Rating: 
Summary: Lord of the Mood-Rings
Review: I saw this movie after seeing the new Peter Jackson directed version. I felt that, despite its more than considerable charm, Bashki's version of Lord of the Rings was a bit disappointing and lacking by comparison. An issue that confronts the director who approaches this work is that it simply isn't a trilogy. It was written as a single work and intended to be experienced as such. Bashki's version does a good job with the initial Hobbiton sequence, and the animation is superb. As the plot progresses, this film begins rushing through the story to cram 1 1/2 books worth of the story into a two-hour movie (whereas Jackson takes 3 hours for one book). This is simply too much to cover, and the story gets more than a bit lost as a result. The last thirty minutes are a mad-scramble to wrap up the movie (maybe Bashki was bored or running over-budget?)and this is made even more disorienting by the live-action/animation melange sequence that closes the film. While the film seems somewhat dated (swirly, psychedelic backdrops and Galadriel looking like she's a Jethro Tull groupie, for example), I actually felt that this added to the cultish charm that this movie has. I can understand how many fans like the off-beat animation and creative inventiveness of this film, but for me it's all about the story. The story gets badly mangled here and that's unforgivable. Well worth watching but not my particular cup of tea.
Rating: 
Summary: Strange graphics and even stranger hair
Review: Okay, first of all, these people have huge hair. Every last one of them. Don't even talk to me about Saruman (or Aruman, as Bakshi the Banshee half-puts it). I understand why he's leaning over like he is in the cartoon. Plus, that new animation they were trying. I can see why it never took flight. It really stinks. The Return of the King had better be much better.
Rating:
Summary: Fluffy bedroom slippers.
Review: Bakshi's balrog is wearing fluffy bedroom slippers. No, really. No. Really. If this movie were a parody, it would easily earn 5 stars. Horrendous acting, hideous animation, bizarre plot departures (is the name Aruman or Saruman? Only his overworked hairdresser knows for sure), visuals that are just plain weird, and a special uncredited cameo by the Knights Who Say Ni make for a viewing experience best suited for MST3K-style trashing with raucously drunken friends. Or with children; my 11-year-old and I watched it and laughed until we cried. Really, if you want to know in detail what's wrong with it, look at the excellent review on the Tolkein Sarcasm web page. The movie deserves a special place of honor on video shelves everywhere right next to a bootleg copy of the Star Wars Holiday Special.
Rating: 
Summary: Much truer to the book's spirit than the new film
Review: The biggest problem with this movie is the abrupt ending that doesn't make clear (for those who haven't read the book) that the story doesn't end there. Otherwise, I think this film more faithfully recreates the spirit of Tolkien's book than the new live action movie. For those who judge a film largely on its visual qualities, the new film towers over this much older attempt. However, in focusing so much on the spectacular action, the new film glosses over or completely avoids the less intense parts of the story that let you get to know each of the large cast of characters, and that makes the world of Middle Earth much more complex and interesting. While the characters are for the most part very well done in the new movie, this animated version does a better job, especially with Frodo, Sam, and Aragorn. The new movie largely fails to capture the GRADUAL intensification and dissolving naivete of the hobbits' journey to Bree, the tranquility and enjoyment of Rivendell, and the happy, healing atmosphere that Galadriel's Lothlorien brings following the loss of Gandalf. These are more faithfully done in this animated version. The dialogue in this movie is better overall as well. While the movie has its flaws, to be sure, for me it's difficult to say which of the two is better, the older animated or the new live action.
Rating: 
Summary: Bakshi vs. Jackson
Review: My reaction to seeing Peter Jackson's much-hyped adaptation of Lord of the Rings was to run out and buy this animated version by Ralph Bakshi on DVD. I think that Jackson became so obsessed about the scenery, effects, details of speech and even tableware that he failed to do what Ralph did much much more effectively --use a screenplay that pulled enough key dialog and scenes from the book to make the narrative make sense and develop all of the characters. (John Hurt's reading of Aragorn makes Vigo Mortensen's Aragorn look like a smug, humorless rogue.) Jackson's movie for all of its tons of flash, action, and lavish scenery and props, truly lacks the heart of Bakshi's portrayal, especially when it comes to the character and personality of the four main hobbits. While both movies may be flawed attempts at an overwhelming task, Baskhi's result is much nearer to the core and soul of the story and I'm all the more fond of it since seeing the Jackson movie. Most definitely worth owning for any fan of the books.
Rating:
Summary: Phew! The worst cartoon movie I ever seen!
Review: I thought that was in one set with "Hobbit" and "Return of the King", which were pretty nice cartoons. This is NOT!
Poor artwork. Cheap looks. I had an impression that they were trying to save money.
Shame upon the producer and the whole crew!
Never buy this DVD.
Rating:
Summary: Good, but not good enough.
Review: I really like this animated version of lord of the rings.
But I have a slight problem with the ending. This movie represents only Book 1 and 2 (Book 3 is completely missing) and the ending of the movie is just ???, even for somebody who read all the books a couple times. Frodo just disappeared from the story during the last 15-20 minutes of the movie and the defeat of saruman is suddenly the final victory of the good (what were the terrible stories about sauron at the begining of the movie all about? asks the critical viewer.). The rest of the movie (except the ending) was pretty well done for a try to make a film version out of the books. I think the latest approach (Lord of the Rings - The Fellowshop of the Ring (2001)) to bring the book to the theatres did a better job.
Rating:
Summary: Distinctively Not Good
Review: Having recently read Lord of the Rings for the first time, I hoped this would be an enjoyable little adaptation. If my mother hadn't given it to me for Christmas, I wouldn't have felt the need to watch it all the way through. The animation technique is annoying - with the inclusion of BADLY traced live action and unexceptional drawn-on "makeup" for Orcs and Trolls, and general human activity. It gave me a headache. But one of the more annoying features is that halfway through the movie, Saruman suddenly becomes "Aruman" for no apparent reason. Badly drawn, poorly directed.
Rating:
Summary: Weird animation, this movie doesn't make sense!!
Review: This is, above all, the weirdest movie I've ever seen! These freaky little elves with big, hairy feet go out to find some stupid ring that, when you put on, it kills you. But then when you take it off, you're alive again, lame. The plot makes no sense at all. This video got two stars from me only because the Dark Riders look really cool. Don't waste your money on cheap junk like this, people, get a good movie like Dr. Seuss' How The Grinch Stole Christmas, that movie clearly explains my definition of a good movie.
Rating:
Summary: Hideous rotoscoped monstrosity, so ugly my eyes bled.
Review: Avoid this "film" like the plague. Not only does it visually rape a great work of literature but the animation is so bad it should be criminal. Who gave Ralph Bakshi the green light on this smoking pile of dung? If you dont know what rotoscoping is they basically paint over a real film. The effect is hideous and jarring. The film is not worthy of more credit than it receives, it is only worthy of being cast in to a well. Please do yourself a favor and skip this one. Buy the novel instead.
|
