Rating: 
Summary: Horrible! This isn't even worth the plastic its made of!
Review: I can't believe this movie was even made. I mean the thought of an animated Lord of the Rings is cool because you can do more with animation than with live action but this version was poorly done. I am a big fan of the Lord of the Rings and I really wanted to see what Ralph Bakashi did. Boy, did he mess this up real bad! First how dumb is it to put only Fellowship of the Ring and Two Towers in this one and make a seperate Return of the King movie. Second, this movie is absolutely horrible. Don't even bother buying or renting it or anything, it is not worth it! It sucks! END OF STORY!
Rating:
Summary: Saw this when it first came out...
Review: I can't belive anyone would like this ridiculous piece of junk...I'm sorry but Bakshi has no idea how to do good animation. It is sloppy and stupid, half the scenes you couldn't even see unless Gandalf or Legolas were in the frame.
AND HOW ON EARTH can anyone compare this to the recent films?
Just because the occasional dialouge is done correctly how can that make up for Boromir looking like a reject from Monty Python's Spam skit, or all the HUGE gaps in the plot!!!
Oh my God folks must really be Peter Jackson haters and not have read the books to even think this piece of terrible, sloppy animation and ridiculous characterization is in any way better than PJ's recent films....
The ONLY thing good about this film is the music score, that was very well done, it is shame the film wasn't any good.
Rating: 
Summary: If you prefer Tolkien's gold to Jackson's brass, take a look
Review: Although I remember finding this movie disappointing when it first came out, I revisited it after seeing the Jackson trilogy and reading the reviews here, especially the reviewer who mentioned how Jackson copied Bakshi left and right. He or she was right: if Bakshi is still around, he out to be suing Jackson for theft of intellectual property. It's frightening how many shots are framed in an identical way; plot departures like Eomer's banishment rather than imprisonment and Gandalf appearing at Helm's Deep with the rogue Rohirrim rather than a host of huorns are identical. It does follow the books more closely, especially in the integration of the "fellowship" aspects of the hobbit quartet. And, where it can, it uses Tolkien's dialogue *in context*, unlike Jackson, who often clouds Tolkien's most magnificent lines of dialogue with drivel. OK, it's a little like a Cliff's Notes version; Bakshi, true to form, spends way more time with the blood and guts at Helm's Deep than is reasonable considering the length of the movie and how much he got in; the ending does look like "Oops, we ran out of money, time to quit." I can understand the criticisms of the animation (my recollection and observation is that it was *all* rotoscoped, just the fellowship characters were drawn over more heavily to look more hand-drawn), but for its time, this was an edgy, fresh, interesting approach, and I think you have to respect Bakshi's effort to try something novel. No matter what you think of his material (I frankly feel he was way too absorbed by the seamy underside of life), he was a great animator. For those who don't know, his Gollum, Peter Woodthorpe, does a much more expanded role on the BBC radio play and is, to my mind, brilliant in this role. (With all due respect, Andy Serkis, whose voice I think is computer-enhanced, often sounds like Donald Duck.) Woodthorpe's voice is eerily devoid of humanity a lot of the time;listening to him reminds me of the way Lon Chaney is said to have done Jelkyl and Hyde onstage with no make-up changes, just with his extraordinary ability to act the role and change voice and face accordingly. Anyway, if you feel slightly tainted by Jackson's sometimes bizarre departures from the story Tolkien actually wrote, this might be worth a look-see. (Just remember how early an attempt it was to get the story on the silver screen)
Rating: 
Summary: A Deeply Flawed Classic
Review: I also can't believe some of the ignorant negative griping this criminally underrated film has gotten here! Face it Frodo Fans: Peter Jackson wouldn't have been able to make his Trilogy unless Ralph Balkshi hadn't have had the guts and vision to attempt it first with his flawed but brave version.(Jackson has obviously used Balkshi's film as a glorified storyboard.) Sure - some of the animation looks a bit wobbly now next to the modern day likes of Shrek. But other pieces where the Rotoscope process get used properly still pack a punch - the first appearance of the Dark Riders, Frodo getting stabbed, Balrog, the Dark Rider river flooding scene (do you think the guys who made that award-winning 90's Guinness tv advert about the surfer stole it's white horse-tidal wave image from this movie, or did they bother reading the book? Hmmmmm...) For me, one of the most amazing scenes is the whole opening scene shot in sillohuete, which explains the whole prolougue of the Rings trilogy more concisely and in half the time that Fellowship Of The Ring takes.
If your still not convinced that this film matters, just check out how much of Balkshi's inspired interpretation that's been lifted by Peter Jackson- not just all the frame by frame scenes that others have already listed here, but other little details like Sam Gamgee's West country accent, and Gollum's Fagin-like East London Jewish tones. Peter Jackson owes Balkshi an unestimatable debt,as does anyone who's enjoyed the whole Ring Trilogy. Respect!
Rating:
Summary: I'm a journalist and this is really the best I can do.
