I expected more from Quicksilver. He would've been a great addition to the Avengers.

It has become a well-known fact that coming out with a sequel that's better than, if not on par with, the first one is an insane task. But kudos to Marvel for staying true to their colors with this sequel.

This is the movie where Captain America became my favorite Avenger. Sure he doesn't have monstrous abilities like Iron Man and Hulk, but to be holding his own on the same ground as them is just a testament to how great of a hero he truly is.

Movie was great but felt like there was just too much action and fighting. The creativity of the choreography gets lost in the whirlwind of action and this I noticed most in Captain America's scenes. He does like a hundred different awesome things with his shield, but you don't have time to really take it in because you're already looking at Iron Man blasting 20 Ultron-bots to bits.

The fact that Joss Whedon was able to salvage some sort of coherent film out of all he was forced to cram into a single movie is quite commendable. But the sad fact is that Avengers: Age of Ultron is really just a run of the mill "bad guy wants to destroy the world for reasons" actioner that we've seen done better many times before.
Don't get me wrong. The movie's fun. The dialogue is frequently clever and humourous. And I really appreciated the quiet bits of storytelling that Whedon was able to sneak in. It's just that at the end of the day, the villain is weak sauce, there's way too much set up for other movies, and if I'm criticizing Man of Steel for having excessive destruction, I can't give Avengers a pass since they needlessly blow up not one, not two, but three cities. Pretty sure many insurance agencies went bankrupt paying out all the victims.

**A long form review originally posted in 2015:**
I’ve just returned from two back-to-back viewings of _Avengers: Age of Ultron_, and I do not regret one bit going in for that second helping.
I lost my steam on the _Age of Ultron_ wagon at a very inopportune moment. About three days before it came out. I was so heavily anticipating it for such a long time, that I was actually much more excited to see this movie when it was still two months away than I was waiting in line to get into the cinema it was playing at. The combination of the market-saturation and the fact that the _Ultron _hype-train has been running for literally years, with a first trailer dropping seven months before the damn thing came out, meant I got weary of the thing just a fraction too soon. But I’m a sucker for the MCU, and there was no way I was missing the sequel to my favourite superhero movie of all time.
I won’t harp on too much, because I don’t want to spoil anything (especially given that the movie isn’t even out in most parts of the world), I will put out a spoilertalk on this blog at some point down the line, but for now just let me leave you with a couple of quick thoughts.
_Age of Ultron_ is not the best film of all time. It’s not the best superhero film of all time, it’s not even the best MCU film. Honestly, I personally feel it’s not even the best MCU Phase 2 film. But it is still good. And that’s what’s important here. But what do I mean by that?
Well, for starters, in and of itself, I loved it, a breach past an 80% approval rating from me is no small thing. The things we enjoyed from the first _Avengers_are here. The mesmerising action spectacles of course, but I more mean the character moments we got between the Avengers themselves, that was my favourite part of the first film and we get it here again in spades.
Every new thing Joss has added to the plate works splendidly as well, real Hawkeye story, new heroes, a new villain, an updated world, all of these things are big ticks in lots of boxes.
So if everything from _The Avengers_ works and everything they’ve added works great too, why is _Age of Ultron_ not a perfect film? For spoiler-free purposes I will not go into detail, but that’s okay because the answer is quite simple: Everything in _Age of Ultron_ is great. It’s what’s not in _Age of Ultron_ that’s the problem.
Joss Whedon said that the film had to be cut by nearly an hour. That way you get more showings in, and that means more money. Now I’m not saying we need every minute of that hour back, but what we ended up being left with, was just enough for _Age of Ultron_ to be the _Thor: The Dark World_ of the _Avengers _franchise (it was a far superior film to _Dark World_, but hear me out). _Age of Ultron_ is little more than a holding pattern. The set-ups for future films take up too much time for the story to bear the weight of some actual story, but everything that occurs in the film itself somehow also has virtually no consequence on world it is a part of. I can’t say it more plainly than that: It’s a holding pattern. It introduces some stuff, but it doesn’t stand alone the first film did. It’s not such a big deal when the solo-movies do that (like the aforementioned _Dark World_) because we have _The Avengers_ films for those to pay off in. But when an _Avengers_ entry is just more of the same, I can’t fully get behind it.
That all said, _Age of Ultron_ is of course a lot of fun. A huge amount of fun, I can’t state that enough. And there’s literally nothing more important something in the entertainment industry can be. These are just the things holding it back from taking it up to the next level (or if I’m being completely honest, even taking it to the level the first film was at).
75%
-_Gimly_

