Rating: 
Summary: Not great, but not bad either (1978 version).
Review: I'll get straight to the point. As an animated (cartoon) rendition of the Lord of the Rings, it has its good points, and bad points. The good side is the artistic rendition of most of the scenes from the novel, albeit in animated form, including a faithful depiction of many of the characters. It's really something very much like "the Lion King"-animated, colourful, and fun. The bad is that it stopped about half-way through (at Helms Deep), and the makers never had the money or the will to finish it. Also, it has what is called 'rotoscoping'-combining real-life figures with the animated. Some people don't think much of this, as it creates a rather confusing mix of cartoon characters and human outlines, that can be destracting. In its day it was a reasonable commercial success. There are many aspects that are charming and artistic, and some of the renditions of various places and characters really aren't too bad. The Black Riders for example, have deep red eyes, giving them a demonic-like appearance, which works quite well in cartoon form, and most of the leading characters are faithfully depicted. One of the better scenes is perhaps the Flight to the Ford which in this version, like in the book, Frodo is chased alone by the Black Riders. Frodo here borders on the ghostly wraith world, with alternative dream-like sequences, and voices in the ring world being harsh, echoing and clear, and vision and senses heightened. In this version, Legolas replaces Arwen as the elf sent to help Frodo (who in turn replaces Glorfindel in the book), and, as in the 2001 version, there is no Tom Bombadil, Old Forest, or Barrow Wights. But the changes to the book are relatively few overall, most are just abbreviated. Gandalf is rather more lordly and perhaps more arrogant and aloof than in the 2001 film, Saruman is quite similar. Rivendell is short but charming, but Lothlorien is very truncated in the 1978 version, even more so than than in the 2001 film. Compared to the 2001/2/3 films one just doesn't get the grandeur and majesty of such things as real mountains, canyons and human characters, and so it can never match it. But overall it is entertaining and fun, if you don't expect too much. Most Tolkien fans will probably have it in their collection.
Rating:
Summary: Oh come on
Review: This movie has a needlessly bad rap, especially among Tolkien fans -- it's flawed, yes, but it's not terrible. Ralph Bakshi took a partially successful gamble in creating a LOTR movie before the era of major special effects. He took another gamble in aiming a cartoon at adults -- and unfortunately in the financial realm, it did not pay off. As a devoted LOTR fan I clung to my decaying VHS copy for years; I was delighted when, in preparation for the mind-blowingly good Peter Jackson trilogy, this was rereleased on DVD. The movie starts (after some background info) several years after Bilbo Baggins gets a golden Ring of invisibility. At Bilbo's 111st birthday party, he vanishes with intent to leave the Shire -- and Gandalf sees that Bilbo is exhibiting signs of falling under its power. He convinces Bilbo to leave the Ring with Bilbo's young cousin, Frodo, and then leaves. Seventeen years later, Gandalf reappears and tells Frodo that it is the One Ring, and that Frodo now has to leave the Shire, heading off to the town of Bree and then to Rivendell. With his friend Sam and two cousins Merry and Pippen, Frodo leaves -- only to find that he's being tempted by the Ring, and pursued by the ghastly Black Riders. With the help of the Ranger Aragorn, Frodo barely makes it to Rivendell, and volunteers to take the Ring into the dark land of Mordor to destroy it. But the way ahead is harder and more perilous than anyone could have imagined... Though I enjoy this movie, I entertain no delusions about its flaws: Sam is a buffoon, and if you want a better, sweeter and more intelligent portrayal look for Jackson's. The Balrog looks like a lion with bat wings, certainly not the sinisterly nebulous creature Tolkien described. Much ado is made about rotoscoping, but I don't mind at all -- with a few exceptions, such as certain shots of Legolas or Gandalf or the patrons of the Prancing Pony, it doesn't really distract. And realism was definitely needed to make this movie any kind of a success (for an example, see the horrific animated "Return of the King"). I wouldn't have most of it any other way (for examples of successful animation, watch Frodo's face as Gollum kisses his foot). One small problem is that in many areas, we don't have much background info for people who haven't read the book. The flashback talks about "Bilbo's travels with the dwarves" -- what dwarves, say non-readers? We have Gandalf haul Sam out of some bushes, and Sam addresses Frodo by name. Who is Sam? Why is Gandalf sending him along? (Book readers will know that Sam is Frodo's gardener and friend since his [Sam's] childhood) Who are the "kings from across the sea", and what sea is that? Gandalf tells Frodo to go to "the Elves, to Rivendell" -- but what are the Elves? How are they different from humans? Who is Elrond? And what the heck is Pippin talking about, "fireworks"? (All of the aforementioned questions are known to book-readers, but otherwise...) Most of the characters are done