The classic film trilogy comes to a close

Rating: 9/10 (1 March 2004)

Fans of the original animated version of "LOTR" were disappointed when Ralph Bakshi announced it would never be completed: "King" saw a release by itself in a version produced by Rankin/Bass, the team which produced "The Hobbit". So, in other words, many fans have been waiting an AWFULLY long time for this one, as well as for the whole trilogy.
I think the most impressive aspect of this film, certainly from a technical standpoint, is the incredibly lifelike characterization of Gollum, aided greatly by Andy Serkis' vocal work. That said, there is less development and, generally, less of Gollum in this third film, which may explain why this film is less satisfying than "2 Towers". Gollum was a strong asset to making the second film even more impressive than the first, but "King" has no such ace up its sleeve; it is rather stuck with the task of wrapping up loose ends (at long long last) and saying goodbye to now-cherished characters.
I think that we have to wait until "King" sees release on DVD to make a full estimate of its value relative to the other 2 films, since at this point (Feb 03, one day after its victory at the Academy Awards) we can only compare a truncated version of this film to a complete version of the other 2. This film feels, even more so than did the other 2, as if something important is missing in the theatrical version. This may be because the filmmakers, now knowing that most fans will see the DVD version more often and over a longer period of time, have decided that they can be a bit looser with the theatrical version.
I don't necessarily think "Return of the King" was the best film of 2003, but it probably deserved the Oscar just for the achievements of the trilogy as a whole. American film fans have grown tired of derivative, stale sequels and so this trilogy is very refreshing because it has a different story in each part.
Tolkien's work has been translated to the screen masterfully here, and although I as well as all other lifetime fans will find much to pick at here, there is so much more to be thankful for.
That said, my major criticism of this film is in its truncated ending, skipping the "scouring of the Shire" section of the book which Jackson apparently does not consider important. I can understand not including it if his purpose was to wrap the story up as quickly as possible after its first major conclusion. But, instead of the scouring we get an extended scene in which each major character goes one at a time (and often in slow motion, Jackson't most egregious fault as a director) into Frodo's "hospital room" and talks to him, which scene is followed by another scene with everyone bowing down to Aragorn, etc. etc. The film could probably have combined these 2 scenes and left room for the scouring.
Why do I think it is so important? Not so much for the plot, but because it illustrates beautifully Tolkien's concept that home is never the same place you left behind. They tried to do it in the film by showing Frodo sitting alone in his room. Here is the problem: in "2 Towers" Frodo sees the burning of the Shire and a huge mechanical mill in the Shire -- in the film Galadriel tells him that this is what might happen, if they fail. In the book, this is the future, and it is the future that Frodo and his friends find in the Shire, regardless of the fact that they "won" the war. This biting commentary was Tolkien's last stab at the "glory" of war, and I think it belonged in the movie, whereas removing it makes the ending a bit too sunny for my tastes, and relative to I think Tolkien's wishes.
Anyway, an excellent movie that we will no doubt be returning to from time to time for the rest of our lives.