This is another one of those movies that you watch primarily for the special effects with you favourite super heroes slugging it out. It is a classical Hollywood product where the story is mostly there just as a vehicle for allowing the special effects team to do their business. As such it is a success.
The movie starts of with a display of action and the afore mentioned special effects with an attack by the Avengers on a bad guy stronghold. Not surprisingly the events sows the seeds for things to come.
The movie starts off with quite an interesting story idea with the activation of Ultron. However, once he materializes as a physical entity, it became a bit of seen that, been there and done that. Ultron just turns into yet another “standard” comic book villain a’ la Megatron running around trying to look intimidating while implementing his diabolical scheme. Okay, there was a bit of originality here and there but with the good start I kind of expected a wee bit more.
Having said that, the movie does indeed fulfil its purpose of showing off a bunch of super heroes slugging it out in a flurry of special effects and, although the story idea was perhaps not used as intelligently as I had hoped, it is not bad (for this kind of movie of course) and hangs together pretty okay. Sure, it is somewhat contrived and the means by which Ultron tries to exterminate humanity is overly complicated but it is still a decent story.
Overall the movie was entertaining and provided the necessary special effects and super hero fix for those who are inclined to enjoy those kind of movies. I certainly am and, not surprisingly, the kids liked it as well.

Action, good Fx and a "not-completely-absurd" story. The actors perform well and you can identify them very well with their characters ... but it is all old and without imagination.
I suppose nobody was expecting anything else, though ...

There is a lot going on in this movie but it all just seemed kind of pointless and dull to me. Every now and then there would be a good scene or piece of dialogue but for the most part I felt myself getting bored and reaching for my phone to play Cribbage. I guess what I didn't like most is that it all felt like a big filler episode instead of an action packed character driven story arc.

An amazing bio pic of Jordan Belfort that has everything you'll ever want: comedy, drama, romance, heart and the list goes on. This movie was an absolute joy. The acting was superb in this movie all around. Leonardo DiCaprio gives one of his best performances of his career. Jonah Hill and Margo Robbie were fantastic! For a movie that was almost three hours, it flew by and was incredibly engaging. I can not believe it took me this long to see it.
**Score:** _90%_
**Verdict:** _Excellent_

When I'm Scorsese's age I just hope to still be able to chew my food and go to the bathroom unassisted. That he can still make some of the most cutting edge, visceral, and enjoyable films out there is stunning.
Is this his best film? No. But, even a mediocre film for him is better than 99% of the movies being made.
The performances are super-fun, the pace is relentless, the visual flare is incredible, and the story is fascinating. Is there a discussion to be had about the immorality being glamorized by this film? Sure. That's the case for a lot of his films (and a lot of films in general). We could debate his intentions with the outcome and what the film is saying about our society all day but that's another discussion. Is the film a joy to watch? Yes! It definitely is.

I didn't care for the characters, but I damn did have a great time watching 'The Wolf of Wall Street'. It's absolutely nuts, and I mean that in a positive way.
Leonardo DiCaprio simply never puts an acting foot wrong, this is the sixth film I've seen of his and I love (fwiw: all 9/10+) them all. Phenomenal actor! He is outstanding here as Jordan Belfort, the guy this film is based upon. As noted, I didn't really ever care for Jordan but DiCaprio makes it impossible not to enjoy watching events throughout.
Jonah Hill (Donnie) comes in with a very good performance, the type of which I hadn't previously seen from him; closest being, in terms of quality, 'Moneyball'. Margot Robbie, meanwhile, isn't easy to forget as Naomi. Though none of the following standout big, it's pleasant to see Jon Bernthal, Matthew McConaughey and Jon Favreau, among others, appear.
The almost three hour run time, aside from a couple of moments, goes by fairly quickly. A big reason for that is the sheer bonkers nature of the plot, which goes in so many different directions it's impressive. It doesn't, as I've already mentioned, breed likeability for the characters but I definitely had a fun time watching it all unfold. I guess it depends on what you, as a viewer, prefer. I got the desired amount of entertainment.