very well: Frodo is sweet and endearing without being cute, and has some nice scenes such as his song-and-dance on a table. Merry and Pippin are almost but not quite interchangeable, as Merry seems to be more active. Gandalf is great if his expansive gestures don't annoy you. Aragorn is gritty, tough and courageous, just as he should be, skilled and determined. Legolas (melded with Glorfindel) is also done well, with a wry sense of humor; thankfully, he is also beautiful and less grounded without being fairylike. Gimli strikes me as a little too tall, but is otherwise very good. And so is Boromir, especially his final scene and the scene where he pleads with Frodo to come back. (But those Viking horns!) The writing is also pretty good. Most parts of it stick pretty closely to the book, though obviously with a lot of dialogue weeded out. There's a little humor but not much: Frodo and Sam paddling a boat in opposite directions and getting nowhere; Legolas's deadpan teasing outside Moria; Frodo's song in Bree; and Merry and Pippin faking out one of the orcs. Though this is a cartoon, it is NOT a children's movie! Many younger kids will be frightened by Gollum, who is wholly convincing as a withered, half-decayed hobbit, and by the Black Riders who walk and sound like mutilated humans. The orcs will also frighten them to some degree; there is a lot of blood splattering around, especially in the battles and during the attack on Boromir. DVD quality is excellent. There wasn't any fizzing, sound omission or sketchy images. A few new things have been added: there's a new finale voiceover at the end, and a little haggard breathing as the Black Riders chase Frodo to the Ford. I wouldn't advise this movie for your first taste of Middle-Earth. (Read ' the ' BOOK!) But if you enjoyed the book or other movies, and aren't too demanding about some details, then you may enjoy this as well.
Rating: 
Summary: A terrific rendition for the time
Review: Recently, I bought this DVD to satisfy my curiosity. I have seen the flick out currently and want ed to judge versions. I really liked this one. It is faithful to the trilogy and combines the first 2 volumes into one.
The live animation adds a surreal qquality to it. It is not for kids alone.
I recommend buying it.
Rating: 
Summary: Intriguing but disapointing
Review: I was intrigued when this movie was released due to the unusual hybrid of live film and animation. It's difficult to describe but essentially, Ralph Bakshi filmed many scenes with live actors but animated over those. I'm no animation expert so I can't tell you how he accomplished this curious effect but you basically get a highly stylized animation and it is very interesting. Using this method, Nazgul are sufficiently creepier and the battle scenes are visually interesting. Unfortunately, this interesting style doesn't save the film for me. The scripting is hardly stitched together and the film attempts to take half of the entire epic and distill it to just over 2 hours. A great deal is left out, including character development. The film finishes with a cliffhanger at the battle of Helm's Deep. If the second film had been done, I am still not confident that it would have redeemed this mess. I must admit, I really wanted this movie to be good but it's not really even a good rental at a couple of bucks. Avoid it entirely and pick up Peter Jackson's beautifully crafted version when it's available. The hybrid effect earns it at least 1 star.
Rating:
Summary: Lord of the Rings as it should be
Review: This is an excellent film and is far superior to the recently released piece of effect's filled love story... that came out during Xmas 2001. This version is darker and more adult oriented as opposed to the dumbed down let's get a lower rating and make more money for the studio young children's version that seemed to run through the 2001 version of the film. It's such a shame that WB got cold feet and backed out at the time of it's original release and didn't make the second film and complete the story. My Coments on this DVD release are as follows. 1. This is not a true letterbox version of the film. What WB have done is taken the original pan & scan version of the film as it was on the original VHS tape and rematted it to give it the appearence of a letterbox film. If compared to the original VHS release You see that you gain no extra picture at the side's of your screen and less picture at the top and bottom of the screen. In other words this is not the panavision 2.35.1 version that was shown at the cinemas in 1979. 2. Usual WB... packaging ie a cardboard snap case because they are to cheap & miserly and couldn't give a... about their customers to issue there products in keep cases. 3. Good package design for the Region 1 DVD 5 stars the Region 2 DVD is not so good 2.5 stars 4. 5 star rating for an excellent and the best version of the story released so far on film. A big Zero for everything else excluding packaging. overall buy this DVD despite it's many flaws while you can (IF YOU WANT A DECENT VERSION OF THE FIRST HALF OF THE STORY) as I fear it will never come out again once it is deleted.
Rating: 
Summary: 1978 Animation
Review: This film is too long!
However not so bad for 24 years old animation.
Rating:
Summary: Bad. Bad. And BAD! This is an awful film!
Review: "Make it stop!"
