Rating: 
Summary: Atmospheric Tolkien
Review: The film was never what it should have been, but fortunately we have the music to consider here.The strident pounding beat of Rosenmans style of music lends itself well to this dour tale of the war of the Ring.
For the most part it alternates between a chirpy, rustic sort of theme for the Hobbits (which gets darker as the file progresses) and the dour chant and drum beat of the Orcs of Mordor. This album can require endurance to listen to at one session, but makes excellent background music to many computer games when you tire of the banal sort of music usually provided for this genre. The score certainly has its moments, from the pulsing beat of the chase to Isengard and the arrival of the Riders of Rohan. To the pounding epic sprawl of the Battle for Helms Deep. There is a complete contrast in the music when the elves sing a song in mourning for Mithrandir that is almost childlike and a welcome break from destruction and death of most of the album. I first bought this in 1979 as two vinyl discs and have no hesitation in buying it again. A definate for those who like action music.
Rating:
Summary: Flawed, low-budget fantasy film
Review: As an example of what a fantasy film can do on an _extremely_ tight budget, Bakshi's _Lord of the Rings_ is quite good. Many of the film's artistic shortcomings -- and more than a few of its remarkable visual strengths -- can be traced to the penny-pinching approach. As with his later, underrated _Fire and Ice_, Bakshi uses rotoscoped animation to simulate live-action filmmaking without the expense. (After all, why build a set and hire thousands of actors when you can draw it all instead?) In a sense, this approach to filmmaking is much more common today: Current F/X design enables designers to place live-action human actors in computer-generated settings. The process of "motion capture" has become the digital age's equivalent of rotoscoping, for it uses computerized tracking to record live-action movements and "trace" those movements onto CGI characters. To be fair, this _LOTR_ has more than its share of faults. The story is fatally muddled. Despite the fairly high caliber of acting, the script and direction cannot keep characters' basic identities and motivations straight. In short, Tolkien purists have every right to be outraged at Ralph Bakshi. But for persons interested in craft, this rotoscoped film -- neither live-action nor animation as we understand it -- makes the interesting case that, if a filmmaker is willing to use ingenious and unconventional techniques, a small budget need not hamper grand ambitions.
Rating:
Summary: Use some imagination
Review: Most people thought it was a bad movie because of bad animation and portrayal of Sam and that monster (at the end) being a lion with butterfly wings etc... I might agree with the Sam and Lion with wings comments, but I cannot agree that the animation was bad. It is very raw. Thats exactly why it is so good.
Rating: 
Summary: Horrid Characters
Review: I think the movie was hilarious but it had a lot of faults with the characters like Aragorn,he looked liked like an indian. Legolas was such a snob.He looked at Sam like he was an idiot when he said Frodo needed to rest. Gandalf moved his hands so much I thought he was trying to do sign language.Boromir looked like a viking with those horns. Pippin looked so much like Merry that you couldn't tell them apart. The Black Riders looked like they were crippled and they looked brown instead of black. The orcs looked like bulls. The Balrog looked like a lion with butterfly wings. I think it would be very funny if it were a comedy but it wasn't, so it stunk.
Rating:
Summary: the people who made this movie were on drugs
Review: This movie was extremly bad. The characters were completly off. How come the black or brown riders looked like they had polio and had swords that couldn't cut through the bed sheets at the Prancing Pony with 1 or 2 cuts. I think I could beat them in battle with my Grandma's cane. Aragorn looked like an Indian when Boromir (who was the same race as him)looked like a viking with a sword that looked like it went through hell and back.Legalos was a snob who kept making fun of dwarves and made an insulting face at Sam when he said Frodo needed a rest. Sam looked like a buffoon with no teeth and "had a strange obsession with Frodo".
How come the S in Sarauman was silent? And why did Gandalf wave his arms all around so much?
The movie "The Hobbit"'s characters were drawn completely differently. The elves looked like they hadn't eaten in ages. Gollum looked like a lizard in 1 movie and a strange white creature in the other.It was just plain awful.
To tell the truth on a scale of 1 to 5 ,I give it a 0 or if it was a comedy a 10.
Rating:
Summary: I don't normally believe in censorship, but...
Review: in this case, I'll make an exception and demand that the FBI immediately confiscate all extant copies of this artistic abomination and, by means of a giant bonfire, send them back to their Satanic father. This "film" is a joke, the only benefit being the endless unintentional laughs its stupidity provides. From the first moment, this movie disgusts; the loyal, brave Sam is made into a gap toothed simpleton, Gandalf is constantly waving his arms around like he's having a seizure, the Black (actually brown) Riders move like apes with Multiple Sclerosis, Aragorn looks like a Red Indian, yet Boromir, who is supposed to come from the same race, is drawn like a Viking, complete with horns. The plot holes are big enough to hide a orc army in, and the abruptness with which the movie ends is jarring, to say the least. I thought I had neglected to rent the second tape. I could write a tome about the deficiencies of this atrocity, but let's just sum it up by saying "BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID".