**Voracious Bull**
Every time I try to enjoy a Martin Scorcese movie post-1980 I ask myself what made _Raging Bull_ so great? Did Marty burn out after his Jake LaMotta bio, the same way Coppola did after _Apocalypse Now_? These were risky movies, driven by passion, bordering on madness. Did Marty and Francis lose their natural passion for making films because industry priorities dismissed 70's-style hyper-realism for sensational summer blockbusters and CGI spectacles? And why is Scorcese considered one of the greatest director when he really only made one truly superb movie?
When I first saw _Raging Bull_ in 1980 I immediately knew I was watching something that transcended the typical cinematic experience. Genius was shimmering out of every perforated frame flickering on the screen. Paul, Marty, Bobby, Mike and Thelma created something that was completely absorbing. The style and substance was perfectly fueled by a flawless emotional narrative. Every element was orchestrated just right. The audience was spellbound. We were watching greatness. A rare and unique organic creation. I'm still waiting for Robert Redford to correct a travesty of justice and hand his Ocscar over to it's rightful owner. And I'm still waiting for Scorcese to match his own brilliance. But that's like expecting Tarantino to top _Pulp Fiction_. There's a better chance Orson Welles rises up from the dead to one up _Citizen Kane_.
After _Raging Bull_, Scorcese has made a string of pictures ranging from not bad to pretty good. All well-made, thoughtful and meticulously crafted films, but nothing special; certainly nothing profound. Contrary to popular opinion, _Goodfellas_ is not a great movie. I was not swept away by the saga. I was annoyed rather by the fragmented non-stop soundtrack and incessant up-tempo style. Marty wasn't risking anything anymore. He seemed to be afraid of boring the audience. Perhaps he was trying to revive the 1940's never-let-up screwball-bouncing farcical Preston Sturges and co. comedies. But this is a mafia film. This should have been right up Marty's alley. It's been almost a quarter of a century since De Niro got his face busted in a boxing ring. Since the raw, robust and naive will-power of LaMotta's youth plunged into the pathetic, brutal, bone-headed stupidity of his later years. Similarly, Scorsese hasn't registered a knock-out punch since. Would his ensuing movies be considered great if someone else directed them? Would I have liked them all better if Raging Bull had never been made?
_The Wolf of Wall Street_ is another exhausting affair. It tries too hard to excite and entertain us. It's afraid of slowing down, allowing us to ponder or examine the complexities of excessive greed, shameless wealth and unbridled capitalism. It desperately wants to arouse us. Like a neglected clown at a child's birthday trying to be loved and taken seriously while draining the life out of the party. Give Leo and Jonah an "A" for effort. They couldn't have tried harder if they broke out into song and dance every ten minutes. And they convincingly appeared to enjoy themselves freely indulging in coke, ludes and naked women every five minutes. It was nice of Leo to step back while Margot Robbie took her routine and obligatory, supporting-actress hissy fit. And you know a filmmaker has a lot of faith and confidence in his work when a superfluous narration track is added, to plug those terrifying noiseless gaps. Whatever happened to poignant, suspenseful, sure-footed, gripping, emotionally-arresting dramas that take you on a nervy, wild ride to a thoroughly gratifying climax? A truly great director from Kurosowa to, well, Scorcese-(circa 1979) would have plotted the rise and fall of a maniacal protagonist along deeper and more affecting lines even at the risk boring its audience for one minute.

An excessive movie in all possible senses with breath taking Margot Robbie and Jonah Hill which is not long in spite of its 3h length but which ends not knowing exactly which is the point of the story.