That was the one thought that kept running through my mind while suffering through this unbelievably painful "animated" adaptation of Tolkien's classic "The Lord Of The Rings". Based mostly on the first two books (or really one and a half) and just over 2 hours long, and I mean LONG, this terrible, half baked attempt to tell the story of Frodo, Samwise, Gandalf and the Ring of doom is an insult to true Tolkien fans everywhere. Given that it is supposed to be an animated telling of the tale, with some of the cheapest and poorest hacked out animation I have ever seen, it could and should have been more imaginative. The character designs should have been over the top, really pushing the bounds of the filmgoers imagination, instead they are dull, bland in some cases, as with Elrod of Rivendell, downright BORING. The Balrog is more something to laugh at then to be terrified of as it is merely a man of about 6 or 7 feet, dressed in a costume with a Lion's head, large bat wings and furry boots cracking a whip. Woooooooo, so scary. Worst of all are the Orcs which are all filmed not animated and are live action extras wearing what look like really bad rubber Halloween ape masks with large tusks and draped in some sort of burlap sack/toga clothing. Once again, the Orcs are bad, I mean BAD! The story also attempted to tell the first two books instead of just focusing on one which makes for a very convoluted and, more often then not, confusing film. For those who have not read the books, you will be completely lost as to what is going on about 45 minutes into the film. Rankin/Bass released a much more delightful version of the final book in "The Lord Of The Ring" trilogy with their attempt at "Return Of The King". Although the Rankin/Bass version may come up short in places (some unnecessary musical numbers), it does deliver so much more to the viewing audience with it's beautifully realized character depictions. The animation may not be the smoothest with ROTK, but the characters and scenery are much more delightful and colorful, the way you'd expect them to be in an animated film. For many years, Bakshi's "Lord Of The Rings" was the only film telling of Tolkien's epic that one could view, fortunately that has changed with the magnificent new version created for the big screen by Peter Jackson. Your best bet is to pass on this version, go see the NEW version and buy that one on DVD or VHS when it is released in the later part of 2002. BUT, with that said, if you want to have a real laugh at a really bad film then by all means purchase the animated version of LOTR and be amazed at the terrible way Bakshi botched this story up. Hey, for the price it's selling at on Amazon.com, it might be worth it. I said, "MIGHT BE".
Rating: 
Summary: A review of the movie for those who haven't read the books.
Review: I rented Bakshi's The Lord of the Rings this weekend. I was interested in the animation and Bakshi's interpretation of The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers. I admit that I have not yet read all of Tolkien's books, but I believe that there are people out there who have seen Peter Jackson's film, and have become interested in everything related to Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, like this animated movie. THE MOVIE:
There were some confusing parts in this movie. It led me to believe that it wasn't meant to bring in new interest to Tolkien's works, but was for those who were already familiar to the stories. It felt as though events were implied, and it was expected of the audience to understand what happened. The appearance of Treebeard was baffling. Although his presence may have been pleasing to the book fans, it was so abrupt and confusing, that an unknowing audience would wonder why it was even introduced. THE PACE:
The movie runs at 134 minutes. That may seem long, but remember that it includes The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers. The movie moves at a rather accelerated pace (a lot faster than Peter Jackson's film, therefore extremely fast in comparison to the books). This pace does not take away from the interesting journeys that take place. However, there are instances that occur where the editing was choppy. Two characters would be talking indoors and then suddenly they were outdoors. Another specific instance was when they entered the woods of Lothlorien and were speaking of how evil could not enter, then suddenly they were before Galadriel and Celeborn, with Galadriel introducing herself. THE ANIMATION:
The animation and movement of the characters were quite realisic sometimes. In fact it appeared as though they filmed real actors in costumes and later painted over them to make it appear cartoon-like. The coloring was rather drab. It was very dark. Sometimes it looked like a comic book in motion. Some people will probably enjoy this method of animation. It does add dimension to the drawings. THE VOICE ACTING:
The actors didn't seem all that much into exaggerating. Doing voice-overs for an animated movie is a lot different from acting in front of a camera. These voice actors didn't bring that much life to the characters. There was no sense of "fellowship" in the fellowship. Gandalf was always scolding. Galadriel didn't sound all that much tempted to take the ring. The voice acting was mellow and down-played to say the least. THE MUSIC:
The music was blaring and inappropriate for the film. Such loud musical scores make movies have a comical, low-budget feel to it. It was interesting to hear the hobbits sing in this movie, though, seeing as how they sing so much in the book. THE DVD:
The sound was very crackly and muffled, presented in Dolby Prologic. There was no grand sense of surround sound. The extras were minimal. There were no documentaries, only a few paragraphs of Tolkiens biography, a cast and crew list, and very little information about elves and other creatures. Most likely no new information for Tolkien fans. OVERALL:
This movie was made in 1978 and although it may have been great at the time, it doesn't hold a candle to the way movies are made today. The editing was careless, the music atrocious. This movie lacked the heart and comradery that seems so present in the book. If you are looking for a visual guideline after reading the books, then it might suit you.
Rating:
Summary: What happened?
