, Jackson should have at least allowed the members of the Fellowship to have proper endings.
Return of the King is a good movie. It is visually stunning, had a good soundtrack, and managed to capture some of the spirit and magic of Tolkien's books. Still, it is flawed, both as an adaptation and as a film. It is by no means a great movie, but it is one of the better movies I have seen this year.
8/10