Yes, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is overrated. This is not to say it is a bad film”it remains a technical achievement and a satisfying conclusion to Peter Jackson’s trilogy”but its status as one of the greatest films ever made, its clean sweep of 11 Academy Awards, and its persistent placement in “best of all time” lists represent a collective overvaluation driven by franchise loyalty, spectacle worship, and the Academy’s tendency toward compensation voting. When the film won Best Picture in 2004, it was widely understood as a reward for the entire trilogy rather than an assessment of Return of the King as a standalone work of cinema. Compare this to the same year’s Lost in Translation or Mystic River, films that took genuine artistic risks and offered more nuanced explorations of human experience”neither won, and neither generated the same cultural reverence, despite arguably being superior works of filmmaking craft. The film’s flaws are numerous and often dismissed by defenders as either necessary adaptational choices or acceptable trade-offs for epic scope.
The multiple endings stretch audience patience past breaking point. The Army of the Dead functions as a deus ex machina that undermines the stakes of the entire battle. Character arcs established in earlier films are either abandoned or resolved with unsatisfying shortcuts. Denethor becomes a cartoonish villain rather than the tragic figure of Tolkien’s novel. None of these criticisms are new, yet they rarely factor into the film’s canonized status. This article examines why Return of the King receives excessive praise, what the film does poorly, and how viewers can develop a more balanced perspective on blockbuster cinema that separates genuine quality from nostalgic inflation.
Table of Contents
- Why Does Return of the King Receive Such Uncritical Praise?
- The Multiple Endings Problem: When Epic Becomes Exhausting
- The Army of the Dead: How One Scene Undermines Everything
- Denethor and the Failure of Villain Characterization
- What the Film Actually Does Well
- The Oscar Factor: How Awards Distort Perception
- How to Prepare
- How to Apply This
- Expert Tips
- Conclusion
- Frequently Asked Questions
Why Does Return of the King Receive Such Uncritical Praise?
The film benefits enormously from what might be called “trilogy completion bias””the psychological satisfaction of seeing a long narrative reach its conclusion amplifies the emotional response beyond what the film itself earns. Audiences who invested nine hours in the preceding films arrived at return of the King already emotionally committed. The tears at Frodo’s departure to the Grey Havens are partially earned by the film, but they draw heavily on accumulated investment from fellowship and Two Towers. Strip away that context, and Return of the King’s emotional beats feel more manipulative than moving, relying on Howard Shore’s score and slow-motion photography to manufacture sentiment rather than earning it through character development within its own runtime.
The Academy Award sweep represents another compounding factor. When the Academy finally recognized the trilogy after snubbing Fellowship and Two Towers for Best Picture, they created a self-reinforcing narrative of greatness. The 11 wins”tying the all-time record”became their own justification. Subsequent critics and audiences point to the Oscar count as evidence of quality, when the awards themselves were partly a correction for previous oversights and partly the Academy’s preference for epic spectacle over intimate storytelling. The same year, Sean Penn’s devastating performance in Mystic River lost to a digitally altered Gollum’s emotional support role, a decision that looks increasingly questionable with time.
The Multiple Endings Problem: When Epic Becomes Exhausting
Return of the King’s conclusion has become a cultural punchline for good reason. After the Ring is destroyed, the film continues for approximately 35 minutes, cycling through ending after ending: Aragorn’s coronation, the hobbits’ return to the Shire, Sam’s wedding, Frodo’s departure. Each scene plays as if it were the finale, complete with swelling music and tearful farewells, only to continue into another. Defenders argue this faithfully adapts Tolkien’s extended denouement, but faithful adaptation is not automatically good filmmaking. The Scouring of the Shire was cut entirely”proving Jackson was willing to diverge from the source”yet these repetitive emotional climaxes remained, suggesting a failure of editorial judgment rather than devotional accuracy.
However, if you approach Return of the King as the conclusion to a twelve-hour viewing experience rather than a standalone film, the extended ending becomes more defensible. Marathon viewers who watch all three films in sequence report less fatigue during the finale because the pacing feels proportional to the overall journey. This context matters, but it also reveals a fundamental problem: the film does not function well as an independent work. Great films reward isolated viewing. Return of the King practically requires homework, making its “greatest film ever” status questionable when compared to self-contained masterpieces that achieve emotional resonance without prerequisite viewing.
