Rating: 
Summary: Blast from the past
Review: I have been trying to get my hands on this film for a few years now, as it wasn't released on VHS in England.
Even though it is an extremely shabby representation of the book, watching it as a child turned me on to Tolkien and reading books in general.I think I like the film so much because of the childhood memories that it evokes and watching it now makes me laugh (why on earth is Saruman called Aruman in the film?).The musical score is absolutely fantastic and well worth buying on CD but I was a bit disapointed by the complete lack of extras on the DVD.
I don't think the new generation of Tolkien fans will appreciate the film at all if they have seen Peter Jacsons' effort, but as a nice trip down memory lane it's well worth the money.
Rating: 
Summary: Better than it was said to be
Review: As a devout fan of the Trilogy, I remember being initially dissapointed in the film when I saw it in the theater. However, now that I'm older and have seen far more book to movie adaptations, I think I was too harsh on the original product. Yes, it left a lot out, but even the newest release had to leave a lot out, or change book facts to make the movie flow more easily. Given a choice, I think the newer version is superior by far, but for a movie made in the late 70's, this first attempt was really very good. The animation was a bit broken, but the main characters were done very well, captured with true intent (except for poor Sam, who was made ugly, but was, in my opinion, the story's true hero in the end). So while I do think this version has its faults, I still think that a Tolkien fan, and even someone new to the genre will still enjoy it for what it brought to us...and I think it's a shame the second movie was never made... I'm glad to have added this DVD to my archives.
Rating: 
Summary: ok now they have gone too far.
Review: worst movie ever never agian i am going to see this oh no! harry potter is a most better movie [....]
Rating:
Summary: Not a relaxing or inspiring listen.
Review: The score is acceptable for the cartoon movie; it is not pleasant to listen to on its own. The music is shrill, repetitive, and annoying. We strongly recommend the Howard Shore soundtrack from the new movie.
Rating:
Summary: So bad it's good
Review: All the characterization is just SO over the top. When Gandalf is reciting "One ring to rule them all, etc" he paces the room and twirls around and makes these HUGE sweeping gestures. It just doesn't work. What I will give it, though, is that this makes the film ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS! you have to watch it just so you can laugh at it.
Rating: 
Summary: The end?
Review: I recently purchased this DVD and enjoyed it, but was surprised at it's abrupt ending. ... The film has a typical 70's feel to it and is not the best piece of animation, but it is a good adaptation and at least does not turn hobbits into human children without hairy feet!! (and not a running shoe in sight!)
Rating:
Summary: 3 stars for effort. Minus 2 stars for poor quality
Review: Yes I am being generous for giving this movie 3. Personly, I loved this movie in the begining, but the final hour just got silly. The animation is crude and chunky. It starts with a red backround with shadows then it goes to... crude and chunky animation. The characters are as clear as an old recorded video and as smooth as a Flash 5 Internet Cartoon. I'm serious. When Gandalf pointed at Frodo for a moment made me laugh so hard to tears (he looked like a stalker! So that's 1 star). They used this thingy called "rotoscope". What is it? Oh live action only painted to be disquised as cartoons. Sounds cool? Think again. When Frodo, Sam, Pippin and Merry were in the bar, as soon as I saw the dancers, I laughed to tears again (they are so cheesy). ALTHOUGH I DO FORGIVE BAD ANIMATION (that's the second stars). Saruman was only in this movie for like, what, 2 minutes? They only covered 1 1/2 of the books (Bashki was tired after finishing this so he quit). But the musical score is awesome though (3 stars). Now that I told you the pros and cons I will say this: FOR DIE-HARD LOTR FANS ONLY. Also Jackson's version is nice.
