Rating: 
Summary: I remember liking this movie...
Review: I also enjoyed another Bakshi movie called "Wizards". I just
wanted to relay what I heard years ago: the profits from Bakshi's first movie,
which covers half of the Lord of the Rings, was supposed to finance the second half,
but the first movie either lost money, or did not make enough to finance the second,
and so the second was never made.
Rating: 
Summary: Everyone has a vision
Review: It never ceases to be a subject of vexation for me the way this wonderful movie has been roundly dissed by avid "fans" of Tolkien. While it is true that everyone has their own vision of Middle Earth, it seems this vision makes some people feel entitled to mock the visions others hold. For me, this movie was life altering. I saw it when I was just a wee little lass, three years old. It made such an indelible impression on my mind that I incessantly harassed my parents to read the books to me from that day until they finally capitulated when I was seven, judging me old enough to understand them. For me this movie represents Middle Earth very well. The movie is DARK. It is HEAVY. It is not cute. It is not fuzzy. As for the rotoscoping that seems to horrify so many people, I must say, I think it was fabulous. I loved the surreal effect this had on the orcs. Frankly, this is how I will always see them; black and greenish brown and unearthly. This is my Middle Earth. Honestly, I think the atmosphere this movie creates is closer to reality than any other representation of Tolkien's works. I loved this movie, and have hunted for it for years, when it was out of print. FRODO LIVES!
Rating:
Summary: Surprisingly Good
Review: The other day I bought the 1978 Lord of the Rings "Bakshi" cartoon movie.
I hadn't seen this cartoon since Pre-Kindergarden. I remember absolutely hating it, and was prepared to feel the same now. But amazingly this cartoon is actually very well done(Herald, Herald how many times do I have to tell you, you can't judge by first impressions!!!!)
The cartoon Hobbits remind me of cabbage patch dolls, but are still believable. The detail and emotions of the characters is amazing. I've never seen animation so life like. It breaks my heart when Frodo says "I will take the ring, though I do not know the way".
I didn't think Sam wasn't that bad, he was just more cartoonish than the others. Merry's voice seemed very strong and clear. Pippin's innocent character was really cute.
The animation of integrating real life with cartoons was quite inovative for the time and still seems impressive today (though it is definitely NOT CGI!)
I would recommend this movie It is a shame it never got finished. :)
Rating: 
Summary: Uhh......
Review: I bought this movie from wal-mart, because i liked lord of the rings a lot and had watched the movie. I thought it would be good. I was wrong. The cartoon was close to the newest movie's storyline, but the cartoon just looked plain weird. I was also disapointed when i saw Strider. He reminded me of an indian.
Rating:
Summary: ...open your eyes
Review: ...This movie is one of what was a planned two parter (the second part was never made) and attempts to adapt the Fellowship and the first half of the Two Towers in 2 and a half hours, and does a pretty good job. The biggest complaint about this movie is Strider, People dont like the way he looks, sure he looks like an indian but his character is done better than even Jackson's lord of the rings.The animation in this movie is ok (the rollotype is annoying though) and the action scenes are decent the voices, good enough. This movie dosent deserve my 5 stars but it deserves more than 3.
Rating:
Summary: Look for the sowrd that was broken....
Review: This may not be the best animated movie in the world, but it stays true to the books for the most part. It follows the books all the way to the battle of helms deep.
Bilbo Baggins has left the Shire, and left Frodo his magical ring. Soon, Frodo finds out that Bilbo's ring is "the one ring to rule them all" and seeks to destory the ring in Mt. Doom in the land of Mordor where it was made. Worth watching once.
Rating: 
Summary: Have Fun!
Review: This is certainly one of the most ridiculous movies I have ever seen! The animation is so bad that even a 5-year-old could do better drawings, but most of the time they don't even bother to draw it, but use tainted live-action instead or try a combination of live-action and animation, which is especially annoying.
Aragorn is a Native American (why?), Sam a ...madman & all characters are constantly overacting and cross-eyed. I watched it with a friend of mine and we were laughing for hours afterwards...
