Review of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) by Anthony Lane for The New Yorker — 17 Jan 2016
It’s odd and unfortunate, however, that The Return of the King just barely misses the eye-misting emotional wallop of the series’ previous installment, The Two Towers, which had a lyrical subtlety underpinning the vast vistas of growing chaos (and Christopher Lee hardly hurt matters) and hobbits-in-peril.
You can read the full review where it was originally posted online.
This review of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) was written by Anthony Lane and published by The New Yorker on 17 Jan 2016.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King has generally received very positive reviews.
Was this review helpful?
Yes
No
