--- title: "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-return-of-the-king/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-return-of-the-king" critics_score: 88 critics_reviews: 8 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003): what the critics said Critics' score 88 from 8 reviews: 8 positive, 0 mixed, 0 negative. Most critics welcome The Return of the King as a deeply affecting conclusion to the trilogy, with praise centred on Jackson’s command of spectacle and the emotional weight of the characters’ journeys. The vast battles, landscapes and special effects draw broad admiration, while several reviews stress that the scale does not crowd out the hobbits’ story. Nuances in the performances and a darker tone help give the conclusion its force. The reservations concern length, repetition and the uneven attention paid to individual storylines. Enthusiasm varies considerably beneath the broad approval: Slant finds the film overstuffed, while Time Out argues that the logistics overwhelm Jackson, leaving repetitive dialogue and abbreviated story strands. The Guardian offers a sharper dissent, admiring the technical achievement but finding the treatment of good and evil shallow and the appeal adolescent. Even the more reserved reviews generally acknowledge the scale of the filmmaking achievement. ## Empire — Alan Morrison Rating 5/5. The critic praises Jackson for sustaining momentum through the trilogy and delivering a more affecting climax than the book. The performance nuances, darker tone and emotional payoff for long-term viewers are singled out for praise. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/lord-rings-return-king-review/) ## Radio Times — Alan Jones Rating 5/5. Jackson delivers a powerful and enchanting conclusion that mixes myth and magic with astonishing scope; the Minas Tirith battle is singled out as one of cinema's greatest sequences despite some minor gripes about length and character time. [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-du3cep/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-return-of-the-king/) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Rating 4/4. 17 December 2003. The critic calls this the best of the trilogy, praising its grand confidence in dispatching characters to their destinies and its visionary use of special effects for pure spectacle. He notes it redeems earlier meandering but falls a little short of greatness due to the story's inherent silliness. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/lord-of-the-rings-the-return-of-the-king-2003) ## Total Film Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 17 December 2003. The critic calls it a worthy conclusion to a modern epic that exceeds expectations and leaves viewers emotionally sated. The Battle of Pelennor Fields spectacle and overall investment in character arcs are singled out for praise. [Read the review](https://www.gamesradar.com/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-return-of-the-king-review/) ## The New York Times — Elvis Mitchell Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 16 December 2003. The critic finds Jackson avoids caution or unimaginativeness, delivering a meticulous and prodigious vision. The film ends with a gentle, regret-tinged epilogue that provides an enduring and heartbreaking coda. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/16/movies/film-review-triumph-tinged-with-regret-in-middle-earth.html) ## The New Yorker — Anthony Lane Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 5 January 2004. The critic highlights Jackson's nerve in reviving grand, unembarrassable filmmaking on an epic scale with unflagging momentum. He praises the bracing vastness of the project and its magnificent indifference to irony. [Read the review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/01/05/full-circle-8) ## Slant Magazine — Ed Gonzalez Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 3 December 2003. The critic finds the film a ravishing work of mythic restoration that brings together strong elements from the prior entries and remains loyal to the source, but notes it feels overstuffed with some subplots undervalued. They single out the majestic visuals and transcendental imagery for praise. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-return-of-the-king/) ## Screen Daily 8 December 2003. A magnificent movie that meets expectations with staggering spectacle in the Minas Tirith battle and moving emotional payoff, though the extended epilogue and repetition may irritate some viewers. [Read the review](https://www.screendaily.com/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-return-of-the-king/4016388.article) ## Sight and Sound The critic finds the film the least disciplined of the trilogy with a long epilogue but praises its spectacle, emotional core in the hobbit storyline, and Jackson's achievement in adapting Tolkien for the screen. [Read the review](http://old.bfi.org.uk/features/ultimatefilm/chart/details.php?ranking=19) ## The Guardian — Peter Bradshaw 19 December 2003. The critic praises the film's technical brilliance, especially its massive battle sequences and New Zealand landscapes, but faults the omission of Saruman, the shallow treatment of good versus evil, and its appeal mainly to adolescent sensibilities, ultimately calling it mind-blowing tripe. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2003/dec/19/lordoftherings) ## The Hollywood Reporter — David Hunter 8 December 2003. The critic calls it an epic success and a masterfully entertaining final installment that avoids the usual pitfalls of third films in a series. They single out the production's scale, visual splendor, and thrilling battles for praise. [Read the review](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/lord-rings-return-king-review-2003-movie-950539/) ## Time Out — TCh 18 July 2012. The review calls it the longest climax in film history with unmatched spectacle but notes the director seems overwhelmed by logistics, with repetitive dialogue and abbreviated story strands. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-return-of-the-king) ## Eye for Film — Angus Wolfe Murray Rating 3.5/5. 11 December 2003. The critic finds the film too long and slow with about five endings that are weepy and manipulative, but praises the effects, Gollum, the Hobbits' development, and calls the trilogy a magnificent achievement overall. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-return-of-the-king-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-return-of-the-king.md