Writing is never easy when it's an obligation. When so many people expect you to say something, it's almost inevitable that you're going to choke. That's only human nature. And expectation has played such a large part in the post J.R.R. Tolkien world of Tolkien commentary and interpretation that even Peter Jackson's films have been deluged with complaints about perceived failures.

There was a time when people felt lucky to be alive while someone was filming a live-action LoTR adaptation. And there was a time when most online Tolkien fans reacted negatively to the idea of anyone adapting the most popular fiction book of the 20th century to the big screen. For that matter, there was a time when the two camps argued incessantly over the merits of attempting to adapt the book to film.

Expectations have abounded through the years. They have encrusted Tolkien and LoTR discussions with layers of regret, anger, and apprehension. As the release of Peter Jackson's "The Return of the King" approached, I increasingly heard more people pile on expectations for this movie than for the first two combined. "It's GOT to win the Oscar!" "It's got to be better than The Two Towers!" "It's got to be more faithful!" And the expectations become more refined as you ask about them.

But they really don't make sense. For example, why should a movie no one had seen win an Oscar (for Best Film)? What if it turned out to be a really bad movie? Of course, expectations insist that it will be a GREAT movie. But that's not the point. The point is, what if it is a really bad movie?

Faithfulness has been the obstacle tripping up many long-time fans of the book. They discerned almost adequate faithfulness in the first movie (which bore little resemblance to the book) and despaired of finding hardly any faithfulness in the second movie (which was, in fact, more faithful to the book than either the first or the third films). Peter Jackson claimed that he and his fellow film-makers had, in fact, become more faithful to the book as they proceeded with the principal photography. Some ideas which were wholly unfaithful to the book have supposedly been trashed in favor of more faithful concepts.

I don't know. I wasn't there to help make the decisions.

But I have watched all three films in the theaters. And I have read the books a time or two. I know what came out of the books and where. So, faithfulness should never have been considered an issue. The movies are not very faithful to the book. In fact, they haven't even been very faithful to themselves.

Continuity has been a huge problem with this project. One can only begin to imagine (and never really comprehend the immensity of the task) what must have been required to achieve even minimal continuity. So, perhaps it is forgiveable that continuity went out the window with "The Return of the King". Although I enjoyed watching the movie immensely (it is certanly very entertaining), there were many scenes where I found myself shaking my head and saying, "Huh? What was that?"

Perhaps the most obvious continuity error concerns Frodo and Sam's clothes in Mordor. They magically change. Of course, some people will be quick to point out that the apparent discrepancy can be fixed in the DvD. I suppose so, but that means I have to wait almost a year to find out how Frodo's Hobbit shirt reappeared on him after he and Sam had to scrounge up some Orc armor.

Less obvious continuity problems concerned the time table for events which are well-documented in the book. In one quick interweave of scenes, Sam carries Frodo across two miles of rocky, mis-shapen landscape as Aragorn leads the combined forces of Rohan and Gondor in a charge across about 100 yards of dirt (and I am being generous). I know that Sam is Da Bomb, but really. How did he get Frodo up that mountainside so quickly? Was the power of the Ring at work?

In another continuity issue, days and nights blurred together so quickly after Theoden told someone it would take three days to get to Minas Tirith that I couldn't figure out how much time had indeed passed for anyone. Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas took off for the Paths of the Dead one day and magically showed up with an army of the Dead at Minas Tirith about two days later. Um, guys, was anyone doing any math while writing the script?

And then Merry survived the encounter with the Lord of the Nazgul so well that he was sent along with the army to attack the Morannon. But Eowyn, who whacked off the head of the big flying steed which belonged to the Lord of the Nazgul, was nowhere to be seen. What does a girl have to do to get comparable air-time, kill Sauron himself?

But let's set aside the continuity problems that were rampant throughout the movie. Since the audience (with which I sat) applauded and cheered at all the right places, one must concede that the movie was very entertaining despite its flaws for at least one group of people. That's cool, but there were parts where the entertainment sort of dried up. In one case, the character of Denethor, Steward of Gondor, horribly played by John Noble, dominated the action...by eating grapes and dribbling grape juice down his chin.

