Is there anybody who didn't like Lord of the Rings:Return of the King

Hey, I have read alot of discussion and also commented on the Return of the King. I just wanna see if they are people who actually did not like it.

Please, if your just going to say angry comments about this topic, then this isnt the place for you. But if you could actually dicuss in adult manner, Welcome. So no "Screw you, it rocks."

Personally, I enjoyed the movie but afterwords, i realized its not that good. It's fun to watch the battle sceans, but the filler i couldn't bear watching. Its not because I only like battle scenes, I just thought the were done poorly.

But hey, thats my personal opinion.

the movie is great but it's not as good as every one said it was, people were like worshiping it, and i was expecting like the greatest movie ever but i just got another really good movie. When every one hypes it up i tend to expect alot but people just didn't shut up and i really had to see it but it turned out to be better than the first 2. But not the best movie i ever saw.

Yes exactly, I saw it before the hype machine started. It was good, but like you said worshiping it. I just felt ive already seen it, because of the first two movies. Its the same for all trilogies. Each movie might have something different but in the end, the third has nothing really special.

exactly but it's still a damn good trilogy

True. It is better than alot of the movies today. I wont mention because people well tell me to go somewhere the sun does not shine.

Screw you, the movie rocks 😆

Just kidding. Seriously though, how can you so casualy dismiss the Lord of the Rings, one of the most ardurous and ambitious undertakings in cinematic history? I see no evidence of the story dragging in places where there is no action, it's a constantly flowing story to me. Are there any specific examples that you have?

I love Return Of The King, I saw it three times and totally thoght it was the best movie, then I went and saw Master And Commander and I thought it was way better.

Well, it might the most ardurous and ambitious project but hey, waterworld was also. I havn't read the books so I went into the movies with a clear head and i feel that the third one wasnt special at all. The fellowship of the ring i felt was alot better. The battle scenes were the same as The Two Towers but with alot more people. but it was still the same technology, so nothing new.

The answer your question about the story. There was a story but what i mean about Filler, it wasnt good. I felt that Legolas character was horrible. ex. " A diversion" line. I felt no feeling for any of them, I didnt care if they died, lived, or anything. And that the emotion between the character was fake. Thats what I felt.

Lord of the Rings as a trilogy was good. Return of the King i felt was the worst of trilogy because there was nothing new about it. Same thing over and over.

Master and Commander was bomb.

Master and Commander rocked. I loved how there were two ships actually firing at each other. It was a breath of fresh air that there was little Cgi used and that sounds and visuals were from actual boats that was made for the film. Great movie

i have to disagree with the return of the king being so great...
1. the actually movie is pretty much based of most of the second part of the book... i mean your almost an hour into the movie and frodo and samwise are finally fighting the damn spider...
2. they really ****ed up the part about frodo telling samwise to leave... i read the book and that never happened, not to say it should cause it is the movie, but the books version was ten times better than that shit!
3. the hobbits are displayed so horrible... in the finaly of the book you realize that the hobbit are strong valient creatures, in the movie they completely move away from that whole idea and never focus on the behaviors of the hobbits. which is pretty much the book gets at.
4. what about bags-end and the ex-white wizard (dont remember how to speel the name?) once again another classic lack of closure for a character. even in the second movie they dont tell you shit about what happens to him... they should have put something!
5. they could have talked more about the eagles...because if you didnt read the books (like most my friends who saw it) you whould ask the question at the end of the movie: "what the **** is up with the eagles?"
6. when frodo and samwise change into the orc clothing in the book makes sense... in the movie why both of them did... maybe jackson looking for a cheap laugh?
7. the whole Liv Tyler thing...boring....
8. i would have reall liked to see the mouth of surmon... which was gone, jsut like how the last battle scene in the movie was ADDED! jsut for the suspence factor too... wasteful!
9. jackson doesnt do too well with the timeline of the movie. if your not familiar with the books you cod hve easly thought that this journey took palce over a matter of months...not four years.
10. last but not least i dont know if this was because of the theatre screen i saw it at or what, but in the end when they are awarding the hobbits the graphics looked really chopy. not a good note to end the movie on.

these are jsut my opinions... dont get me wrong ROTK is a great movie, and jackson did an amazing job with the trilogy. but compared to the other 2 movies three was the farthest from the original book and the teh graphics didnt seem as pushed to perfection as the other movies. for action i def would give it to 3, the fight scenes were def a trip.

