Lord of the Rings 3: Return of the King  (2003)

All of the Lord of the Rings movies were excellent.  The films are extremely exciting and action-packed.  Special effects are before their time and the writers did an excellent job of shortening the otherwise lengthy prose in the books.

The only problem LOTR:  The Return of the King has is 'Eowyn.'  Most men will identify her as the feminist of the story.  She constantly whines that the men are able to do things she can't.  She claims that her "privileged position" of not having to fight in wars and end up dead, of being a princess, etc., etc. is somehow "oppressing her." Moreover out of her own selfishness she shirks her duty to her people to "prove she can do anything a man can".  Most women like Eowyn's character because, like most western women, she can shirk responsibility due to an imagined slight yet still grind on how the "men' of the country should remain responsible.  This double standard permeates western culture and its films.

Such is pro-female dogma at its height and this is where the Politically Correct nonsense begins to take hold of the film.



Having read the books it is true that Eowyn whines all throughout the book, like the typical western woman, and does eventually get to fight in the final war at Gondor.  It is also true that she is involved in the killing of the black rider....partially.  Now this is where Peter Jackson takes it upon himself to appeal to the "empowered women" notion that seems to be portrayed over and over and over again today in the media.

In a mighty 'one-liner Charlie's Angel like moment' the female character does what "no man" could do(without the help of a man is the invisible line here); but is this how it was originally written?  Is Eowyn the true heroine that needs only be a "woman" in order to kill the big, bad, evil masculine black rider?  We all saw in the theater how after the Hobbit stabs the black rider she whips off her helmet, right after he says "No MAN can kill me", and triumphantly yells "I AM NO MAN!"  She then stabs him and he dies, but is this how it "really' happened in the ACTUAL book?


The answer is no and yes.  In the book she says "You look upon a woman" but what has been 'purposely' left out of the film is how this is achieved.  You see the dagger that the Hobbit stabbed the black rider with was magical and they were made to kill the black riders, these daggers were obtained by the men of the film earlier on in the book (Why was this left out?), thus the reason Eowyn was able to take the rider down with her last blow.

It had nothing to do with her being a "strong woman" as the media portrayed it, just her being in the right place at the right time.  The black rider was already dying from the enchanted dagger strike made by the Hobbit (i.e. A short MAN).  In all reality Eowyn was about to die in the fight, the black rider broke her arm with one swing (even though she was bearing a shield), 'until' the male Hobbit saves her by plunging the enchanted dagger into the rider effectively weakening him so that a woman would be able to slay him and use the moment as a female empowerment moment.  As I said the strike from the dagger is what killed him, as stated in the book, this fact was left out of the film to make women happy."


Also Gimli is an excellent combatant in the book, but in the movie you see him portrayed as comic relief.  He was the roughest character in the book, but was portrayed as the goofy jokester.  What gives?  There were also tons of jokes from mostly women, and PC men, claiming the fellowship was gay because they were men who cared about one another, and had a mission that did not involve something so petty as competing with men, just so you can prove to yourself that you are useful.

I applaud P. Jackson for not bending to the immature taunting of the fellowship men.  Mr. Jackson had them helping, leading, and caring for each other and there was a great sense of honor among the males in the film.  I see the taunting of men who are close as "gay" simply being another attempt by the old matriarchs to keep men separated.
                             - Reviewed by Sick Of Misandry

Rated: PG13 in USA, 12 in UK, 14A in Canada due to violence and battle scenes.
Duration: 1 hour and 55 minutes
Portal to Other Reviews & Info 
Stars indicate entertainment value (out of a maximum of five stars).

Pro-male content and honest treatment of aspects of men's lives.

Male-bashing & negative stereotypes (puking).