Rating: 
Summary: Lord of the Bad Reviews
Review: If there was a word in Elvish,Entish, or Lithuanian to describe how outrageously, unexcusably awful this movie is, i would use it. However, no such word exists, so i'll just use "piece-o-crap". (Well I think thats only one word...i guess as long as it's hiphonated. Is that how you spell hiphonated?) Well, in conclusion, this movie was a regrettable waste of a brilliant premise and is hereby banished from my household. Goodbye Bakshi! May God have mercy on your soul. You're just lucky that Peter Jackson came along to clean up the mess you made with this movie. Actually, wait, I think i've been too harsh. Meh, the movie isn't that bad. I like cartoons. Long live Frodo!
Rating:
Summary: The Animated Masterpiece
Review: I wish that some sopossed fans of the lord of the rings would stop saying how bad it is just because its old and the animation isn't as good as the Peter Jackson version.Some people say it misses out alot of the book but the new one misses out abit more but has scenes that were not in the books.Some of the people who read this will say they missed out tom bombadil but so does Peter Jackson. I shall give this five stars because it is good for the time and has good acting in it. I like this film as much as i like the New one
Rating: 
Summary: The Lord of the Rings
Review: One can only know that director Peter Jackson's stunning "Lord of the Rings" movie trilogy has well over-shadowed animator Ralph Bakshi's animated version. The good things about "The Lord of the Rings" animated movie are: that it is exciteing to watch; the animated action sequences are great; and the music (score) is superb. The bad things about this movie are: that it greatly deviates from author J.R.R. Tolkien's book trilogy at some points; a process called rotoscoping was used and proved to be O.K., or, to many, a failure; and the fact that this movie was never completed is utterly dissapointing. But, we must all understand that animator Ralph Bakshi's "Lord of the Rings" animated movie is not bad. It is in my opinion that it is an average movie at best and we all must also understand that he tried; and thats what matters the most. I think that this movie is actually pretty good if you ask me.
Rating: 
Summary: Peter Jackson Got His Inspiration from Here...
Review: First off, I am saddened by those negative review by people who watched Peter Jacksons 2002-2003 LOTR series and dare to compare it against this early masterpiece which was the first to visualize Tolkien's work on the Silver Screen.I am personally a great fan of the Rotoscoping technique which was also used in Bakshi's American Pop and I think it was used convincingly in this cartoon for adults. I remember as a child watching this over 20 years ago and not enjoying it as much as I did The Hobbit (Rankin/Bass), but as an adult I can now appreciate the work put into this epic tale by Bakshi and scorn those newbies who would dare compare the latter version as better as it is irrelevant to compare a cartoon made 20 years ago with the newer technologies available today. The story was gripping and surely the source of much visual inspiration for Peter Jackson. He surely dolled things up a bit more since the technology is now available, but this original stab at the Rings is worth a watch. My only gripe is that Bakshi rushed the story a bit since he only had 2 hours to tell his tale where Peter Jackson will have had close to 10 when he is done. Go check it out!!!1
Rating:
Summary: What happened?
Review: No telling, if you didn't read the book. I didn't dislike this movie all that much, but my real beef with it is: They NEVER FINISHED THE BLESSED MOVIE! I understand . . . it flopped, so they couldn't afford to make the second part. But now that the book's been made into a mega-blockbuster, can't somebody PLEASE finish it? One would have room to talk if it stank after the movie said its piece, but with the thing incomplete, it has no voice, so knocking it seems rather silly. The animation's not all that bad . . . I even like bad animation sometimes (hey, Scooby Doo was kind of fun), but leaving it undone is a shame, because with the advent of computer animation, completing it wouldn't cost that much . . . Video sales would pay for it -- Even I'D buy it. Then it would be cool to compare versions: Like, was the way the skeletal Gollum in the animated version bit off Frodo's finger better than the way the skeletal version in the live action movie did it? (God knows, they're both better than the toady Gollum in the Japan-o-Disney version.) But as things stand, we really don't have anything to compare. 'Nuff said?
Rating:
Summary: I'm surprised at all the negativity.....
Review: ...considering that this was all we had to visually enjoy Middle-earth up until a couple years ago. Of course Peter Jackson's epics have revealed this film's faults in sharp relief, but they are still not worth such scathing remarks. Until recently, I bet a lot of the same people rather enjoyed this interesting film.