The Army of the Dead: How One Scene Undermines Everything
The glowing green ghost army that sweeps through Pelennor Fields represents one of the most significant narrative failures in blockbuster cinema. Throughout two and a half films, the story establishes that defeating Sauron’s forces will require sacrifice, courage, and the united effort of free peoples. Then, in the climactic battle, Aragorn arrives with an invincible supernatural force that instantly annihilates the enemy. No character needs to demonstrate valor against insurmountable odds. No tactical brilliance matters. The themes of mortality, legacy, and earned victory that the trilogy supposedly celebrates are negated by what amounts to a cheat code.
Tolkien handled this differently in the novel. The Dead men of Dunharrow fulfilled their oath by capturing the Corsair ships, not by fighting at Pelennor Fields. Aragorn arrived with reinforcements of living men, and the battle remained a hard-fought victory that cost lives and required heroism. Jackson’s decision to expand the ghost army’s role traded thematic coherence for visual spectacle”a trade that perfectly encapsulates why the film is overrated. The CGI ghosts sweeping through orc ranks is undeniably impressive as an image. As storytelling, it is catastrophically lazy, teaching audiences that problems can be solved through special effects rather than character agency.
Denethor and the Failure of Villain Characterization
John Noble’s Denethor represents a fascinating case of an excellent actor undermined by writing and direction that flatten a complex character into a greasy-fingered madman. In Tolkien’s novel, Denethor is a formidable intellect broken by despair after glimpsing Sauron’s overwhelming power through the palantír. His decision to attempt self-immolation with Faramir emerges from a tragic miscalculation, not gibbering insanity. Jackson’s Denethor eats messily, treats his sons with unmotivated cruelty, and descends into such obvious madness that his fall carries no weight. We are told he was once a great steward; we see only a contemptible fool.
Compare this characterization to the trilogy’s treatment of Théoden, whose arc from enchanted despair to redemptive sacrifice remains compelling. Théoden works because the films show his transformation and ground his decisions in understandable psychology. Denethor fails because the films skip the psychology entirely, offering instead a caricature that makes Gondor’s ruling steward seem like an obvious liability rather than a tragic figure corrupted by the same tools he sought to use for good. For viewers who only know the films, Denethor is simply a bad man who received his deserved punishment. For readers who know the source material, the film’s treatment is a significant downgrade that simplifies the story’s moral complexity.
What the Film Actually Does Well
Acknowledging overrated status does not mean dismissing genuine achievements. The Minas Tirith siege sequence remains one of the finest extended action setpieces in film history, with clear geography, escalating stakes, and effective parallel editing between multiple storylines. The production design throughout the trilogy achieved an unprecedented level of detailed world-building that has influenced every subsequent fantasy production. Howard Shore’s score, particularly the Gondor theme and the final statement of the Shire motif, demonstrates how film music can carry narrative weight without becoming mere background noise. The tension between these genuine accomplishments and the film’s significant flaws is precisely what makes “overrated” the accurate assessment.
A bad film would be easier to dismiss. Return of the King is a deeply flawed film that achieves moments of genuine greatness, and the cultural conversation has focused almost exclusively on the greatness while ignoring the flaws. This imbalance distorts both critical discourse and audience expectations. When new viewers approach the film expecting an unimpeachable masterpiece, the actual experience inevitably disappoints. More honest assessment would serve everyone better, allowing the film to be appreciated for what it is rather than what collective memory has inflated it into becoming.
The Oscar Factor: How Awards Distort Perception
The 2004 Academy Awards ceremony cemented Return of the King’s inflated reputation through what amounted to a lifetime achievement award disguised as competitive recognition. The film won every category it was nominated for, including several where it was clearly not the strongest contender. Sofia Coppola’s direction of Lost in Translation showed more innovation and risk than Jackson’s competent but unsurprising work. City of God’s editing was more dynamic and purposeful. But the narrative had been set: this was the year fantasy finally got its due, and nothing would stand in the way of that coronation.