The Wolf of Wall Street is so addicting to watch, that even with it's 3 hour long run time, you wont be surprised if you end up watching it four days in a row.
This is Scorsese letting loose and having fun, showing all of the debauchery (and man, is there a lot) in all of it's glory. There are orgies, sex, nudity, copious amounts of drug use, and it now holds the record for the most use of fuck in any film.
Leonardo DiCaprio gives a towering and hilarious performance as Jordan Belfort. He throws himself into the role with free abandon, while also showing that he's aces when it comes to comic timing and physical comedy. If he doesn't win an Oscar this season I'll be quite upset, though Matt from Dallas Buyers Club rightfully deserves it as well. But this is a 3 hour long film, and Leo is in every single second of every single scene. He's ferocious, hilarious, out of his mind, and flat out brilliant.
The supporting players are tops as well. I was somewhat baffled when Jonah Hill earned a nominee for Moneyball, but this time around he rightfully deserves this years nominations. With his pearly white teeth, charisma, while also throwing himself into the role with no fear, this is without a doubt his greatest work as an actor to date. The real find, however, is Margot Robbie. Strikingly beautiful, her character could have been one note, but she also hits the ball out of the court. Even Matthew Macconaughey steals the show with only one scene.
Dangerously funny, superbly edited, and with a delicious, irreverent, savage bite. The Wolf of Wall Street is Scorsese at his wildest. And it goes without saying, that this is one of the best films of last year. Just stay away if you are in any way a prude or conservative.
Rated R- Graphic nudity, strong sexual content, drug use throughout, pervasive language, and some violence.

Shutter Island deserves all the praise for being one of those films that stays with you long after the credits roll. Martin Scorsese dives into the psychological thriller genre with precision, creating an atmosphere that’s equal parts eerie and thought-provoking.
Leonardo DiCaprio absolutely nails it as Teddy Daniels, a U.S. Marshal investigating the disappearance of a patient from Ashecliffe Hospital. His performance is raw, vulnerable, and perfectly captures the gradual unraveling of Teddy’s psyche. Mark Ruffalo as his partner Chuck adds a subtle balance to the chaos, making their partnership intriguing to watch. And let’s not forget Ben Kingsley, his calm, enigmatic portrayal of Dr. Cawley gives the film its chilling edge.
Visually, the movie is a masterpiece. The cinematography by Robert Richardson is hauntingly beautiful, capturing the oppressive isolation of the island and the labyrinthine corridors of the asylum. The storm scenes are particularly memorable, heightening the tension and pulling you deeper into the mystery. And that score, Scorsese’s choice of music hits all the right notes to amplify the unease and suspense.
What sets Shutter Island apart, though, is the narrative. It’s a layered puzzle that keeps you second-guessing everything you see. The twists and revelations are not just there for shock value; they’re carefully woven into the story, making the rewatch value sky-high. That final line, “Which would be worse: to live as a monster, or to die as a good man?”, absolutely gut-wrenching.
Thematically, the film explores trauma, guilt, and the fragile nature of reality. It’s a deep dive into the human mind and the lengths we go to protect ourselves from the truth. Whether you see the ending as a tragedy or a twisted form of redemption, Shutter Island challenges you to confront the darker corners of your own understanding.
A gripping psychological thriller with stellar performances, masterful direction, and a story that keeps you hooked until the very end.

**_Leonardo DiCaprio’s trip to Fantasy Island_**
In 1954, two US Marshals (DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo) are sent to an island off the coast of Massachusetts to investigate the disappearance of a patient from the asylum for the criminally insane located there. The lead detective suspects something really fishy going on.
"Shutter Island" (2010) is like a combination of “The Shawshank Redemption” and “A Beautiful Mind” with a little “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.” Being helmed by Scorsese, it’s a top-notch production with a stellar cast, including the likes of Ben Kingsley, Max von Sydow, Michelle Williams, Patricia Clarkson and Jackie Earle Haley.
The first three quarters are quite good as a slow-burn eerie investigation with the milieu of post-WW2 America and interesting flashbacks to Dachau Concentration Camp. Unfortunately, the last quarter ruins the movie for me. Don’t get me wrong, the ‘twist’ could’ve been done in a compelling, streamlined way, such as in “The Sixth Sense,” but instead everything’s unnecessarily drawn out. For instance, the final sequence between DiCaprio and Michelle Williams is dreadfully dull.
Still, it’s a matter of taste. So, if what I described above intrigues you, give it a watch. Many cinephiles hail it.
Fittingly, the title, “Shutter Island,” is an anagram of "truths and lies" or "truths/denials.”
The film runs 2 hour, 18 minutes, and was shot mostly in Massachusetts, but some stuff in Los Angeles and northeast of there at Hearst Ranch, San Simeon.
GRADE: B-