The rotoscoped animation seems to draw the most invective, but I have personally considered it one of the stronger aspects of the film, setting it apart from the usual run-of-the-mill, mundane "cartoons". It's a sort of "adult" cartoon. Would these people have rather seen Aragorn look like Fred Flintstone, perhaps? At the time, the only feasible, economical way to represent a world such as Middle-earth was in the realm of animation, and fortunately for us Bakshi opted not to resort to the animation of Bugs Bunny cartoons. The lifelike movements of the characters, even though they are "cartoons", adds an unusual, almost surreal aspect to what we are seeing. When I saw it in the theatre in 1978, I was awestruck, having only seen the usual Saturday morning Hanna-Barbera animation up to that point. I still am in awe of the magnitude of effort that this film's final appearance must have required.
Obviously a sequel would have been nice, but we get what we get and I don't see any problems deserving of the damnation that this film has suffered through. It's not perfect--left out plenty of things, ends rather suddenly--but it was a monumental work and I can understand how Bakshi might have reached a point where he said enough is enough.
Besides, you gotta love Boromir with the Viking helmet. Now THAT was cool. But the main highlight: there was absolutely, positively NO ARWEN in this film! Now that is cause for celebration!
Rating: 
Summary: Fine Example of How Not to Adapt a Book
Review: I am a huge Bakshi fan. He's one of my idols in the medium of animation, however I have to say my love for Bakshi does not deter my hate for this film. In fact...the only reason I gave it TWO stars as opposed to ONE is because I actually own a copy of this film and enjoy it...because of how bad it is. You'd be amazed how easy it is to pull an MST3K on this! That being said, its already been stated in detail how this film horrifically adapts the Lord of the Rings incorrectly. I'll admit that it does add in or more accurately depicts some things better than the live action movie...but that doesn't say much. Its like if you took out the nudity and language of "Starship Troopers"...it'd still be a horrible film version of the book. So I am downright disappointed with this as a Bakshi piece, really. However, I do credit him with a few things that weren't his fault:
1) This being advertised as the entire Lord of the Rings. He told the executives that it should be advertised as the first Lord of the Rings, but they wouldn't listen to him.
2) He did turn down an earlier script for the movie that would have done the entire series in three hours and advertise shoes in the middle.
3) He did read the book and go to England to talk with Tolkien's daughter, also venturing around Tolkien's home to see what he imagined as Middle Earth. But still, sorry, it doesn't help the film.
Rating: 
Summary: One movie 2 rule them all
Review: This movie out of the three is the best. The style is realistic, and though based on painting over human forms, is worth the work. The movie is one of those you bring home and watch again and again and again......
Rating:
Summary: Terrible!
Review: I bought this film on a semi-impulse, and it is one of my worst buys, ever.
Other than the lousy animation, there are a LOT more problems with this film:
1) The music: Well, it isn't that bad, though it is a bit, um, noisy at the beginning, really 70's music(not Rosenman's fault, afterall this film was made in the 70's), and kinda Batman-ish.
2) Ok, so, basically, Isildur snuck up behind Sauron, then slashed off His ring finger. How heroic!
3) Then, there's this scene of the Shire, '19 years passed sleepily in the Shire'... and we get a nice wide view of the Shire: Winter dissolves into Spring, then to Summer, then Autumn... Typically cartoon-ish, but that's fine. Then, just as I'm starting to get into the mood, they flash heaven knows how many seasons in less than 2 seconds. ...
4) Gandalf the Grey: In Bag End, he recited the Ring inscription. According to the book, he never did so, as the inscription was of the language of Mordor. That's fine, but what really irritates me are his actions and the way he pronounces 'Sauron'. Tolkien has stated quite, quite clearly in the Appendixes that it is pronounced something like 'Sour-ron', NOT 'Sore-ron'. Evidently, they have not made any effort to research. And his actions! As he recites the inscription, he gesticulates as if he was praying to some demented god, and as he translates it to 'and in the darkness, bind them', he wraps himself up in his arms. What the??!?
5) And why on earth would Frodo and Gandalf chit chat about the Ring outside Bag End?? Didn't Gandalf say that the spies of the Enemy are many??
6) Saruman or Airuman? Sometimes he's Saruman, sometimes he's Airuman. Perhaps the filmmakers are afriad me might confuse Saruman with Sauron, but they might as well be consistent about that.
7) Saruman's Voice. Why, oh why does Saruman sound like a toad croaking? What happened to his melodious and persuasive voice?
8) Saruman the Red??!? Saruman's colour should be WHITE. Even when he called himself Saruman of many colours, his robes were multi-coloured, but never plain Red.
9) The First Nazgul scene: Why do Nazgul limp and groan?
10) At the Inn of the Prancing Pony: Basically, its all a bunch of lousy animation
11) Nazgul attacks! When the Nine realised that they had attacked a bunch of pillows, limped to the centre of the room, lifted their arms and shrieked. To whom are they praying to?
12) OK, so Legolas lives in Rivendell, hm? Actually, when he first appeared, I almost went blind, he's so damn bright!
