Rating: 
Summary: The Lord o . . .
Review: They should have called the movie, "The Lord o . . ." because it stops almost exactly halfway through Tolkien's famous trilogy, The Lord of the Rings. I mean, it doesn't even really end, it just stops.This is unfortunate, because what they began is really quite good. The animation is excellent. So is the storytelling (or half of it). At the time, animation allowed the creators to do things that were unimaginable with computer generated images. The development and representation of Tolkien's characters is excellent. The director and animators really create a sense of a dark and dangerous time in Middle Earth - both visually and emotionally. The journey of the Fellowship really seems hopeless and more than can be accomplished. (Apparently, it seems the complete movie was also more than could be accomplished.) For several years after the original theatrical release, I actually thought they were going to come out with the remainder of the trilogy (They could have called it, ". . . f the Rings"). It was a real disappointment to me growing up that they didn't, because the Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were among my favorite stories. As this is not exactly half of The Lord of the Rings, I can't give it exactly half of five stars (which it would have earned if the whole trilogy was completed). I cannot comment directly on the quality or features of the DVD because I do not and would not own it. To be honest, there is no reason to buy this movie. This is NOT the complete trilogy! Unless you are an animation fanatic, or a real fan of the Lord of the Rings and have to have everything related to it, I think you will just be frustrated that the creators drew you into the mystical world or Middle Earth just to be left hanging halfway thr . . .
Rating: 
Summary: Too bad they never finish the story
Review: This film may not fit everybody's ideal interpretation of Lord of the Rings, but it gets a lot of things right. The animation is done very well, and the characters all tend to fit Tolkien's descriptions (with the possible exception of Treebeard). If you compare to the campy, cheesy, sing-song animated versions of The Hobbit and The Return of the King, you can really appreciate the work that went into this movie. The obvious downside is that the movie spans about half of the trilogy. I had read that the movie was originally supposed to have been titled, "The Lord of the Rings Part I", but the studio decided to release it without the "Part I" added on. This no-doubt ticked off just about EVERYBODY who saw it expecting the whole story in one movie. Of course, the film did poorly, so the second half was never made. Another studio eventually made The Return of the King, which leaves a large gap in the overall story between the movies. The movie also has various quirks, such as referring to the character Saruman as "Aruman", to avoid confusion with Sauron. At times, they forget and call him Saruman anyway, leaving the viewer even more confused. And everybody complains that the characters all have 70s hairstyles. But overall the movie overcomes its own shortcomings with some great animation and incredible scenes involving the Black Riders and the Mines of Moria. It's a fun movie, and even though it is quite violent in places, it's a good introduction to the story for older kids....at least until the live action movies are released.
Rating:
Summary: Not the greatest
Review: For some reason, despite the year this was released, I had some great expectations for this movie. I was sorely disappointed. I can now see why they ran out of time in finishing the whole story; they dwell way too long on certain scenes! The scenes with the wraiths takes forever to get through, while other parts of the story are simply "skimmed" over... The technology used for certain animations (like the riders of Rohan and the orcs) was just a distraction in my view, it did not blend well with the rest of the "hand-drawn" animations. I cannot bring myself to recommend this to anyone. If you are not a fan of JRR Tolkien, you will not care to see this movie. If you are, you will just be disappointed with what you see.
Rating:
Summary: A great introduction to the world of Tolkein...
Review: I remember watching this when I was nine years old, crowded into our school library. I had not heard of the Lord of the Rings or the Hobbit before, and I loved the film. I was so unsatisfied with the rather abrupt ending of the film (I did not realise that it was in two parts) that I had to find out more. Today, when I watch the film again though, after reading the books, I am disappointed somewhat. Many parts of the story were changed or not included, and everything seems so rushed. I suppose this is a testamount to the enormous scope and imagination of Tolkien. Anyway, I still enjoyed watching it again, as it is impressive in its own right. Especially for children, this is a fantastic way to be introduced to the realm of Middle Earth.
