(Warning: this review may contain some mild spoilers. Yes. Mild spoilers for a movie based on a book series that has been available for more than half of a century. I realize that you may have missed out on your myriad chances to, you know, actually go out and read the books, so I'm just going to warn you right here. Heathen.)

I was expecting it to be good.

But not this good.

I'm not even going to bother with my traditional history-in-a-nutshell of the film, nor am I going to tell you about the plot. If you are here reading this, you have a pretty good idea of what Return of the King is all about. It's not like you need to be reminded that this is the third installment of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, or that it is based on Tolkien's classic book series. No, you know all of that. There's no point in reminding you - if you don't know now, you never will.

It's very difficult for me to review this movie. On one hand, I must play the objective film analyst, critquing the movie's successes as well as its faults. But on the other hand, there's that part of me that grinned like an idiot when Gandalf started busting heads. How can I balance the two? Which side should win out? More importantly, which side makes for better reading? But then I realized that Return of the King is one of those films that satisfies both halves of my movie-going personality, and does both with aplomb. I'm not even sure what aplomb means. I think it's a kind of fruit.

So let's get to the film proper, which starts off a little slowly. I say it starts off slowly, but that's probably just because I already know how Gollum came to be, and how he first got his slippery little mitts on the Ring in the first place. See, I read the books, which would seem to automatically qualify me for "elitist windbag" status in some circles. While I thought that the sequence was a little slow-paced, it was nonetheless necessary. WETA did a fantastic job of gradually turning Serkis into Gollum, and having Gollum narrate his own backstory was a stroke of genius. But I prattle on. Return of the King doesn't send you right into the thick of things the way that The Two Towers did, but after the climactic battle of Helm's Deep, a lull in the action is understandable.

Performance-wise, everyone is just as good as they've always been in this series. Elijah Wood and Sean Astin both turn in what are arguably the performances of their respective careers - Wood bringing the utter desperation and ruin of Frodo to light, and Sean Astin's Sam continuing to act as an unflappable pillar of strength. Frodo and Sam's relationship takes center stage in several parts of this film, and is tested to the breaking point so believably that even I, stoic and stern-willed Bryan, was more than a little heartbroken. I would never cry, of course, crying is for sissies. But it's just so hard to watch Frodo climb up one more mountainside, with the weight of the world quite literally around his neck, and it's difficult to watch Gollum slowly break Frodo and Sam apart, and it's just heartwrenching to see Sam cry, and...sorry, I'm getting a little misty-eyed.

Speaking of Gollum, I must rave about Andy Serkis a bit. Why hasn't this man been nominated for an Oscar? He deserved one for Two Towers, and he deserves one for Return of the King. I once again contend that Serkis is Gollum - in facial expression, voice, and movement. The CG character is basically just a costume for the actor. I defy anyone involved with the Academy to watch Serkis' dedication to the character as chronicled in the "Taming of Smeagol" documentary found on both DVD releases of The Two Towers and not want to give this guy at least some credit for the work he put into the character and continues to put in. Gollum is even more realistic in this film, and arguably more terrifying - his eyes are alternately filled with seemingly genuine malice and fear, and it's hard not to squirm a little when he schemes and plots. Yet he never loses his sympathetic nature, and right up until the film's climactic moment, we're never quite sure whether to hiss at him or feel bad for him, making him Middle Earth's equivalent of Michael Jackson. Asinine attempt at topical humor aside, the characterization of Gollum is one of the things that the movies arguably do better than the books, and for that Serkis and everyone who brought Gollum to life should be commended. Technically, he's just as good, if not better, than he was in The Two Towers - he interacts even more with Frodo and Sam, and after a while you forget he's even a computer generated character - he's there, just as Frodo and Sam are. Amazing.

The rest of the cast is also admirable - Ian McKellen continues to impress, adding some impressive skull-cracking skills to his worthy talents as an actor, Viggo Mortensen is indeed as regal as Aragorn should be - albeit a very scruffy sort of regal, Orlando Bloom continues his assigned role of making all the teenage girls in the audience swoon, John Rhys-Davies does something as Gimli, Billy Boyd and Dominic Monhagan are exceptional in the extended roles of Pippin and Merry, respectively, and there's a bunch of actors that are all also wonderful but would just get repetitive if I mentioned them by name. For those who are wondering, yes, Hugo Weaving is in here, and no, he's not as charming as he is when he's Agent Smith. I think Weaving's at his best when he's a villain, but his Elrond is no less watchable.

I suppose that before I discuss how the movie stands as a conversion of the book, it is worth noting what is cut out. First off, what you've heard is true - Saruman is nowhere to be seen in this cut of the film. Jackson gave a very good reason for not including him - basically, there was so much else to cover that there was no way to leave in the scenes that had Saruman in them and still make a decent running time. I frankly would have liked to see the verbal showdown between Gandalf and Saruman after the fall of Isengard, but have no fear - Jackson has promised that it will be in the Extended Edition. Secondly, there's also no Scouring of the Shire, so you fans of that particular aspect of the book's ending won't see it, but really, if you thought you were going to see it you're pretty much delusional. Frankly, I don't care - it was a good, not great part of the book and ultimately felt anticlimactic and tacked-on. Would it have been nice to have in the movie? Sure. Would it have been worth adding another hour to the film? Not really. Ultimately, the movie resolves everything so wonderfully that what's left out isn't nearly as important as what's left in. Even the most ardent, die-hard purist will be hard-pressed to find something fundamentally wrong with the film's finale - and those that do really ought to get out more. It's right, it's good, you won't be disappointed. I wasn't.

(Here be those aforementioned spoilers. Go read a book or something while you skim past this. Might I recommend this one?)

