Rating: 
Summary: LOTR Animated Incomplete? Review From One Who Read The Books
Review: I am a very huge fan of LotR and I have read "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" and I have also seen the live action Fellowship of the ring, but I'm disappointed about this. Compared to the books and the live action film, it's a piece of junk. The animation is horrible, other than the hobbits, and the story line is hard to stay with. It left out many parts. It also did only the fellowship of the ring, and half of the two towers. Where's the return of the king or the rest of the two towers? When Merry and Pippin are captured, it doesn't show them escape and shows them with Treebeard the ent a few minutes after they're captured. For the Two Towers part, it shows up to the battle at Helms Deep, which is pretty good, but leaves out the rest which is very good as well and important parts between Helms Deep and Fellowship. Being a 13 year old, you wouldn't think I would have understood the book very well, but I did and loved it. The animated version is just a big joke. It just leaves out too much, doesn't finish half of the two towers and return of the king, poor animation, confusing dialog, and just plainly doesn't make sense. If you are looking for a good version, watch the live action version and wait for the others to come out, or watch the animated version of The Hobbit which is very true to the book and exciting.
Rating: 
Summary: well, this was good enough...
Review: when we didn't have anything else. This is the old Ralph Bakshi attempt at bringing the Lord of the Rings to life. Bakshi tried to do what no one else had ever attempted--he tried to make the LOTR into a movie. That was nearly impossible in 2001, and it was about 1,000 times worse in 1978. For over 20 years, this was the "definitive" (if it can be called that) movie version of the Lord of the Rings. Now, Peter Jackson has come along and blown this one halfway to the Misty Mountains. Despite that fact, this film has some value--the characters are a little better developed, the story is a little more detailed, and it tells the story in a mostly reliable way. Still, it isn't Tolkien. The animation (whatever it is) is horrid; I'll agree with that. Legolas looks like a radioactive albino, and the other characters look pretty bad, too. Still, one fact remains. If nothing else, this primitive video version of the Lord of the Rings laid the groundwork for Peter Jackson's blockbuster smash. We should all be grateful for that. See this version--it's well worth it. If you're a LOTR buff, you'll really enjoy it. A word of warning, though: I saw this movie a long time ago, and I didn't know it was only going to be half of the trilogy. Don't be surprised when it abruptly ends. This is no Ian McKellan and Viggo Mortensen blockbuster, but for a long time it was the best there was. I, for one, am grateful to have this version of Bakshi's.
Rating: 
Summary: Loyal adaptation doesn't mix with confusing execution...
Review: Ralph Bakshi's 70s film based on the first and some of the second books in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. While the adaptation is very loyal, the animation, particularly the retroscoping, lacks feeling or scope. Some of the scenes seem very hastily put together and many sequences are incredibly confusing, making this film hard to watch. The runtime, a lengthy two hours, stretches this movie out and soon the story drags on and gets very boring. Watching the film, one wishes Bakshi would have been given more money so that a better and possibly brighter look could have been presented. Instead, we get a long-winded and confusing couple of hours with animation that is very subpar.
Rating:
Summary: Bakshi's The Lord of the Rings
Review: I sometimes feel sorry for Bakshi and the bad vibes sent his way because of this film. Its really a shame that he ran out of money and wasn't allowed to tell this tale in the fashion that Jackson has been, because one thing this version does have is character development. Maybe Sam is portrayed as a buffoon, and Aragorn looks more like a dock worker than a soon to be king, but the actual Tolkien story and its nuances are paid attention to here with the time allowed. I do think this movie is worth a look or two from Tolkien fans or not, because the characters are more full in this version, and a better sense of the book's movement between those characters is given attention. This book is impossible to film, and Jackson has made a great go at it, but there are some missing things that this version does retain. Visually, Jackson's has truly brought the book to life, but on characterisation, there is so much missing. And for the sake of drama, Frodo is seen in Jackson's as far weaker than he is portrayed in the book. I think Bakshi's version pays attention moreso to those personality traits, but that is a harder story to tell. And the Ringwraiths are far scarier and threatening in this version than in Jackson's (Fellowship)Lord of the Rings, but in the scenes it should be noted that Jackson definitely saw this movie and used it as like a storyboard. The Wraiths hunting of Frodo & company on the road is far more dangerous and frightening in this version.
