I first saw the 2003 movie Return of the King when I was eight years old. It was the third and final film in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I watched it at home with my family, and I remember falling in love with the fictional world of Middle Earth. The film follows Frodo Baggins, a hobbit from the shire, and his best friend Samwise Gamgee. I didn’t remember much except for Frodo and Sam finally arriving to Mount Doom.

Return of the King was directed by Peter Jackson, and based off of the classic books by J.R.R. Tolkein. It had big movie stars in the cast including John Rhys-Davies, Sir Ian McKellen, Orlando Bloom,  Viggo Mortensen, and Cate Blanchett. The books themselves were quite well known before being retold through live action film and CGI. 

This was one of the first movies I had seen with relatively mature  and gory graphics such as the creepy creature Gollum, played by Andy Serkis, and violent battles between knights and orcs. As any little kid would be, I was immersed in the wonder of sword fights and fantastic battles between creatures of good and evil.

Critics such as Roger Ebert argue that Return of the King “falls a little shy of greatness” and is “just a little too silly to carry the emotional weight of a masterpiece”.  Other reviews are similar, and say that the “computer-generated effects (the army of the dead, the exploding Mount Doom) look subpar” and that “Jackson inexplicably fails to show us that moment when the spark of kingship first lights in Aragorn’s eyes”(Rolling Stone). However, I disagree that the there is not enough “psychological depth anywhere in the film”(Ebert) or that the important “moment[s] seems to happen offscreen”(Rolling stone). The film is not phenomenal for it’s graphics or its acting, but for the near perfection of the formula that is the hero’s journey.

After re-watching the movie, I noticed the internal struggle of Frodo as he carried the one ring to its destruction. The overall conflict of the film was significantly deeper than I had originally thought when I first saw it. I saw how difficult it was for Frodo to trust even his best friend Sam in his time of struggle.  The main difference I noticed was how Frodo needs help from Sam a lot more than other examples of the hero’s journey. Sam literally carries Frodo the final few feet to his destination. In other films, heroes aren’t quite as heavily reliant on their supporting characters. While heroes usually need some help, Frodo absolutely could not have made it to Mount doom without Sam’s help.

Frodo’s character developement throughout the trilogy was also something I didn’t appreciate until now. He changes over his quest and the evil ring takes its toll on his mind. In this last film especially, it is apparent that he is a changed person.

Another new thing I noticed was how different Frodo is in the aftermath of the climax. I now realize that things can never be the same after a life-changing event. As an example of the return stage of the hero’s journey, here is a video of Frodo ultimately leaving middle earth with the elves because he is internally trapped between the person he once was, and the person he is now.

As a kid, I had no idea the complexity and the depth in which this entire trilogy had. The whole story is cohesive, as well as the directing, acting, original music, and CGI special effects. This goes to show that learning and growing as a person can really make you understand and come to appreciate certain subjects on a deeper level. The extent to which we can appreciate film is limited to how much we know and understand about it.

-Hunter O’Neil