Rating:
Summary: It's not "the Return of the King" and that's good.
Review: This movie is not what I'd call bad. It's pretty good, especially
considering that Ralph Bakshi only had two hours to film "the Fellowship of the Ring" and one half of "the Two Towers". It's not perfect, but it is DEFINITELY superior than the monstrocity that is "the Return of the King".For instance, instead of the cracker-thin voice acting and personalaties in ROTK, LOTR actually gives you the impression that Bakshi's crew auditioned for more than five days. Frodo is especially done well, implanting a reluctance in his quest as the
Ring-Bearer while also realizing he must do it. Aragorn is well portrayed as the future king he is, with the dignity and majesty of his character. Many say that Sam is just a clown in this movie, but I disagree. I think he's also done well. As are Gandalf and Boromir, if you can get past how much Boromir looks like a barbarian. Pippin, Legolas, and Merry aren't unique, but let's be honest-the three of them were underdeveloped to begin with. The animation is also excellent. The successful combination of animation and live action definitely attests to this. Though it's
difficult to say, we may well have a hands-down winner for the best pre-80s animation. I'm not saying this movie is flawless. Gimli isn't done or acted that well. If you want a good portrayal of the character, look to
the Peter Jackson version. and some say that it's a bad idea to try to follow the original material to the point of copying dialogue. Sadly, "the Lord of the Rings" proves this thery right.
Most of the dialogue comes from the books. And while this was faithful and all, it comes out as being corny. Finally, the last half-hour of the movie (covering "the Two Towers) seems rushed. It seems like they were running short on money and had to finish this part faster. The battle of Helms' Deep, in particular is very poorly done. Despite these complaints, LOTR is a very well done movie. It has faults, sure, but still doesn't deserve its bad rap. Though not perfect it is a very respectable attempt to do part one and a half of the trilogy in a mere two hours. Hmm... only three comparisons to ROTK. Could've done worse.
Rating:
Summary: Plodding and trippy, like a dream.
Review: This is Bakshi's brave, misguided, and somewhat failed take on the first two books of the Rings Trilogy (the last book was done Disney-style by Rankin/Bass and bares no resemblance to Bakshi's style whatsoever). It is plodding, somewhat boring, confusing, poorly conceived, and at times seems more like an acid trip than a movie. Despite all my technical and logical problems with this film, I still adore it, in part as it was a part of my childhood, but also because it is so very different from any cartoon I've ever seen. The plot, characters, logic, specifics, all become blurred and secondary to just experiencing this strange trip Bakshi has taken us on. Bakshi seems to have taken a direction no one in their right mind would take with Tolkein's beloved material, and that is to completely forsake his words for his images. And he does so in such a way that the images never leave you. Bakshi's images are so strong that when I saw the live-action version in the theatersthe words "visual plagarism" kept coming to mind. The live action version follows Bakshi's cartoon shot for shot in some sequences. Now, also have to change gears on you again and say that I loved the live action version. But I think credit should be given to Bakshi from whose cenimatic settings and visual images were rather blatantly "borrowed" by the recent live-action adaptations. If you're looking for an experience like you had with the live-action version, you'll be disappointed. But if you turn off your conscious super-ego and sit back and chill to the mood and images you'll have one hell of a good time.
Rating:
Summary: More true to book then the Live action verison
Review: ... More true to the original dialog In the Jackson film, Strider doesn't carry the Sword that was Broken because of shame, but in the 78 movie, he dose like in the book. In the book we don't see Arwen until Rivendell, but in Jackson film she shows up and rescues Frodo, takes him to the Ford and sums up the flood that washes the Ringwraiths away. In the 78 and the book Frodo flees on his own. In the Jackson movie Boromir gets three arrows in his chest, which didn't even happen in Fellowship, in the 78 movie, he is shot seven time, (you actually see him pull three out and get shot four more times) in the book eight. The "Rotoscope" I think that what is was, gave a great spooky look to the film that was shrouded with surrealism. The animation for the Hobbit and Return of the King ... It was too childish in a very dark tail that was loosely base of Tolkien's experience in World War I.
|