13) During the Council of Elrond, Aragorn announces that he is the descendent of Elendil and he has the Sword that was Broken. However, the movie NEVER mentioned who on earth was Elendil, and why the Sword was Broken, and what¡¦s its significance.
14) Elrond says: ¡¥We cannot hide it, we cannot destroy it¡¦ then he goes on ¡¥we must send it to the fires where it was made, to Mount Doom¡¦. But he never mentioned why that was necessary. Then Boromir said: Why do you speak of hiding and destroying? The filmmakers seemed to have assumed that whoever watched the movie had read the books.
15) In Bree, Aragorn had a broken sword. Outside the Gates of Moria, and after that, his sword isn¡¦t broken anymore. Now, readers of the original fiction will know why, again, the filmmakers assumed everyone has read the books.
16) Balrogs have no wings!!! If that big, silly looking Balrog has wings, why didn¡¦t he fly outta the chasm when Gandalf broke the bridge?
17) Now, I¡¦m really certain that the filmmakers never researched into the pronounciation of names at all. Its ¡¥Keleborn¡¦, not ¡¥Sell-a-born¡¦.
18) And Galadriel and Celeborn are way too, too blindingly bright. Hm¡K physical property of elves??
19) So, there are no smiths in Lothlorien, hm? Why on earth was Boromir whetting his sword on a rock? It would make sense if he¡¦s out in the wilderness, but he was in Lothlorien, for heaven¡¦s sake! I can bet my head that the Elven smiths will do a better job than he.
20) Nenya¡¦s a magical glitter spouting ring! So, if anything¡¦s magical, it must be bright and glittery. Same goes with Gandalf¡¦s imprisonment at Orthanc, a wonderful laser light show.
21) The way Orcs talk: *mumble mumble mumble growl snarl snarl mumble garble garble* I can¡¦t understand an eighth what they are talking about, for Iluvatar¡¦s sake! The only word I could catch was ¡¥Grishnakh!¡¦
22) Continuity(again): At first, Merry and Pippin were kidnapped by a small bunch of Orcs, all in stone age furs. Then, in the battle with the Rohirrim, they multiply by the hundreds, and are dressed in cumbersome robes.
22) The battle between Eomer¡¦s troops and the Orcs with Merry and Pippin: stand in two nice, huge lines. A Rohirrim rides out, taunts the Orcs, and shoots one. Orcs cheer him on. Another rides out, got killed and the rest of the Rohirrim goes berserk and attacks! And do the creatures of Middle Earth breathe carbon monoxide? The blood of the dead creatures are a mysterious cherry pink in colour.
23) Why does Treebeard spit leaves whenever he talks?
24) Basically, all the horn calls of middle earth are the same(D A¡¦).
25) The blasting fires from Isengard comes in the form of fireworks, which came from miles away and hit dead on target in Helm¡¦s Deep.
26) In the final, desperate charge, the Riders slash and hack their way through the Orcs, then realize that they were being surrounded by millions of them. They were obviously losing, but the music was a triumphant march. Then, Theoden smiles, then look worried again. Then Gandalf and a bunch of Rohirrim arrived! The movie ends in gruesome, slow motion Orc-slaying with plenty of cherry pink blood spewed at the camera.
Rating:
Summary: limited but respectful adaptation and subtitles galore!
Review: Ralph Bakshi's 1978 vision of the first half of Tolkien's trilogy respects the spirit of the written work. I saw this when it first came out and was pretty disappointed, so I was curious to watch it again. I have to say it's not horrible, and there are some interesting foreshadowings here as well. Some of the scenes are repeated faithfully by Peter Jackson; animation over live action, which works well for the Dark Riders but not so well anywhere else, is Waking Life 25 years early; and the Dark Riders look a lot like Lucas's sand people in A New Hope. Things are cut. Lots of things are cut. But after having a 20-year dry spell between filmmakers taking a crack at Tolkien, you've got to appreciate the attempt. The screenplay is well written and faithful to Tolkien's ideas. Bakshi wisely drops the songs (The Hobbit really suffers from the dated schmaltzy singing) but the soundtrack is still a weakness here -- a very 70s orchestrated feel, like Peter Gunn with hairy feet. Animations of the hobbits were a little bit weird-looking but certainly not the worst I've seen. In general the animation style is heavy and dark, so the elven lands suffer. John Hurt's voice for Strider doesn't really work for me personally, but William Squire does a nice voice for Gandalf, and the others are fine. This is a fine effort and definitely worth watching for Tolkien or animation fans. Extra features include a few screens of minimal information about Tolkien, the cast & crew, and the races of Middle Earth. The best feature on the disk is the incredible number of available subtitles -- English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Japanese, Thai and Korean! Awesome.
|