Is that the stuff academy awards were intended to recognize? I hope not.

However, if we're looking for actually good performances, then one must acknowledge Bernard Hill's superb portrayal of Theoden. I cannot imagine anyone doing it any other way and still be as right. Maybe someone could be better than Hill, but I don't believe anyone could be more right. He IS Theoden (despite the bad makeup job they did on him early in the second movie). When I watch the movie again, I'll know before I sit down that I'll enjoy every scene with Theoden, even though his character was implausibly watered down.

Ian McKellen did a fine job with his role, but Gandalf's character was diminished in some capacity. He was more of a deus ex machina than an actual character participating in the unfolding drama. In some places, he was used to draw laughs from the audience in a way which diluted the noble character of J.R.R. Tolkien's Gandalf.

Viggo Mortensen almost comes into his own in this movie. He does a great job as Aragorn in the first two movies, but he gets too little screen time in the third film. He is, theoretically, playing the title character. It's a bit startling to realize that Aragorn has absolutely none of that delightful, charming interplay with Theoden and Eomer that fills the book with righteous expectation. Instead, we watch Aragorn uncourt Eowyn, who has inexplicably fallen in love with him (and just as inexplicably falls out of love with him).

Miranda Otto plays the warrior Eowyn to the hilt. She brings on the persona of shield-maiden with a ferocity that matches the legend. But Eowyn's role is paired down from the book and it just leaves me feeling like something is missing. Perhaps when she scoops up Merry, and fails to introduce herself as Dernhelm, she betrays the readers' trust. She also betrays the movie audience's trust by disregarding Theoden's order that she remain behind and govern the people.

Now, she doesn't stay behind in the book, but the book is a little different. J.R.R. Tolkien's Eowyn is bitter, resentful, and suicidal. Peter Jackson's Eowyn is simply angry, and apparently, after she whacks off the Lord of the Nazgul, her anger is dissipated and therefore her story no longer requires a resolution. That makes her a little one-dimensional.

Karl Urban should have been given more screen time, too. His portrayal of Eomer is so repressed that it's hard to remember that he is in the film. This is a man who has an incredible presence in real life. This is the guy who almost saved "The Two Towers" for Peter Jackson in many disappointed fans' eyes. About all I remember him doing is screaming "DEATH!" (at the wrong point in the story) and bringing up the rear for everyone else. It would have been great to see Theoden pass the banner of kingship to his nephew. However, we were consoled by Miranda Otto's farewell to the king. Theoden's death was probably the best scene in the movie, thanks to both Bernard Hill and Miranda Otto.

Gollum will undoubtedly tickle many fancies. He was the most popular character with the audience and he got to ham it up for us once again in another frenetic self-argument. But as I watched Frodo, Sam, and Gollum struggle over the Ring (or, with the Ring), it occurred to me that the Ring had been misportrayed throughout the trilogy.

I really had nothing good to think or say about the way Peter portrayed the wraith realm, but it seems to me that he missed a great opportunity to dip into Tolkien's hand by dwelling on the temptations offered by the Ring rather than focusing on the special effects which accompany any person's wearing the Ring. That is, there is a moment in "The Return of the King" where Sam is clearly being tempted by the Ring. I immediately thought of the passage in The Return of the King where Sam imagines himself as a powerful gardener, using the power of the Ring to beautify the world. Of course, Sam's movie temptation comes at an entirely different point from his book temptation.

The book temptation is much more powerful and engaging than the movie temptation. It would have been nice to see each character tempted by the Ring in the truest sense of the word. The power

indeed, the personality -- of the Ring would have been brought out more clearly for the viewing audience if, each time the Ring tempted someone, we were shown scenes of the struggle played out in the person's mind, rather than simply having to endure another round of facial expressions.

So, all that said, did I hate the movie? No. I really did enjoy the experience. But I didn't feel compelled to rally round the flag and insist that an Oscar should be waiting in the wings.