This Oscar history matters because awards shape cultural memory. Films that win major awards get preserved, discussed, and rewatched. They appear on syllabus lists and streaming recommendation algorithms. Return of the King’s perfect Oscar record transformed it from “very successful fantasy film” into “one of the greatest achievements in cinema history,” a leap that the actual filmmaking does not support. The same inflation affected Titanic after its 1998 sweep, though that film has undergone more critical reevaluation. Return of the King’s fantasy genre and devoted fan base have insulated it from similar scrutiny.
How to Prepare
- Watch a genuinely great film from the same era for comparison. The Pianist, City of God, or In the Mood for Love provide useful counterpoints that demonstrate what masterful filmmaking looks like without the crutch of spectacle.
- Read critical reviews from the film’s release, particularly those that expressed reservations. A.O. Scott’s New York Times review and various Tolkien scholars’ responses provide vocabulary for articulating the film’s limitations.
- Consider the extended edition critically rather than automatically assuming “more is better.” The theatrical cut’s pacing problems are often exacerbated rather than solved by additional footage.
- Separate your emotional attachment to the story from assessment of the filmmaking. You can love Middle-earth while acknowledging that this particular adaptation makes questionable choices.
- Pay attention to scenes that feel slow or manipulative rather than powering through on momentum. These moments reveal the film’s weaknesses more clearly than highlight sequences.
How to Apply This
- Ask what the film would be without its budget. If spectacle is the primary appeal, the filmmaking itself may be weaker than initial impressions suggest.
- Evaluate character arcs independently from plot resolution. Did characters actually change and grow, or did events simply happen to them while they remained static?
- Consider whether emotional beats are earned through storytelling or manufactured through scoring and cinematography. The difference separates manipulation from genuine dramatic achievement.
- Compare adaptations to their source material not for fidelity but for successful translation. Changes are acceptable when they improve the story for the new medium; they are failures when they simplify or contradict the source’s strengths.
Expert Tips
- Separate technical achievement from artistic merit. A film can be technically accomplished and still narratively or thematically weak.
- Do not automatically defer to critical consensus or award recognition. These institutions have biases and blind spots that distort assessment.
- Nostalgia is not a valid critical argument. Loving something as a child does not make it good.
- However, do not dismiss popular success as automatically indicating low quality. Sometimes audiences recognize genuine value that critics miss.
- Compare films to their own stated ambitions rather than to unrelated works. Judge whether a film succeeds at what it attempts.
Conclusion
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is a flawed film that has received treatment reserved for masterpieces. Its technical achievements are genuine, its emotional moments sometimes earned, and its cultural impact undeniable. But the multiple endings test patience, the Army of the Dead undermines thematic coherence, and the character work ranges from competent to actively reductive.
Acknowledging these limitations does not diminish the legitimate pleasures the film offers; it simply places them in accurate perspective. Viewers who wish to engage more thoughtfully with blockbuster cinema should use Return of the King as a case study in how cultural consensus can inflate reputation beyond merit. Apply skepticism to award-winning spectacles, maintain awareness of nostalgia’s distorting effects, and always ask whether a film’s achievements justify its canonized status. The answer, in this case, is that Return of the King deserves respect and appreciation”but not the uncritical reverence it currently enjoys.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long does it typically take to see results?
Results vary depending on individual circumstances, but most people begin to see meaningful progress within 4-8 weeks of consistent effort. Patience and persistence are key factors in achieving lasting outcomes.
Is this approach suitable for beginners?
Yes, this approach works well for beginners when implemented gradually. Starting with the fundamentals and building up over time leads to better long-term results than trying to do everything at once.
What are the most common mistakes to avoid?
The most common mistakes include rushing the process, skipping foundational steps, and failing to track progress. Taking a methodical approach and learning from both successes and setbacks leads to better outcomes.
How can I measure my progress effectively?
Set specific, measurable goals at the outset and track relevant metrics regularly. Keep a journal or log to document your journey, and periodically review your progress against your initial objectives.
When should I seek professional help?
Consider consulting a professional if you encounter persistent challenges, need specialized expertise, or want to accelerate your progress. Professional guidance can provide valuable insights and help you avoid costly mistakes.
What resources do you recommend for further learning?
Look for reputable sources in the field, including industry publications, expert blogs, and educational courses. Joining communities of practitioners can also provide valuable peer support and knowledge sharing.