Review: I love Bakshi - Wizards and Fritz the Cat are fantastic! An d I love the Lord of the Rings - I read 'em back in Junior High a thousand years ago. Twice. So I kind of expected this to be a kick-..., first class movie. What I got didn't even rate "B". The 'animation' is composed mostly of painted stills and black and gray outlines. The movie does follow the book for the most part (some stuff got cut), but the poor animation doesn't make up for the plot. It's no wonder Bakshi bagged the project and never finished the rest of the series. Go watch the new release of Lord of the rings for first class work, and then go rent Fritz for some truly well done Bakshi (ummm, take the kids along to the movie, but put them to bed before putting on Fritz, Ok?)
Rating:
Summary: Truer to Tolkien's literature than Peter Jackson's film(s).
Review: I first saw this film in 1978 when I was 13 years old and I loved it. I was a fan of Tolkien's literature (even though at the time it seemed a bit complex and confusing to me) before I saw the film. After having seen it, Bakshi's The LOTR fueled my imagination of Tolkien's world further by giving me a solid visualisation of it, and a partial rendering of it's story. My love and understanding for Tolkien's work and world has grown considerably over the years as I've matured. I'm 35 years old now and I still love this film when I watch it. I believe that the only valid criticism surrounding this film is criticism that comes from viewers who have read, understood, and are able to retain what they have read of Tolkien's literature (which rules out 75% of the fans of the Peter Jackson mega-budget film(s)), and who had initially seen this film in 1978/1979. Why? Because this film is based upon the most complex mediaeval-fantasy literature ever written, and shouldn't be viewed the same way as Harry Potter or The Chronicles Of Narnia. And because it was a different time back then; films were different, animation was different, special effects were different, perception was different, and culture was different. As well, one needn't read the books to enjoy this film; but one does need to read the books, and retain what one has read to understand and appreciate it. The most common complaints I've heard and read about this film are ones I would like to address. The most frequent complaint registered is that Bakshi edited out far too much of The Fellowship Of The Ring. Well of course he had to, didn't he? He was, after all, combining four books equalling two novels into one film for the cinema--not an easy achievement, especially if you're one who is familiar with the complexity of the books. (The only way to fully achieve a significant translation of Tolkien's The Lord Of The Rings would have to be in the form of a mini-series made for non-commercial television. Anyone interested?) As well, people complain about the film ending only half way through the story of The Lord Of The Rings. What they fail to understand is that another film based on the unfinished parts of The Two Towers and The Return Of The King was to follow. But Bakshi was denied the funds to produce it, so unfortunately nothing materialised. Another complaint is of the animation itself: rotoscoping. Rotoscoping is a technique of filming live actors and then drawing and painting directly over their images on the film to achieve an eerie realism. How can anyone say that the movements are unnatural when they are taken directly from live actors? I'll wager these same critics who say such an ignorant thing think that the computer-generated Cave Troll and Balrog in Jackson's film look and move realistically. Bakshi's animation is marvellous and breathtaking in this film, and he makes use of many creative and innovative techniques--even if they aren't all that pleasing to each individual set of eyes that view it. Bakshi's The Lord Of The Rings follows Tolkien's literature and dialogue with great respect. With a few exceptions, like Merry making the travel with Frodo, Sam, and Pippin across The Shire to Buckleberry, the Hobbits hiding all together in an alcove off the road whilst a Black Rider hovers above them (a scene Jackson stole from Bakshi), and Legolas meeting Aragorn and the Hobbits instead of Glorfindel, Bakshi only edits Tolkien's story and does not make significant changes to it (like Jackson does). Bakshi even throws in a few original things of his own, which add to the overall viewing pleasure. The voice talent in this film is absolutely superb, and is very characteristic to the personas of the people involved. As far as the physical character designs, and with the exception of the Hobbits not having curly hair, as well as the crude design of Aragorn, Bakshi's animated portrayals are right on (or very close to) the mark. I even accept Boromir's Nordic/Viking apparel and appearance as representative of Gondor strength--(after all, Tolkien loved stories about Vikings and had even formed a Viking Club with certain aquaintances and colleagues of his where they would get together in a local pub and read stories about Vikings to one another). Musically, Leonard Rosenman's original score is wonderfully fitting, and the best I've ever heard from him. The film's pacing and editing is actually very good--although does get a bit muddled towards the end, as befits the literature. I think people who may complain about the latter are forgetting that this is an adult fantasy story, and not a child's; and that it wasn't designed directly to appeal to those with a short attention span. Ralph Bakshi's The Lord Of The Rings with all its many faults and mistakes, nevertheless remains the only respectfully definitive work based on Tolkien's story put onto film thus far; much more so than Peter Jackson's dazzling live-action comic book-screenplay version (which, despite my criticism, I also love). Bakshi's The Lord Of The Rings is for the pure of heart fan of Tolkien's literature. Although it may not satisfy your appetite, it will certainly whet it.
| 