Accompanied by a great cast and atmosphere, ‘Shutter Island’ certainly has a thrilling and engaging mystery to unfold, with an ending that is as tranquil as bittersweet.
8/10

Good suspense and mystery, although a bit too reliant on hallucinations, and the ending could have been better.

A US federal Marshal is sent on to investigate a missing patient on an isolated asylum called The Shutter Island. What he’s about to uncover will question him and his true identity. Quite exclusive and one of those storyline where you can’t lose your concentration for even a minute. Paradox plot, loved it through and through. This is pretty unusual but loved the soundtracks in the background helping in the foundation of suspense. Definitely another Scorsese masterpiece. A must watch.
Follow us on Instagram: @flixxflyy

Don't you get it? You're a rat in a maze.
US Marshal Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) travels to an island asylum facility for the criminally insane with his newly assigned partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo). Their reason for being at Ashecliff Hospital is to investigate the mysterious disappearance of murderess Rachel Solando. But Teddy has another issue to deal with at Ashecliff, namely a meeting with Andrew Laeddis (Elias Koteas), the man he believes responsible for the death of his wife (Michelle Williams). Nothing is what it seems at the facility though, and the further Teddy & Chuck investigate, the murkier the truths of Ashecliff become.
Directed by Martin Scorsese, Shutter Island is adapted from the best selling novel of the same name written by Dennis Lehane ("Mystic River/Gone Baby Gone"). It finds the talented director getting closer to horror than at any point in his career, it also finds him arguably over cooking his grits. Lehane's novel is a page turning lesson in thriller writing, there's no need for deep cranial thinking or fill in the blanks like musings. Scorsese has crafted a movie that, whilst both stylish and moody, is far more intricate than it needed to be.
From the off we saw reams of amateur reviewers dissecting the film and searching for other worldly cinematic meanings. The truth is, is that they don't exist, it is just a great story pinging with psychological twisters. Lehane himself said he felt it was a book he kind of knocked out while in his flow (he undersells himself mind). Scorsese, clearly loving the source to be sure, has crammed too much in for the film to be an across the board winner. Technically accomplished? Without doubt. Depth to the story? You bet. But the reality is that the depth isn't enough to sustain all the genre blending atmospherics that is Marty's want. One is inclined to feel that he so aware that he is treading on well worn genre ground (spot the homages to film noir, old time horror and Hitchcockian grandeur), that he's trying to steer the viewers away from the obviousness on offer. The film is further let down by the second half, where it positively crawls along, something not helped by the fact that the first hour bristles with moody excitement and a promise of clinically executed terror. Anticipation can be a real killer at times...
Yet as is normally the way with a professionally assembled Scorsese picture, there's still so much to enjoy and moments that ensure it will always be a divisive film in the New Yorker's cannon. The cast are mostly great, DiCaprio delivers a stunning performance, one that can only be appreciated once the story has reached the climax. Ruffalo (restrained), Ben Kingsley (shifty) & Max Von Sydow (troubling) all do what is needed and in keeping with the tone of the piece. While the girls - Emily Mortimer, Patricia Clarkson & Williams - have small but crucial parts to play.
Then there's the supporting characters played by some quality character actors. Koteas is joined by Jackie Earle Haley, Ted Levein & John Carroll Lynch. How many of you noticed that we here have a roll call of cinematic serial killers? Edgar Reese, Freddy Krueger, Buffalo Bill and Arthur Lee Allen! (OK, Allen was not proved but "Zodiac" the movie lends us to believe it was him). The music used is suitably heart pounding and Robert Richardson's photography is on the money, especially within the dimly lit Ashecliff walls (the foreboding Medfield State Hospital for location filming). The costumes also have a nice 50s look to them, our first encounter of Teddy & Chuck sees them splendidly adorned in film noir hats and coats. While Thelma Schoonmaker's editing is up to the usual tight standard.
It's always tricky when great directors are involved, so unsurprisingly we witnessed at the start a difference of opinion with the critics as to how good Shutter Island is? What most agreed on was that the film fluctuates in quality and should have been, given the talent behind and in front of the camera, a much better picture. There's also no getting away from the fact that if you have read the book first the impact of the ending is considerably weakened. Personally I feel Scorsese was the wrong director for this particular source, but that's me, and be that as it may, he still manages to come out of it in credit with his fans - though even if he just passed gas some of them would proclaim it as a masterpiece... 7.5/10