Rating: 
Summary: Lord of the rings - a short review
Review: Hobbits shouldn't have pointy ears
Rating: 
Summary: A Singular View of the Classic Story
Review: I am a *huge* Tolkien fan and avidly look into any interpretations I can find of the stories. True, none can be "right on" - the books were amazing, and a movie format is necessarily going to be shorter and limited in scope. This feature is great in that it introduced thousands of people to a story they had not yet heard of, and intrigued them enough to learn more about it. It begins with Frodo and Gandalf, and goes up through about half of the story, ending with Gandalf beating the Orcs. The dialogue is excellent and the music truly compelling. Does the mix of animation and live action work? It's very interesting, at least, and does create some good scenes at times. The story itself is sort of choppy, being squashed as it is into such a short time. True, it's not a work of art in itself. However, as a key piece of what has kept people interested in this fantastic story for so long, it's a must-have for anyone who loves the Tolkien works, and who is eagerly awaiting the Christmas release of the new movie!
Rating: 
Summary: It deserves no stars
Review: A few weeks ago us lord of the rings fans fought for this movie to be in widescreen on dvd. well we got what we wanted but i'd never seen this movie before and i was not impressed. it's hard to believe the greatest bookever can be made into crap like this .Aragorn looks like he is straight out of the 70's. I am glad they didn't make a live action version from the 70's or it probably would have been as dumb as those stupid star wars movies. I am however looking forward to Peter Jackson's trilogy coming out in 2001 when we have good special effects and no hippies trying to be a part of middle-earth.
Rating:
Summary: very good (an opinion from Mexico)
Review: After years(this version of the Tolkien novel is from 1978), this film is now on DVD (with subtitles in español, francais, portugués, mandarin, thai, korean and japanese!). Thanks god this is a widescreen version (the horrible VHS version was pan & scan). Critics dont like very much this version of a classic, but the Ralph Bakshi animation is great (his best film until now).
Rating:
Summary: Even with DVD quality, this film is a disaster
Review: The good news is that this DVD is the first quality image release of Bakshi's animated Lord of the Rings (and YES, it IS IN WIDESCREEN, despite what a review below tells you; the widescreen isn't mentioned on this page, but I just watched the disc and it is indeed letterboxed). At last, you can actually see all the details and can see what the backgrounds look like. The bad news is that this is still an awful movie. This animated Lord of the Rings would be a failure even if it weren't for the abrupt ending (which is not Ralph Bakshi's fault, since he signed on to do a "Part One", and it was Fantasy Films who decided to market it as the entire story, thus getting everyone enraged when the story seemed to suddenly stop and the credits rolled). It fails as an adaptation because it pleases neither fans of Tolkien or people unfamiliar with his work. Fans will hate it (okay, most already do) the script's sloppy retelling of the story and weak character design. Non-fans won't understand what is going on and consequently won't care. And both groups will dislike the cost-cutting and often sloppy animation, which seems to be due not so much to budget but to plain carelessness. The rotoscoping technique (drawing over live-action footage) results in very disorienting character movement; the characters gesticulate wildly and seem on the verge of bumping into each other. Most of the voice talent is misplaced, except maybe for Peter Woodthorpe's excellent Gollum -- he would later play this part in the terrific BBC radio adaptaion, which is available on CD. By the last half of the film, the plot deflates into needless swrodplay, almost as if the filmmakers have given up on the story and decided to just have a lot of fighting. All the beauty and subtlety of Tolkien's awesome vision evaporates. For a Tolkien fan like myself, its almost painful. Newcomers to Tolkien will probably have wandered off in boredom before this point. There are a very few decent parts. I already mentioned Gollum -- too bad he's not around for very long. The Nazgul (the Black Riders) are reasonably scary. Rosenman's score is overwrought but rousing on its own. And...uh...uh...well I guess that's really it. Thank goodness we're finally getting a serious, full adaptation of the story. Only Tolkien completists need bother with this DVD. (Oddly enough, "The Return of the King" the TV-movie adaptation of the last third of the novel and made by completely different filmmakers, is far better than Bakshi's film. It's somewhat childish and simplified, but gets closer to the vision of Tolkien's world and even captures some key moments, such as the Lord of the Nazgul vs. Eowyn, in a satisfying way.)
Rating:
Summary: The DVD *is* widescreen!
Review: Since a previous review entitled "Warner Bros do not respect the consumer" was incorrect, I just wanted to set the record straight. Having just purchased the U.S. (NTSC) version (released ...Sept. 11, 2001), the package clearly states that it is presented in its original theatrical widescreen format. In addition, it is enhanced for widescreen (16:9) televisions. Furthermore, of all the DVDs I own I am *most* happy with those produced by Warner Bros. They produce far more widescreen/16:9 enhanced DVDs than any other brand I own, and have the highest quality digital transfers.
| 
