El retorno del rey

I really LIKED the whip song!!!

Considering this was a made-for-TV ANIMATED movie back in 1980, Rankin-Bass did an okay job trying to make amends for Ralph Bakshi's failure. R-B was hired to take the entire finale of LOTR and squeeze it down to under 90 minutes suitable for TV. By comparison, Peter Jackson spent over 90 million to make a 3 1/2 hour movie with a PG-13 rating.

R-B made some tough, hard, and brave decisions to pick what would stay, what would go, and what needed to be changed. Purists should stick with the books, but when you consider that Tolkien himself couldn't tell his whole story within the book and had to include appendices, it really isn't necessary to include every minute detail on TV.

The book spent over 100 pages just wrapping up all the "lose ends" after the ring was destroyed. The quest for the ring was the main plot, not dealing with Saruman, not resolving Aragorn's and Arwen's love, not even dealing with Legolas' and Gimli's bond. While these plots didn't make it to the movie and that's a shame, they are not essential to the main story.

I'm not saying the movie was GREAT. I still chuckle when I think that the actual RETURNING OF THE KING took a five second cameo, I stand by Rankin-Bass if only to pick up Ralph Bakshi's pieces, even in vain.

I have fond memories of watching this film as a kid. This was pre-2000s so Peter Jackson's Trilogy didn't exist yet. This movie, The Hobbit movie (made by the same people), and the movie Ralph Bakshi made, were the only movie versions of Tolkien's world available to me in my childhood.

I got that there were some differences between the books and the movies (my dad read the books to me as a kid), like the Black Riders looking like banshees, and not including Legolas or Gimli. But as I go older the differences became more apparent. Most of the main story is there, but it tends to exclude most non-Hobbit characters and condenses the overall story a bit.

Despite the departures from the source material, I really enjoyed how they depicted the temptation of the Ring. They did a better job (in my opinion) of showing how the Ring corrupts people's minds, that inner battle of the psyche, than the more outward portrayal in Peter Jackson's films.

John Huston will always be my favorite voice for Gandalf.

The battle between Eowyn and the Witch-King is actually more book accurate than in the Peter Jackson films. I really like this scene in the movie, and just how cool they made Eowyn here, despite her barely having any screen time.

I also really liked the Orcs. They look so creepy and menacing. The "Where the Wild Things Are" vibes are very strong. Also, the best non-Tolkien song to ever grace an adaptation is by far "Where There's A Whip There's A Way." This alone gives this movie a special place in my heart. It captures the miserable nature of the Orcs so well, striking the perfect balance of campy-ness, family friendly, yet diabolical tone, that makes villain songs so iconic. There are other great songs too that will forever live rent free in my head.

Not the Best Tolkien adaptation, but an excellent movie. Especially for younger audiences. It is a bit creepy, but way more kid friendly that the intense Peter Jackson films.

Lots of plot holes and missing charcaters and no context but the music, animation, voice acting, art style, and it's flairs make it too charming to hate on. Easily one of the best So Bad Its Good type of film.

In the wake of Peter Jackson's incredibly successful Tolkien series, this movie tends to get a lot of flak. Yet in some regards, I actually prefer this version, and I'll explain why:

The difference of opinion is basically generational and dependent on what the viewer is looking for. If you are hooked on stunning visuals and "epic" proportions in every estimable regard, there is no denying that Peter Jackson's films are better.

While this film deviates from the plot in several instances--no doubt a consequence of condensing so much material into an hour-and-a-half--it does maintain some of the better quotes from the books; keep in mind that these lines are delivered in the style in which they were written, not watered down the way some of the most powerful quotes are in more modern versions.

Combine this with a cast of amazing voice actors (Brother Theodore is the best, creepiest Gollum, hands down; Paul Frees orc voices are chilling; Roddy McDowall and Orson Bean do incredible things; and, of course, John Huston; I am not familiar with the actor that plays Denethor, but I love that performance as well) and you've got what is basically an Elizabethan drama with watercolor backgrounds and animation.

The other major reason why people dislike this film, and again it was a creative choice, is the inclusion of songs. Peter Jackson made films for adults; these animated films are intended for children. I admit that the ratio of song to plot can get tedious in this film, but the reasoning is noble. If you've ever read The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings, you know it is absolutely packed with poetry. I am sure it was this film's intent to preserve this feeling while at the same time emulating the musical style which has been popular with children's programming for years.

In conclusion, people often criticize this film on matters of taste rather than actual merit. If you enjoy animation and well-written dialogue, this is definitely worth a look.

Ten minutes less singing replaced with actual development of the story would have made this mediocre animated version of Tolkien's classic at least somewhat similar to the actual story. As it is, we get a lot of tired, dull hippy tunes and a story that moves slower than molases, and a neglect of a number of critical events from the book. Generally inferior to the Bakshi "Lord of the Rings" and definitely inferior to Peter Jackson's stunning special editions. ("Do you not know death when you see it?!") Still, mildly amusing, and there's always that groovy "Where there's a whip..." Calypso-disco may yet be the strongest weapon in Mordor's arsenal!