The Return of the King (1980)

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

I personally really liked Rankin/Bass' The Hobbit, so I was hoping that their Return of the King would be as good. I will be honest in saying that, although expecting something like Peter Jackson's stunning epic was a tall order, I was a little disappointed judging it on its own terms and in comparing it to Rankin/Bass' Hobbit adaptation. I wouldn't go as far to say that any asset is truly dire, but everything got too much of a mixed reception from me.Animation: I personally did like the background art. Some were lacking in finesse but most did look very pretty. The colours have times when they're luscious but others when they're rather flat and dull-looking. But it was the character designs where the animation fell down hardest on. Not all of them are bad, Gandalf and Aragorn actually look pretty good. I can see the intent in trying to give Gollum the frog-like appearance he's described as, at the same time though in that effort they took the description to extremes. Of the character designs, which generally were quite ugly-looking if I was to be honest, Pippin, Merry and the ring-wraiths fared the worst.Music: In terms of songs, there are a couple that stood out, Frodo of Nine Fingers and especially Where There's a Whip were the standouts. The lyrics do a decent job in retaining the poetry of the prose of the book, and some of the scoring has some whimsy. Too much of the music though is done in a style that doesn't fit with the tone of the story and perhaps too late 70s-early 80s. Some of it is catchy, some also is a little lacking in life.Dialogue: Most of it is not too bad actually, there are some intelligent and thoughtful lines that maintain the spirit of the dialogue of the book. Not all of it however flows very well, coming across as stilted and cheesy instead.Story: There are moments that do work. Aragorn's Coronation Procession was rousing and moving in equal measure. Sam's temptation has a thrilling sense of foreboding and Eowyn's encounter with the ring-wraith likewise. Conversely it ties with the pacing as the film's biggest failing. Too much of it, due to how much was left out, jumps around and while the essence of fantasy and adventure is there a lot of it feels too choppy and confused. The characters are great but the length and pacing doesn't allow us to care for them properly. Important characters and plot strands are either left out or are over in a matter of seconds(that is including that that explains the whole point of the title) which adds to the confused nature of the narrative.Pacing: This was a mix as well, but rather than being an asset that was either good or bad or a bit of both, this was the area where it was a mess that was taken to either extreme. Most of the storytelling is rather pedestrian, further bogged down by the inclusion of dream sequences that while interesting in some instances felt too much after a while. The sprawling and choppy nature of how the story was told also gives some scenes and transitions a rushed feeling.Voice acting: There are some standouts, John Huston embodies Gandalf in a noble and distinguished vocal performance. Brother Theodore is appropriately sinister, and while Gollum here doesn't have enough pathos he does succeed in giving some anyway. Paul Frees is very chilling in his own unique way, and Roddy MacDowell is appropriately loyal as Sam. I was mixed on Orson Bean. I liked his Bilbo in The Hobbit, and he clearly tries hard and has some likable moments, but generally I found his Frodo too over-earnest, not helped by the fact that Frodo comes across as too idealistic in how he is written. Others don't fare very well at all. Casey Kasem's voice is jarring(no offence to him but it was too much Shaggy and not enough Merry), Don Messick sounds as though his voice was recorded inside a filter and Glen Yarbrough has a voice that will go either way with viewers, I personally found his rather bleating sound here a little too hard to take.Overall, neither awful or great. Everything however is too much of a mixed bag for me. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Two Hobbits struggle to destroy the Ring while their friends desperately Sauron's forces in a final battle.In amongst an over complicated exposition opening accompanied by some folk music Return of the King is a direct sequel to The Hobbit (1977) which loosely follows the Lord of The Rings (1978) - all complicated stuff. Between these three animated features they haphazardly form Hobbit through to The Return of the King. The animation and artistry has improved since the 1977 outing but the pacing is choppy. There's some great background plates and swordplay even if a bit skimmed over and brief. There's flashbacks, dreams and visions that are unnecessary, adding nothing to the already wishy-washy narrative.Roddy McDowall is the perfect voice of Samwise Gamgee and a great talent. John Huston's Gandalf (voice) serves for the most part as narrator purely for exposition. Gollum voice is once again Brother Theodore.Ultimately, it's all a little haphazard. There's lots missing as you'd expect for screen adaptation, but music at times doesn't fit and harks back to the The Hobbit's hippie/folk music which would be fine if it fit the on screen going-ons. Also if the great dramatic score wasn't included it may have faired better being one or the other.Overall, like it's predecessor and source material it's a little to dark for young children, nevertheless, it's good introduction to Tolkien even if somewhat disjointed.