Mind-tripping psychological-thriller from Martin Scorsese, a bit of a change-up for him, with great performances all around of course including DiCaprio and Kingsley. This was my first viewing as I had procrastinated watching this for whatever reason, but found it highly entertaining with amazing, foreboding atmosphere. **4.5/5**

This was a random thing. We didn't even know the schedule and I was just wearing a random shirt and shorts. I just wanted to drink mango shake but then we randomly decided to go to eastwood and check the schedule. We were supposed to watch Diary of a Wimpy Kid but since Shutter Island's showing, then Shutter Island it is. But then wearing my "pambahay" outfit didn't really help since I saw 2 people from AC. grrrrrr. When I dress up, I don't see anyone I know but when I'm not properly dressed and I look like a mess, suddenly all these people come up to me and say hi. Note to self: always dress up.
I liked it. Watching Leonardo is not bad at all. I liked the twist of the story. Although you'll have some hints here and there, you'll think "oh I'll wait and see what it really is". And then the twist happens and you'll be like "I knew that all along". But that doesn't stop me from liking this movie. I'm so jealous of the girl playing his daughter. I mean first kiss...Leonardo Di Caprio???? Wow. I would take her place anytime. Michelle Williams...I'm not really a big fan of her. And after seeing this and being jealous also of her because of how she sat on the lap of Leo, I can say I don't like her at all. lol. Leonardo is awesome as always. It's amazing how good of an actor he is and he still hasn't won any Oscars. His time will come. I know he will win. And that flashback scene, he looked really good. Yum Yum Yum!
I rate this movie as A. Love the story. Love the actor.

Nice movie

I've just seen this on the big screen for the first time since I saw it at London's sadly now long-gone Odeon at Marble Arch, which - at the time - boasted the biggest screen in the UK, and it has lost little of it's magic. Continuing with the interwoven tales of "Frodo", "Sam" and their treacherous guide "Gollum" as they trek through fire and brimstone to get the ring to Mount Doom; whilst Gandalf, Aragorn and the surviving members of the fellowship try to stem the might of "Sauron" and his armies of orcs and their allies. While this is undoubtedly a magnificent piece of cinema, I find the story drags a bit. I found the the focus to be too much on the less interesting characters - the lovelorn "Eowyn" (Miranda Otto); the delusional "Denethor" (John Noble) and decent but rather wimpish "Faramir" (David Wenham) as "Gondor" faces the wrath of their nemesis, and that slows the pace from the action just when it ought to be building. The delightful, friendly, rivalry between "Gimli" & "Legolas" features all too sparingly and it's got too ponderous a narrative to sustain the four hours the otherwise visionary Peter Jackson has created. Fortunately, the triple-header quest with Elijah Wood, Sean Astin and a superb Andy Serkis keep the other strand moving along suspensefully and tensely. The battle scenes are superb, though - when we get them, the effects really do rise to the occasion and, of course, the striking cinematography coupled with the inspired themes from Howard Shore contribute to a thoroughly entertaining adaptation of a thoroughly captivating fantasy adventure. If you make it past the start of the credits, there is the gloriously haunting "Into the West" from Annie Lennox to top off this finest of trilogies. The Oscar/BAFTA awards this achieved are a just reward for years of stunningly creative effort from thousands of people who turned the imagination of a 20th Century English academic into films that will last forever.