The trick with RotK is that it doesn't have a strong, epic centerpiece, you know, something that the entire movie builds up to. By that, I mean it doesn't have a Helm's Deep. That's alright, and in fact it works in the movie's favor. There are so many excellent bits on this table to feast on that having a big centerpiece would really have cluttered the chance for nourishment that we get from the many smaller scenes. Before I go any further with that metaphor and accidentally kill someone, let's just say that Return of the King thrives on its scenes that are smaller in scope, yet no smaller in emotional and physical impact and leave it at that. And what sort of bits are those? How about Gandalf cracking some skulls? I was cheering (again, on the inside). Sam fighting Shelob, queen of the spiders? The little guy has so much heart, it's hard not to jump up in your seat. Legolas fighting one of the gigantic war "oliphaunts" all by his lonesome...and winning? The applause I heard from behind me tells me all I need to know. And Eowyn and Merry bringing down the fearsome Witch King? I was this close to yelling "YOU GO, GIRL!" when Eowyn jabbed her sword into that (very cool-looking) hooded schmuck's "face". Beautiful. Just beautiful. The entire movie is full of moments like this. To say that it is a crowd pleaser would be the understatement of the year.

Moreover, however, you're going to get a lot more out of this movie if you've watched the first two Extended Editions (or, again, read the books). It just feels more complete and part of a greater whole when watched in the framework of the complete cuts of the first two movies. Stuff mentioned in the Extended Editions is increasingly relevant in Return of the King. However, the movie does a fine job of juggling all of its plot threads, resolving them all satisfactorily in three hours and twenty minutes - Revolutions was working with far less and still couldn't get the job done. The aforementioned lack of Saruman is the one weak link in the web of the film's plot, but they manage to get around it pretty cleanly. All told, if you're looking for a solid interpretation of the book, Jackson and crew pulled a hat trick - not only is it respectful and more or less faithful to what Tolkien conceived, it improves many of the aspects of the story that just got glossed over or were not explored as in-depth in the original work - particularly the depths of despair and madness that the Ring drives Frodo and Gollum to, and the relationship between Frodo and Sam.

Problems with the movie? Well, it does kinda stretch out towards the end - in fact, it "ends" three or four different times, and I've heard of people getting up to leave before the movie really ended. But, uh, that's really about it.

Return of the King is more than a movie. It is an experience. I know that sounds like a terrible advertising tagline, but bear with me. During the three hours and twenty minutes' running time, I grinned like an idiot, squirmed and clenched the hand of the young lady sitting next to me (she was there with me, don't think I'm just holding random peoples' hands or anything) during the tense parts...yes, I was getting nervous and I had even read the book...I laughed, I wanted to cry, I wanted to stand up and cheer, but out of respect for the other patrons (and the aforementioned young lady) I did not. Please rest assured, however, if there had not been other people in the theater with me, I would have been jumping on my chair. This movie made me feel like a kid again, full of wonder and awe at what unfolded around me. I haven't felt like that in a theater in a long time. That alone should make this the best movie of the year.

But for those of you with cold, mechanical, analytically-minded hearts, it is still impossible to deny the technical aspects of the film. The cinematography is gorgeous, with grand, sweeping shots of beautiful New Zealand landscapes and shots of unfathomably big armies that make your heart leap into your throat, leaving you wondering how our heroes will get out of this one. The acting, even when the dialogue seems a little too formal or fake, never falters, and each person in the cast is genuinely thrilled to be doing what they're doing - their dedication and enthusiasm shines through on the screen. Peter Jackson's direction is also nigh-flawless - the battle scenes are beautiful in their chaotic splendor, and quieter moments are handled with adept care. The film's script and execution is enough to please even the most hardcore Tolkien purist. Look at all of that, and you'll probably sit in your chair when the credits start to roll and say, as soon as you're able to catch your breath again, "Damn. That was cool." Just like me. Just like everyone in the theater with me, if the spontaneous and thunderous applause is any indication.

Because what Jackson and his crew have done here is nothing more than create a modern-day classic. Few film series of recent years can boast of Lord of the Rings' favored status with critics and instant emotional connection with audiences. Few film series of recent years, or indeed ever, can boast of the consistent level of quality that this trilogy can. How many trilogies in film history can claim that the third film was the best one? (Definitely not the Wachowski brothers' baby.) Let's face it - these three films will go down in cinematic history. Will they be as well received as Star Wars? Quite possibly. They are inarguably better films. Will it become an enduring favorite on the scale of other popular trilogies such as Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and The Naked Gun? Undoubtedly. One of the series' greatest strengths is that it can be enjoyed by people of all ages. Whether you're seven or seventy, the themes that Tolkien's work and Jackson's adaptation present still echo through your mind. The underlying reason and concept behind the movies is so fundamental and understandable that it can appeal to people of all ages and backgrounds. When looked at holistically, Lord of the Rings will be one for the history books, and one you can pull out years from now and enjoy just as much. I can't say that for many movies. I feel comfortable saying it for these.

But that's enough babbling about the overall trilogy. Return of the King is the best movie of the year. It may be the best movie of the last five years. It is certainly the best film in the trilogy, making the other two look even better than before - no easy task. It's a fitting, satisfying end to one of the greatest cinematic rides of the past decade. But more important than that, it's just a good movie.

Call me crazy, but I think Tolkien would have been proud.

Rating:

That sounded really awesome until some quick mathematical jujitsu revealed that it worked out to twenty star-type thingies, and while I want to stress that the film deserves every one of them, it would require me to make a new graphic and I don't feel like doing that. So, being as it is the holiday season, I took fifteen of those Star-Type Thingies and distributed them to needy children who, I don't know, will make a hat out of them or something, and gave Return of the King a much smaller and more manageable, but no less impressive...