He calls him Mr. Frodo with such sincerity that we know he loves his fellow hobbit and would gladly sacrifice his life to protect him. We know him as Frodo Baggins the present holder of the most powerful of the rings (the “One Ring”) that if not properly disposed of could allow the forces of evil to take over the world. In the final installment of the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, Mr. Frodo’s good friend Sam Gamgee reminds us that small can be mighty and loyalty has immeasurable value.

A sprawling, thrilling epic, “The Return of the King” is a 200 plus minute event not to be missed. Of course, given the length, you may find yourself creating your own intermission around the 2-hour mark.

The story of “The Return of the King” concerns the continuing saga of the One Ring now possessed by Frodo. Such ring also possesses anyone who attempts to hold it. The film opens with an origin story of Gollum who also in a former life we learn was named Smeagol. In an opening flashback we see Smeagol fishing on a picturesque placid lake who with a friend discovers the One Ring; the resulting bloodlust for the ring leads to murder and the transformation of Smeagol into Gollum (a green-skinned fishy emotionally conflicted dude). Early the film establishes itself as a mature feature and parents should be cautioned. This is a film for viewers no younger than 15 years old and, at times, I wondered whether an R rating would have been appropriate.

After learning about Smeagol’s past, we are reacquainted with the present finding Frodo, Sam, and Gollum struggling to find their way to Mount Doom where Frodo must destroy the One Ring. At the same time, events are in motion resulting in another unbelievable clash between the armies of evil, principally led by the Orcs (the evil Sauron’s yucky army) aided by many nasty associates, and the armies of good led by Rohan & Gondor and other clean nice looking chaps. The Orcs this time are little more with it, and their military field leader is a plump little guy who defines rough hewn and resolute.

The battle sequences in this installment are less thrilling than the second film in that I never had the impression that the good forces could lose. This is no matter because Frodo’s journey creates more than enough tension on its own. The conflict between the schizophrenic Gollum and the kind loyalty of Sam Gamgee is marvelously nerve-racking. At every turn the evil Gollum schemes to rid himself of Sam who while kind and softly innocent manages to remain cynical of the creature.

The wonderful part of the Gollum/Sam conflict is that Gollum is not really flesh and blood. Of course, we all know from the former films how real looking this computer generated monster is, but in “King,” Gollum goes from human (or humanoid in the person of Smeagol) to some kind of fish-like creature before our eyes. And we buy it on a genuine level more so than say Peter Parker’s transformation into Spiderman. There is something evil about it that makes it real and insidious—young children will have nightmares if exposed to these scenes, I’m sure.

The special effects are astounding. I stayed for the complete credits and the list of effects geniuses is amazing. Who do you give the Academy Awards to for the effects? There are so many and so many different effects’ set pieces that these guys will be competing against themselves. Aside from the brilliant character Gollum, I personally liked the catapults the best because the huge stones they hurl appear to come directly out of the screen.

The sound is deafening literally and this bothered me. Remember the Ringwraiths in the first film? Well, one super Ringwraith appears to be back empowered by invulnerability in that he cannot be killed by a man (remember your Shakespeare people). As the dark super Wraith character rides its dragon into battle the screeching was unbearable. Of course, given the first film, I was ready and put my hands over my ears. My advice is to go to a weekday matinee and sit in the middle of the theater, which might help the decibel levels. But you will have to go to the restroom (the film is over 3 hours in length) so, an aisle seat might be best if the theater is crowded.

I was also troubled by the elephants used by one of the groups of evil attackers in battle. They are enormous and intimidating reminding one of the At-At walkers from the best Star Wars film “The Empire Strikes Back” (I’m prepared to defend this statement mates!). My problem with the elephants is two-fold: (1) they are mercilessly butchered by the good guys; and (2) the riders of the beasts appear to be of Arab ethnicity (wearing clothing that appears to be desert or Middle Eastern in origin). The first reason is disquieting because children will undoubtedly see this film and elephants while large and intimidating are not usually marketed to kids as scary animals. In one scene Legolas pounces upon one of these frightening monsters and ruthlessly kills those aboard and without hesitation murders the poor animal violently. Why couldn’t he have found a way to use the great beast against the other elephants? I guess I’m asking too much but I felt like the scenes were there to appeal to those members of the audience looking for an action event film and this film had already gone well beyond that before the introduction of the elephants.

What about the Arab looking folks? Well, I could hardly be called a flaming liberal insisting on political correctness in the cinema but it did smack a bit like current world events had crept into the film corrupting the Tolkien story further. My view of the Tolkien universe was that there may have been humans that betrayed their own kind, but for the most part, most humans fought against the evil, not with it. Since the Orcs were created from the muck of the earth, killing them (even on a genocidal level) was not as troubling for me. But the presence of Arab looking attackers just seemed out of place.

But I’m being awfully cynical and maybe even unfair. This is a glorious film and I gave my entire self to it whole-heartedly without reservation. The screenplay is mature enough to spend a half an hour or so winding down the various story lines (which most people I spoke with consider multiple endings) even carefully bringing back the tragic Bilbo for his last voyage.

All the best scenes of emotional power belong to Sean Astin as Sam Gamgee and a computer generated fish man Gollum/Smeagol. Astin mustn’t be overlooked this year in the supporting Oscar category (I’m very serious). Not only is his performance arresting but he seamlessly (with the aid of no doubt hundreds of special effects artists) interacts with a character not played by a human being. This is the finest example of such techniques (both acting and effects) I’ve ever seen on the screen. And everyone should be rewarded for it.

“The Return of the King” is saturated with exhilarating battles and awe-inspiring special effects but ultimately it is a hobbit’s tale that manages to connect with its broad audience on a personal level. The concluding scenes leave open the possibility of another film, one smaller and filled with emotional struggles instead of fantastical ones. You will fight exceedingly the urge to run to the exits until the credits begin to roll. And you will want to see it again.

Jonathan W. Hickman, 2003