A fitting end to a classic trilogy.
Frodo, Samwise, and Gollum journey through a Hell on what is called "Middle Earth", while Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas go to war. King Theoden must decide whether to help those who would not help him. Merry wants to war, but is too small. Pippin finds himself getting in more and more mischief.
Lots of subplots. Never a dull second. Masterfully dierected.
What more can be said? Truly mesmerizing every step of the way, and a movie with maybe four endings that just lead into each other, and we still can't get enough.

As an avid fan of Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings from long before New Line announced this movie "trilogy," I must say all three films were fairly large disappointments. Now, mind you, I am not your usual, "The book is better" movie reviewer. But it is almost like Peter Jackson went out of his way to take out the most crucial elements of the books and replace it with drivel. Also every line that sounds even remotely cool in the books must be given to Gandalf, no matter who actually said it... That's just frustrating, despite Sir Ian McKellen's stellar performance. With what I would hope is the obvious exception of Orlando Bloom's third dismal performance as Legolas, the actors all did quite well; the characters were just not allowed to shine as they do in the books.
I see that the common consensus is that this movie is too long, and I agree. What's most frustrating about that to me is that this movie had to finish The Two Towers since that film did not complete, and then this film left out the pivotal ending of the saga. The Return of the King is actually the shortest volume of the three (there are six books, two in each volume). As some have noted, the film noticeably scraps the scouring of the Shire, but for those who might have hoped for a fourth installment to finish that story, Peter Jackson dashed all hopes by disturbingly killing off Saruman at the beginning of the extended edition. By the by, I understand many people feel that the scouring of the Shire is anticlimactic after the final defeat of Sauron, but for myself, I think the point that there is still evil in the world, and that heroes must still rise to fight it, is one of Tolkien's triumphs. Back to my main point, though: the books were shorter while telling more story, because despite his depth and detail, Tolkien understood how to drive a story along. Peter Jackson, on the other hand, fails on that count.
Anyway, I am someone who always hoped that these movies would be made (I grew up watching the animations produced by Rankin/Bass and Fantasy Films). But now I suppose I'll have to wait until someone is daring enough to try again, despite the overwhelming success of these films (which will probably not happen in my lifetime). In the meantime, I'll continue to read the books every year.

An outstanding end to the trilogy.
I expected a lot from 'The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King' so I am delighted to see it produce on so many levels. I, funnily enough, wouldn't actually say it's necessarily the most perfect execution - what with the plot coincidences and extreme character armour. But that doesn't matter one jot whatsoever, as the story wraps up in arguably the best way - at least to watch - possible. It has so much heart and feeling to it.
The story involving the characters of Elijah Wood, Sean Astin and Andy Serkis remained the most interesting to me, I was very satisfied with how it concluded in regards to them. I also enjoyed the bits we got of Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellen & Co. All that added to the beautiful look and creation of the film, with the world coming alive splendidly.
If I were to nit-pick further, I would say the run time is slightly too long. The pacing is absolutely fine, very good in fact, but I coulda done without a few of the many end scenes - a lot of which are necessary and welcome, but a couple could've been left out to allow the viewer to imagine how the world continued. That's just how I feel mind, I'm sure I'm one of only a few that think that way.
Back onto the positives: how about those battle sequences? Astonishingly good. A sensational trilogy, no question about it. I look forward to seeing 'The Hobbit' films.