Review: "The Lord of the Rings" animated movie is a great fantasy classic! The music (score) is good, the voice acting is excellent, and the movie itself is exciting. This movie has a lot of adventure, animated action sequences, and heroism in it. There are many fantasy characters brought to life in this movie. And those characters are: orcs, phantoms, a fiery demon, elves, dwarves, wizards, halflings (also called hobbits), and more. But, there are three things that I do not like about this movie. First of all: it does not go by the author J.R.R. Tolkiens "The Lord of the Rings" book trilogy, which I have read, well enough. The plot this movie has could have been better by going more by "The Lord of the Rings" book trilogy (which, of coarse, this animated movie is based on). Second of all: this movie was never completed. There was no more money to finish creating "The Lord of the Rings" animated movie based on the author J.R.R. Tolkiens wonderful book trilogy. And third of all: the director (Ralph Bakshi and his crew) rotoscoped some of the characters in this movie. In this case they decided to rotoscope the ring-wraiths, orcs, and other characters that are in this animated movie. But, the rotoscoping process was not that good at all back in the year 1978 (when this movie was being made); and the characters in "The Lord of the Rings" animated movie, that were rotoscoped, do not match the animated background (environment) or the actual animated characters throughout the movie. The rotoscoping process is the biggest flaw this movie has. Though "The Lord of the Rings" animated movie does have its flaws, that does not make it a bad flick to watch. Leave aside that this movie is not a good adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkeins wonderful book trilogy by a great author, J.R.R. Tolkein. the terrible fact that this movie was never completed, and the bad rotoscoping; "The Lord of the Rings" animated movie is a great movie by director Ralph Bakshi. I give "The Lord of the Rings" animated movie by Ralph Bakshi a good four out of five stars as my rating because it is a great movie to watch and it is one of my favorite animated movies so I won't let it down.
Rating:
Summary: Ralph Bashki's Lord of the Rings
Review: I've never written a review for any film I've seen before but after having read some of the incredibly negative things people have written about Bashki's extremely brave attempt, I feel compelled to have my say.
Now, to all you Peter Jackson fans out there, go do something for me. Watch the Bashki version and then compare how many scenes Jackson literally stole, shot for shot, camera angle to camera angle for his films. You have to be either stupid or blind not to see the blatent PLAGURISM of some of the scenes. I'm not knocking PJ's films-they're fabulous, but he owes a huge amount to Bashki, which is something Jackson has never acknowleged. Check them out- the first encounter with the Nazgul, and later on the way in which they enter the room at Bree--obviously Bashki did something right, because these scenes are truely frightening. Bashki actually took artistic license here- the encounter at Bree is not written about in detail in Tolkein's book, so it was Bashki's idea to have the Nazgul appear into the room, and Peter Jackson helped himself and copied it, almost exactly, shot for shot. And then there's the sequence at the ford of Rivendell- very effective indeed; the Nazgul are incredibly well done and chillingly evil, far more so in this infact than PJ's first film, which is NOT faithful to Tolkeins work at this stage in the story.
The animation is rotoscopic, but then so are nearly all of Disney's films, and it doesn't blend too well in certain parts, but it does make it alluring and 'other worldly'; it works very well with the Nazgul when they shed their black robes and, later, it makes the Orcs quite unpleasant, but it does look odd in some places on the Rider's of Rohan. However, you get used to it.
As for Gollum, well, he's actually fantastic; brilliantly characterised and superbly voiced by Peter Woodthorpe-infact, the whole cast is excellent, with John Hurt's Strider a truely magnificent effort.
The other scenes worthy of note are the Mines of Moria- the Balrog is obviously not as good as PJ's, but it doesn't stink, as some say. The build up of terror in Moria is very well done indeed.
So, overall, the film is actually pretty good. There are some silly mistakes ( none, though, that alter the story in any way ) and the way in which Saruman is pronounced "Aruman", then "Saruman" in the same scene is daft, but overall this film does succeed in portraying the magic and evil of Tolkein's world. It was made an awful long time before any fancy CGI, so it must be taken into account the effort put in to bring this story to life. I say buy it.
Rating:
Summary: The worst piece of crap I have EVER SEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Review: If I could give this movie, {if you could call it that}, an accurate rating, I would have to say that there is not any way to describe how amazingly disturbing and pathetic this disrecpectful and outright laughable adaptation truly is. Please, AVOID this travesty at all costs and stick with the truly brilliant production lovingly prepared and shot by Peter Jackson, {a god among men}. The Ralph Bakshi version is a piece of cow dung that can only be good for a coaster for my cold drinks, but wait..........no, i'd be afraid that i would infect my drink, {bleeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!}
Rating: 
Summary: Worth hearing, less worth seeing.
Review: Most of the visuals are horrid, which is hard to explain, given that it was designed as an animated film. Most of the voiceacting, however, is very well done--there are a few line readings that I really prefer to Jackson's version, however better done that is overall.It should also be noted that this movie has the WORST Sam you will ever see. Apparently, the filmmakers couldn't get around the idea of there being working-class people in the Shire, and so, to explain his deference and devotion to Frodo, they turned him into some kind of dopey idiot with a bulbous nose. Honestly, he's an idiot. For the BEST Sam, see the Rankin-Bass Return of the King.
Rating:
Summary: Show no mercy, for you will recieve none!!!!
Review: Do not tell me this movie is at all good. I have read LOTR 8 times and i am 17. I saw this movie before PJ's version came out so I didn't compare it with his films at the time. Lets get one thing straight. BAKSHI'S LORD OF THE RINGS IS THE HORRID!!!! Do not watch this movie. Spare yourselves. They change peoples names, for example Saruman to Aruman. Grima looks like a jawa straight out of Star Wars. Everyone has pounds and pounds of hair. Boromir is a viking. I will admit that some of the dialogue was decent but on the whole its a great dissapointment. Rankin\Bass version of ROTK is better than Bakshi's version. If you want a good version of LOTR, SHUND THIS LIKE THE PLAGUE!!!! It is not good. If you want to watch a 70's comedy with LOTR charactristics, by all means watch this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Ok for its time
Review: Ok for its time, the animation, the way the story was told, it was ok for its time. But if you would compare it to PJ's movies, yes it would suck BIG TIME. What really made me like this edition is that its music score is very good, maybe even comparable to Howard Shore's score on the current LOTR.
|
