This month, twenty years ago, Peter Jackson‘s The Lord of the Rings trilogy ended with Return of the King. The 3+ hour motion picture — the grand finale in a series consisting of 2001’s Fellowship of the Ring and 2002’s The Two Towers — grossed a massive $1.156 billion at the worldwide box office. It also dominated the 76th Academy Awards, where it won an astonishing 12 statues, including Best Picture and Best Director.
But two decades removed from its release, where does LOTR’s cinematic significance stand?
Since its release, other franchises have tried to match its epic scope. A few have come close, but none lived up to the massive expectations set by their predecessors. In the last two decades, moviegoers experienced the rise and fall of The Matrix, Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man, Planet of the Apes, Pirates of the Caribbean, and X-Men, among others. Each of these franchises started strong, hit their peak with a terrific middle chapter, and then flamed out with audiences (and critics) by the third entry.
Return of the King, however, stuck the landing — and then some. When Samwise Gamgee (Sean Astin) walks inside his tiny Hobbit home in the Shire, a year removed from his perilous adventure with Frodo (Elijah Wood), and the words “The End” fill the screen, it’s a satisfying conclusion. ROTK gives moviegoers their money’s worth with larger-than-life set pieces, dashing heroes, and eye-popping spectacle, but Jackson also spends just as much time wrapping up pivotal character arcs.
People balked at the film’s multiple endings. Away with you! ROTK treats its heroes like real people. The series was never about the mission to destroy the One Ring — it was about how the journey changed those who went on it. Frodo went from a carefree youngster to a mature adult ready to embark on the next stage of his life; Sam grew into a confident man and married the woman he loved; Gandalf (Ian McKellen) began as a grizzled wizard, unsure of himself, died and remerged as Gandalf the White, a wisened man capable of leading enormous forces into battle. Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) likewise became a leader, while Legolas and Gimli put aside their prejudices and discovered friendship.
That’s what makes LOTR such a satisfying trilogy. Jackson establishes several seemingly inconsequential character beats in Fellowship of the Ring that all pay off in ROTK. Whether it’s Sam asking Rosie Cotton to marry him or Aragorn and Arwen’s relationship, every story thread is tied up into a neat little bow.
Jackson developed these characters so well throughout the trilogy that we actually cared when they bid farewell.
LOTR got better with each film
So, what about older trilogies? How do they stack up against LOTR? Well, they don’t. The original Indiana Jones trilogy lands closest to LOTR’s perfection, in my opinion. Raiders remains a classic, Temple of Doom provides thrilling escapism, and Last Crusade is a pitch-perfect romp that brings the whole adventure to a satisfying close. None are quite as ambitious as LOTR, and Last Crusade gets dinged for sticking too close to formula. Back to the Future? Part II sucks, and III lacks ambition. Star Wars? Ewoks derailed the saga. The Godfather? Even a director’s cut of Part III couldn’t save the disappointing final chapter. Aliens? Terminator? Mad Max? All cursed with an underwhelming third act.
Of course, great trilogies exist. I love all three Die Hards, Raimi’s Evil Dead series, and Sergio Leone’s Dollars Trilogy. Toy Story 1-3 is fantastic, as is the first three Bourne Identity films. Still, I hesitate to put them above LOTR if only because ROTK is such a monumentally astonishing third act that puts all others to shame. All these years later, I’m always in the mood to watch Jackson’s glorious epic—a near-perfect blockbuster—an old-fashioned spectacle made by people who genuinely love the material.
Out of all the franchises that have come and gone in my lifetime, The Lord of the Rings is the one I always return to. Twenty years later, I still bow to the king.