One word - awful. The terrible animation ,wooden voice acting and cheap feel make this movie one of the worst of all time. Bakshi the dolt should have finished what he started. Even now it wold still be nice to finish it, with modern technology could give it a nice send-off. Rankin Bass- home of the syrupy sweet kiddie holiday stop motion garbage should have never been given the rights to do this movie. What were they thinking ,and look at how bad the characters are animated - Pippin looks like a hot dog and Gandalf looks much worse then he should. Oh well,total bomb. Hear that Bakshi , you left a lot of fans disappointed ,you owe it to em to finish it your way.

When Rankin and Bass unveiled their version of Tolkien's "The Hobbit" in 1977, it was a charming if abbreviated made-for-television animated film that was fun and even a bit scary. Their voice casting choices were fine, especially Richard Boone, whose cancer-rasped voice brought the dragon Smaug to life, and Theodore as the creepy and loathsome Gollum, who evoked fear and disgust but little pity. In 1978, Ralph Bakshi attempted to bring the first half of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy to the big screen in his lushly animated epic. Unfortunately, his big-budget film flopped, much to the disappointment of Tolkien's fans, and Bakshi would be unable to make his sequel. In an effort to finish off the unfinished series, Rankin and Bass tried to make their own version to satisfy the audience who wanted to see closure. It was and remains an unmitigated disaster.Why is this cartoon so awful? Well, the answer lies mainly in the word "cartoon". Unlike The Hobbit, which featured beautifully painted scenery that evoked delicate watercolors and ethereal linework, which had so evidently been crafted with loving care and cast with thought to matching characters to actors, The Return of the King had all the earmarks of having been hastily cobbled together. It wasn't so much an animated homage to a great writer's work as a hatchet job. A huge chunk of the events in Tolkien's books were missing between where Bakshi's fairly faithful rendition ended and this abomination began. The drawings were slapped together and were often repetitious and ugly. Voice actors from the first film returned and some of them worked: Orson Bean was fine as Frodo, Theodore was again great as Gollum, Theodore Bikel did a fine job as Aragorn, and Roddy McDowall was wonderful as Samwise Gamgee. The rest were abysmal. Instead of hiring actors to do the characters, cartoon voice actors such as Don Messick (Scooby-Doo) and Casey Kasem (Shaggy) were cast. It was downright painful to hear a Nazgull being done by Scooby Doo through a distortion filter. Many characters integral to Tolkien's story were cast away: Where was Gimli? Faromir? Any of the elves (other than Elrond) such as Legolas or Glorfindel? How about the Army of the Dead or Sauroman? Merry and Pippin didn't develop as characters; Gollum remained merely vile, as if Bakshi's attempts to show this tortured being's strangely noble and pathetic side never happened. The dialog was stilted and sometimes unintentionally hilarious ("As the flag's standard broke the wind. . ."). It was awful beneath description from beginning to end, appearing to be a shameless attempt to cash in on the hopes of frustrated fans who'd wanted the second animated movie made.That, of course, was the entire problem. This cartoon was, despite its trappings and claims, just a cartoon, less charming by far than The Hobbit and far less noble than Bakshi's film. Both of those were honest attempts at creating art, and each succeeded in its limited way until swept aside by Peter Jackson, who finally gave Tolkien's opus the treatment it deserved. The two earlier films merit a place of honor for trying to achieve cinematic beauty. Rankin and Bass's The Return of the King deserves to simply be forgotten.