Although this film is not as good as Rankin/Bass's 1977 TV Film The Hobbit - the movie is still nice to watch if you enjoy the books, cartoon series or Peter Jackson's film saga.I was 8 years old when this movie aired on TV in 1980. I remember how much I loved The Hobbit (1977) as well as The Lord of the Rings (1978) so I was very eager to watch The Return of the King (1980). I really enjoyed this movie as a kid and these classic animations are the reason why I read the books as young teen and why I started watching Peter Jackson's live-action film versions.If you liked the animated film classics: "The Black Cauldron", "The Last Unicorn" or "The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe" then you might enjoy this film.8.5/10

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.

First of all, let me say I'm a big fan of the other Rankin/Bass Tolkien film, "The Hobbit." Not that "Hobbit" is ideal in a lot of ways either -- the story is truncated (although not much changed), the music is quite cute and dated (my girlfriend always says it's like James Taylor's stunted half-brother). But at least it has a complete story to tell, and even the annoying music at least preserves more of Tolkien's poetry than the more ambitious Peter Jackson films of "LotR" managed to. I can't really get behind this "Return of the King" though.Maybe it would have been different if Ralph Bakshi hadn't won the contract to do "LotR", a job that he was clearly not equipped to accomplish. I can understand why the people who controlled "Lord of the Rings" used Bakshi instead of Rankin/Bass. Rankin/Bass are very decidedly kiddie-oriented, even if "Hobbit" is more mature than their holiday specials. That treatment was appropriate for "The Hobbit" which is more of a children's tale although of course it's pleasing to people of all ages. However "Lord of the Rings" is a darker tale and deserved a more adult treatment. Bakshi's "Wizards" is very impressive, melding documentary footage of nazi war machines with fantasy animation of faeries and goblins. He was given the job of doing "Lord of the Rings" basically on the strength of that film.With all of this in mind though, in retrospect it still might have been better if Rankin/Bass had done the whole thing. Bakshi ran out of money in the middle of making his movie, defeated by the demands of rotoscoping technology that had to be invented just to be used for the film. His version was perhaps too ambitious, and when the money ran out they had to cut short the process and the resulting film is not what Bakshi planned nor what fans wanted. It also failed to include this final chapter of the story -- Bakshi had hoped that if his first film made enough money there would be impetus to finish it. So Rankin/Bass was given the sloppy seconds, and they produced a sloppy film that probably doesn't really represent the scope of what they had hoped to do with "Lord of the Rings" themselves in the first place.Where Bakshi's attempt was sprawling and relatively faithful, this R/B version of the final chapter paints in very broad strokes. Legolas and Gimli are never even on screen, and Aragorn appears less as a character than as a concept. Considering the length of the movie, such truncations are perhaps necessary. But it's very disheartening for example to hear Frodo yell "Out of my way, you scum!" to Gollum, all the depth and nuance of their relationship totally gone. This is not a case like with "Hobbit" where leaving out a particular story element like the Arkenstone or Beorn leaves the whole still intact -- with a lot of things missing, even the elements that remain only appear in a warped and inappropriate form.Worthy of praise is much of the voice work on this film, with John Huston returning to anchor the film as Gandalf and narrator, Roddy McDowall lending nuance to Sam, and Theodore is priceless as Gollum even if the character is here robbed of the pathos that he deserves in the books and that he showed in the Rankin/Bass "Hobbit." But some of the voice talent is questionable... perhaps it's just a function of his fame, but it's jarring to hear Casey Kasem as Merry. I think they should have avoided people who had done a lot of voice work in the past and would be recognizable even to children.Much of the actual animation is very poor compared to "Hobbit", with only the close-ups having the good quality Japanese style that elevates that film. Whenever characters are seen in a long shot in this film, they look like a children's coloring book. The ringwraiths look comical, like Scooby Doo villains, except for the Witch King who for whatever reason still resembles the scarier wraiths from the Bakshi version. A lot of elements that could have been very cool, like the Army of the Dead, are completely missing from this film and I have to assume it was because they would be too costly and difficult to animate.We're left with a very inadequate film, although it's still good that they finished the trilogy. When I was very young, I had seen these films and could enjoy Tolkien's story through them even though I was too young to appreciate the books. This film in particular was very sought after in the 1980s, because unlike the other two it was not widely available on video. I remember my brother and I had a copy that we had taped off TV which was missing the beginning of the film, and that was the version we had to live with for years. For those who might have spent years searching for it, this version is certainly a disappointment. But it leaves me wondering mostly what the Rankin/Bass effort would have been like if they had been able to do the entire trilogy. Maybe they could have put more effort into some of the characterization and animation. And hopefully someday we will see the books adapted into a really excellent animated film.

First of all, I'd like to express how much I love The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Tolkien was a genius. Peter Jackson did a great job on the films, I think. But Rankin-Bass, however, did not.SPOILERS The thing that bothered me a lot in this movie was the music. It was annoying, and ends up getting stuck in your head. Right now I'm trying to get rid of the one about Frodo's Nine Fingers. The animation is awful. There were also several elements of the story that bothered me, in animation, and in plot. For example, why did Elrond have a beard? Elves don't have beards. They are clean-shaven, always. Why did Merry and Pippin meet on the Pelenor DURING the battle? Where are Legolas and Gimli? What's with Denethor? The orcs looked much too top-heavy to be able to walk. The Nazgul were terrible. (They were on flying horses.) Denethor was bad, as well, as he just looked like a crazy old man with a back problem. He didn't look strong at all, as he was portrayed in the books and the recent film by Peter Jackson. Gollum looked as if he were pregnant, and sounded like a guy clearing his throat. And Sam's frequent exclamations of, "Oh, my God!" and "Lord, help me!" were not true to the books. (Although Tolkien was a Christian and so am I, the phrases should not have been in the movie.) And the battering ram, Grond? The thing looked as if strangely colored drool was coming out of its mouth rather than fire.This was overall the worst adaptation of anything I have ever seen. It was, truly, painful to watch.No, really, I was writhing in agony. Good thing the library rents out tapes for free.