Great finale to a great trilogy. The action and battle sequences were amazing and even though I've seen this a few times over the years, still thrilling to the end. I didn't even mind the multiple endings as I had in the past, nice each character got their due. **4.75/5**

Too much CGI, redundancy, clichés and drawn out “looks of love” for my tastes.
RELEASED 2003 and directed by Peter Jackson, “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” adapts the third part of JRR Tolkien’s popular fantasy trilogy about adventures on Middle-Earth: Frodo (Elijah Wood), Sam (Sean Astin) and Gollum (Andy Serkis) continue to try to make their way to Mount Doom to destroy the One Ring. Meanwhile Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas the Elf (Orlando Bloom), Gimli the Dwarf (John Rhys-Davies), Gandalf the wizard (Ian McKellen), King Theoden (Bernard Hill) and Faramir (David Wenham) join forces to fight Sauron's army at the stone city of Minas Tirith and, later, draw the forces of Modor out as a distraction for Frodo to accomplish his goal. Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan are on hand as Hobbits Pippin and Merry.
While I’m a casual fantasy/adventure fan and have read numerous books of the genre (e.g. Conan, Tarzan, Gor, etc.), I’ve never read Tokien, likely because I’m not into Hobbits, Elves and Dwarfs. After viewing the three movies, The Lord of the Rings strikes me as a mixture of Robin Hood, Conan and The Wizard of Oz, which all possibly influenced Tolkien’s writing of the Rings trilogy in 1937-1949. So, if you think a meshing of “Conan the Barbarian” (1982) and “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” (1991) with “The Wizard of Oz” (1939) sounds good, then you’ll probably like these movies more than me.
“The Return of the King” is just more of the same showcased in the first two movies, but even LONGER. Take the Battle of Minas Tirith, for example. It’s basically the same as The Battle at Helms Deep in the previous movie, except with colossal elephant-like creatures and the Army of the Dead. These two battles are similar enough that they could’ve been condensed into one conflict. Speaking of the Army of the Dead, this was an interesting new element, as was the horrifying spider-monster that Frodo & Sam face inside the caves.
Like the first two movies, the characters are diverse, the tale is creative, there’s a lot of dark action rounded out by softer scenes and everything LOOKS and SOUNDS magnificent. Unfortunately, as with “The Two Towers,” there’s excessive use of CGI (aka CGI porn). If cartoony CGI is your thang then you’ll likely appreciate this installment more than me.
There are other problems: While the characters are inspired, they’re also thin and rather uninteresting, at least for mature people who require more depth to hold their attention. Take Legolas (Bloom), for example; we never get to know him. Or consider Aragorn: Mortensen is perfect as the noble warrior, but in the ENTIRE trilogy he probably only has like two full pages of dialog, maybe three. Also, I found the story generally disengaging. I was never much enthralled by the characters and their pursuits, although devotees of Tolkien might be.
Then there are WAY too many “looks of love” between characters, particularly Frodo and Sam (I was so happy to see one character get married and have kids, if you catch my drift). There’s also a sense of redundancy, like the aforementioned battles (Helms Deep and Minas Tirith). Or consider the hokey dangling from a cliff by one’s fingers: This was already done with Gandalf at the end of the first part and beginning of the next. Did we really need the entire trilogy to come down to this type of eye-rolling cliché?
Another problem is the lack of feminine protagonists. There’s Miranda Otto as Éowyn, Théoden's niece, who becomes infatuated with Aragorn and masquerades as a warrior-ess. Other than that all we have are cameos by Liv Tyler (Arwen), Cate Blanchett (Galadriel) and a Hobbit’s wife. “Mythica: A Quest for Heroes” (2014) cost LESS THAN $100,000 to make, which is a mere fraction of the $94 million it cost to make this blockbuster and the creators knew enough to throw in a couple of prominent babes as heroines in the story. So did “Conan the Barbarian” and “Dungeons & Dragons: Wrath of the Dragon God” (2005). It’s not rocket science.
As noted above, the movie’s needlessly overlong and things could’ve been condensed in the trilogy or omitted altogether. When the main storyline ultimately ends at Mount Doom I was thinking there was maybe 12-15 minutes left with half of that time being credits. Nope, there was STILL 30 MINUTES LEFT wherein boring goodbyes and “looks of love” are tacked on.
Despite these honest quibbles, “The Return of the King,” and the trilogy in general, was an ultra-ambitious undertaking and is a must for fantasy/adventure aficionados, particularly those who favor Tolkien, Hobbits, Elves, Gnomes and the like.
THE MOVIE RUNS 3 hours 21 minutes and was shot in New Zealand.
GRADE: C