Rating: 
Summary: A curiosity, no more
Review: I haven't seen this movie in a while, so I'm afraid I can't be very specific about details... It did have some interesting points. Ralph Bakshi's attempt at an animated adaptation of J.R.R Tolkien's masterpiece was a very ambitious project, so ambitious in fact that it went bankrupt at some point during the production. Therefore, not only does it stop abruptly somewhere around the middle of the second book of the trilogy (with sort of a shade of a hint of a sequel that was never made), the film itself seems less than finished. It seems that some characters were animated while others were filmed, but whether or not it's intentonal is hard to say. The whole thing seems shabbily made and undone, especially the Orcs and the Nazgul. Another problem, of course, is the huge gaps in the plot. Bakshi was in a rush to finish this movie, and he somehow hoped to cram a book and a half in little more than two hours (the new trilogy by Peter Jackson does it in about twice that time.) Far too many important bits were left out (and I don't refer only to Tom Bombadil, which, I think, was lovely in the book but would look silly in a movie.) And of course, the ending, which is completely sudden and out of place. I'm not even sure if Bakshi originally intended to end the film there, or if he even had any idea where he's going to end it. The characters... well, most of them were okay. The hobbits don't look so bad (except for the gay Sam. Did you know that the producers of the new trilogy originally wanted to make Sam a woman so there would be a faminine lead character?) If you're a Tolkien fanatic (like me), watch this movie (though I'm not too sure about buying it. What special features does the DVD version have, anyway?) But know in advance that you're not going to watch a real 'Lord Of The Rings Movie' but not much more than a historical curiosity, which probably looks not much better than the 60s version would have had the Beatles carried on with their plan (I actually think a psychedelic LOTR could have been quite cool. The idea was to cast George as Gandalf, Paul as Frodo, Ringo as Sam and John as Gollum.) If you didn't read the book or didn't like it much or don't like animation films or don't want to see a half-finished movie... stay away.
Rating:
Summary: Stays close to book, then ends abruptly
Review: After re-reading the books and watching Jackson's live action version, I rented this movie. It was interesting to compare the story editing with the live version. Overall, this version stays very close to the book, with large sections of dialog lifted out of the books intact. In some places the rotoscoping is very poorly done, but in others I didn't think it detracted much. Surely, the animation is not up to today's standards, but I thought it worked well. Really, my biggest complaint is this: after about two hours I started thinking, "Wow, this is really long and I guess they've got another hour to go to wrap things up...". And then the movie just abruptly ended with the battle of Helm's Deep. Merry and Pippin are off with the Ents... Frodo, Sam, and Gollum are about to cross the mountains of Mordor... It was as if they ran out of money or just suddenly decided that the movie was too long, so they whacked it off. Gandalf comes riding up and starts slinging purple Orc blood around in slow motion and then the narrator intones: "...And so they drove evil from Middle Earth..." and lived happily ever after. The End. Other than that, it was interesting.. It's a pity they couldn't find some footage to restore for the DVD version.
Rating:
Summary: Maybe misunderstood, but still lacking
Review: I remember the first time I saw this film. I was fifteen years old and had just finished the book. My friend and I went to the video store, and I convinced him that this was the video we wanted to rent. From the first seen it was a let down. The novels are so great, I had hoped they had been done justice. They hadn't (you know that sinking feeling of disappointment). The animation may have been interesting to a few, but both my friend and I found it nothing less than tacky. This is a perfect example of how different is not always better. The strive to be exotic was way too evident, and the whole movie suffered as a result. Several reviewers have claimed that this version is 'truer' to the novel than the new Jackson version, but I'm afraid I, and most others, I think, will have to disagree. Peter Jackson's interpretation is wonderful, though admittedly not perfect. Jackson's version was much, much more involving, and the presentation cannot even be compared. Perhaps it's because the animation in Bakshi's version is so bad that it is distracting. If you are just coming from the new movie and looking to own a copy of this great story, you are likely to be very disappointed. This version is extremely primitive, though not without it's merits. That said, if you are simply looking to see other examples of how the story 'could' be interpreted onto the bigscreen, well then owning this version couldn't hurt. At least I don't think so.
|