I completly forgot about the eagles, I remember being like that. What the hell were they, and where did they come from.

The graphics were the same as the other ones i feel. and the romance in that movie, come on, porno has better romance. Jackson should of taken the whole thing out.

I started getting bored by the end. Thats not to say its a bad film but it might be a victim of it's own success, I had a feeling of "I've seen all this before in the other two films" I was like "Just throw the f***** thing in the lava!" I enjoyed the Last Samurai and Lost in Translation more.

ME!!! I couldn't stand Lord of the Rings. Overall, it was a waste of 10 hours of my life (actually more sense I watched some on DVD w/ friends too).

Actually, I'll give a few reasons as well.

First of all, there was 6 endings. SIX!
1. On the rocks
2. On the bed
3. The ceremony
4. The wedding
5. Bilbo and the ship
6. Sam and his family

That occupied the last 30 minutes of the movie. WHAT A BORE! All they needed was the seen on the rocks and the bed and the rest of the scenes could have been saved for the real LOTR freaks that want to watch it on the uncut DVD. Sure the fanatics liked those extra scenes, but it was torture for somebody who is not a big fan.

Then I have to agree with the eagle thing. It was so random for those who don't follow. I remember sitting there and thinking "WHAT THE F*CK!?! Where'd they come from!?!"

The war ending with the ghosts was retarded as well. It didn't show them up close killing the orcs, it just showed a green fog with images of men in it flowing through the battle and it was over just like that. Didn't Gandolf even say that he doesn't really help because its the battle of man or humans or something like that? I don't know if dead men would count in that case.

I remember seeing one scene in ROTK when I actually thought something really cool and different was going to happen. That was the scene when those dragons (sorry I don't know their names) were flying around and Gandolf rode his horse towards them. He lifted his staff and I thought finally something cool from the almighty wizard. And what does he do? He shines a f*cking flashlight at them through his staff and it scared them away. RETARDED!

And finally, this part isn't too bad, but the scene when Legolas was fighting off those giant elephants. I'm just curious who else thought that looked a little too much like Star Wars. The scene was more bright when LOTR is at its best when the lighting is dark.

Exactly, people who never read the books thought that they seen everything before. (wel not everybody but a few i know)
This is funny, some people justify Return of the King to be the greatest of all time or really good is because Peter Jackson brought thier vision of the movie true. THey said, " when i read the books thats what i saw." Excuse me people but thats not a reason for a movie being good. Jurassic Park brought dinosaurs to life, why isnt that labelled as the greates movie of all time.

Well, I preferred the first two. Mind you, that is the same with the books as well.

Why couldnt Gandalf just have booked one of those big eagles to take Frodo to mount Doom in the first place?

Hahaha, because that would be way to easy.
Also, why wasn't there any guards at the entrance of Mount Doom. You think if that eye guy was such a powerful bad guy he would realized that the only thing that can kill him is the ring going into the lava?? So what does he do, leaves no guard at the door of the only thing stopping him.

Like the humans could not hold of the Orcs for 10 years because arnt the orcs just bred out of the ground??

the book defines everthing a whole lot better, and it all makes sense. but what the movie did was that bits and pieces from the book and throw them together giving to a hell of alot of confusion. what really pissed me off was that i watched the first two movie...yeah they were awesome. then i started te third and i was excited, but then they ****ing destroy the story in the book and they start ****ing around with the timeline. what sucks is that is the last installment, so no matter how i look at it im always gonna remember the last hour of the third movie and remember what i didnt like. just sucks that they couldnt go through all this ****ing up i nthe second.

oh yeah...still a good movie!