Rating: 
Summary: Went well until the end
Review: Well, I must say, when I first started to watch the movie, it was pretty good, and by that I mean faithful to the books. What killed it for me though was horrible animation they tried to put in. I am not sure exactly what it is called, but it involves substituting animation with live people who seem to be scribbled on. What I don't understand is why did they do this? It just slaughtered my enjoyment during the movie. Maybe for 1978 that was considered top of the line animation, but they should have just stuck with the original animation. The ending killed me, it was like the person who made the movie only made it halfway through THE TWO TOWERS and decided to make a movie on it. It left so many loose ends I don't know where to begin with. My advice is to read the books and if you have 2 hours of spare time, watch this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Better than Jacksons version
Review: I feel that the hardcore LOTR geeks,such as myself, will prefer Bakshi's version. It's more true to the books. It simply has a general feel to it that's missing from Jacksons. No doubt Jackson went in for a more commercialized depiction( note the inaccurate use of commercially palatable liv tyler). Simply put, I feel that LOTR is unfilmable, and any film maker that makes a credible attemp deserves some kudos.
Rating: 
Summary: A for effort, C- for result
Review: I applaud Mr. Bakshi's *audacity* in trying to take on Tolkien with the technology he had in hand. Evidently a lot of hard work went into it, and the experimental use of rotoscoped live and traditional cel animation is very interesting. That said, the piece is a shambles from start to finish. Hammy acting, plot alterations, shoestring-budget seams blatantly showing... sigh. The other armchair critics in the review section have listed the shorcomings eloquently, so I won't rehash them here. Reread the Trilogy before seeing this animated version. At least then you won't be hopelessly confused come the ending credits.
Rating:
Summary: The Lord Of The Rings - Disasterpiece?
Review: Well I certainly think not. I won't kid on this movie is not without its faults - lots of them - but it has become a 'cool' thing in the movie world to unfairly rip... it. I will assume that most people will know the background to the book and therefore movie (if not, have a swatch at someone else's review). Firsly, lets get the gripes out of the way: The animation is truely awful in places, and that rotoscoping is not as "jarring" as people will say, just unbelievably ugly. The hobbit characters are far too cutesy, and the interpreation of Sam is truely terrible - Sam was a sturdy, broad and loyal hobbit, not a fat toothless idiot that seemed to have some strange obssesion for Frodo. Merry and Pippin are far too similar - indeed, on the first time of watching I often mixed them up, particularly as they are criminaly underplayed and say very little until they are among the Uruk-Hai. Frodo, on the whole, was quite played rather well. As for the other characters (I'll keep it brief, this could go on for a while) - Boromir is the son of the steward of the mightiest kingdom in middle-earth, a powerful and regal warrior - not a viking with a sword so battered it couldn't cut bread. Aragorn is a Ranger, admittedly rugged, but not the battered-looking guy in gladiator gear represtented in this movie (Peter Jackson's movie thankfully represented Aragorn and Boromir almost exactly as I enviaged them). Gimli was also poorly drawn, and his accent was all wrong, but he and Legolas are given such minimal roles it really makes no differance.
As for Gandalf - his good humour is gone, his serious side so over-played that he is a melodramatic and arrogant old man - his gestures while speaking really are hilarious at times. Enough with the main characters lets move on (a good side is going to be spoke about here, bear with me!).
The Black Riders are not menacing enough - red eyes does not make you scary. They lope around like each of them has a club foot, and the only scene where they are accuratley portrayed is when the go into the Inn (but don't get me started on that bloody teleporting thing!) - they are dark and evil, and the voices finally move from lame groaning to proper meancing hisses.
Gollum - the appearance is good (but his hair's too short), unfortuantley the voice-over makes him truly pathetic, without a hint of menace.
The Orcs are a complete mess, you'll only appreciate this if you watch it (which I do recommend!), and the Balrog is way, way off, although it is more accuratley sized than in Jackson's movie.
Saruman (or Aruman!) is also poorly done, and he talks more like an old woman. Also, why in the blue hell would Saruman the White wear red?
King Theoden is far too big (at least at first) and certainly doesn't look like the shrivelled shell portrayed in the book. This copuld go on and on - Rivendell, Elrond, Galadriel and Celeborn, Moria, Treebeard........ Now lets roll on the good bits! OK, the movie is generally very faithful to the book, particularly in terms of dialogue, which the new movie was not (appart from completely ommitting the Old Forest, Tom Bombadil, the Barrows and a few other things). Certain parts were almost perfect - Helm's Deep, Weathertop, and the Ford to name a few. Some scenes were stretched while others were rushed, but overall, a good job was made of preserving the plot. People expecting a perfect copy of the book will be disappointed - it is IMPOSSIBLE to attempt such a thing. While my good points are far outweighed by the bad (the character gripes are a personal thing), it it by no means a bad movie - there is a definite charm about it. Sit down on a Sundat afternoon and watch it - by no means a classic but a far better film than the slaughtering it is given deserves.
| 
