Paul Cella has a thoughtful comment about The Return of the King. I have also seen it, and agree with his comment:
"A masterpiece. A few blunders linger from the second film (the use of Gimli almost exclusively for comic relief does not abate, for example), but others are corrected or at least mitigated (Faramir’s character is restored by a combination of benign neglect and an effective depiction of his callous and despondent father), and there are a variety of minor departures from Tolkien’s text — some of which are sure to irritate. But in a broad and sympathetic sense I have no complaints about the film.
At the heart of this story is the venerable but neglected ideal of masculine friendship. If we manage to recover this idea, then these movies will have contributed to something of immense value. They will have helped make us men again."
Thanks for the link, Mr. Schramm!
I was not disappointed with the treatment of Gimli in this film, nor in its predecessor. Gimli serves as a comical presence at times in the books, too. And while I would have preferred that the movies had fleshed out all of the characters more, we must remember that the limitations of time and money prevented the filmmakers from telling the whole story (only about 60% of what is in the books appears in the films). I’ve heard people complain about Gimli’s "killing" competition with Legolas, but this actually appears in the books too! Say the number "42" to any Tolkien fan, and they’ll know immediately what it means (its the number of kills that Gimli scored at Helms Deep to best Legolas’ 41).