Rating:
Summary: Ralph Bakshi's flawed attempt to bring LOTR to the screen
Review: Ralph Bakshi's "The Lord of the Rings" is one of those flawed but generally absorbing movies whose legacy seems to be that it was better than nothing, and even that point is hotly debated. I think this may well be the "Gulliver's Travels" of our generation, an animated film with a unique visual style that sets it apart from its contemporaries because of the innovative technique of rotoscoping, i.e., filming live actors and lying animation over the top. Cleary Bakshi was trying to avoid using the same visual style as he had employed for "The Hobbit," which, ironically, he returned to when he filmed "The Return of the King." For those few people who do not know, "The Lord of the Rings" adapts the first half of J. R. R. Tolkien's epic tale of the War of the Ring. Consequently the film ends, rather suddenly, in the middle of "The Two Towers." When you remember that each volume of the trilogy consists of two "books," then Bakshi animated five-sixths of the three books in two different animation styles. The adaptation, written by Peter S. Beagle and Chris Conkling, is an example of ruthless streamlining (then again, this one at least has an Ent). Watching this is comparable to watching the original film version of "Dune," where your love of the book fills in the errors and omissions as you go merrily along. But for the most part this film races along like the Fellowship running through the mines of Moria, so you really have to know the story to keep up. The standard joke is that this is like the Cliffs Notes version of "The Lord of the Rings," but I have to tell you, the little yellow book with the black stripes has much more details than this movie. The rotoscope process really does not bother me all that much. It was a novel approach to the problems of telling such an epic story told in the dark days before computers made such things a piece of cake. If Bakshi had been able to experiment with it more on some other film, then he might have been able to do some more creative work on this film. On the other hand, I have just never been able to get used to Aragorn looking for all the world like a Native American and Samwise Gamgee looking (and acting) so much like a total buffoon. The movie also suffers from a rather abrupt ending, more appropriate to a serial than a 133-minute film that falsely promises "to be continued..." In the final analysis, I find that there is really nothing to recommend this film beyond its love for the source material. I know there are those who want to toss Bakshi into the fires of Mount Doom, but he made an effort and whatever fault people want to find with his thinking in making this film, I am never going to be convinced that his heart was not in the right place. Maybe he should have stuck to the original animation approach; certainly the film would have benefited from John Huston's gravely voiced Gandalf and I always thought he did a nice job in "The Return of the King" with my favorite scene in the trilogy, when Eowyn fights the Lord of the Nazgul. Then again, just remember what animation was like way back when in the Seventies and put this effort in some historical context. I do not hate this version of "The Lord of the Rings," mainly because I was never bitterly disappointed by it, which seems to be the key factor. I remember how we all discussed the many flaws of the film as we were walking out of the theater, but we were rather happy that at least somebody had tried. Peter Jackson has made all of this moot, but please note that took several decades before it came to pass. Maybe the charm I find in this film is entirely residue from the Trilogy itself, but I have to admit it is still there for me.
Rating: 
Summary: The Lord of the Rings, according to Bakshi
Review: I agree with the many reviewers that this is a classic. The animation style was, of course, poorly done, but it was good other than that. They did the Ringwraiths quite well, better than the metal creatures of Peter Jackson. As a matter of fact, this film was more to Tolkien's work than Peter Jackson's adaptation in many ways. The Elves were more Elvish, the Dwarves more Dwarvish. Of course, the fact that it cuts off half-way through is most unfortunate, and the aforementioned poor mixing of animation styles comes off as bizaare. But if you can overlook these faults, overlook the animation, and see the story, I highly recommend this movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Apples and Oragnes.
Review: You'll either love this movie or hate it. I see that most of the reviews are comparisons to the movie release of LOTR. Nothing could be worse. These are two totaly diffrent mediums, and should be represented as such. My only dissapointment with the DVD release is the end. Instead of the voice of Aragorn saying "Here ends the first part of the war of the ring." We get some announcer trying to wrap up the movie. Bad move. That just makes the ending bad. On the flip side, the Gamma correction is nice. It brings out the background drawings almost to a fault. In some scenes you can almost make out a "matte" appearence on the screen. You can see it mostly when we first meet a ring wraith on the road. But over all it's good. Pay particular attention when Gandolf and Frodo are talking about the ring in the beginning. The background and sky are vivid and quite striking. I first saw this movie when I was 18. I loved it then and I love it now. I love the atmosphere that Ralph Bakshi produces, and I love the scenery. I'll never put this in the back of my library. Ever.
Rating:
Summary: junk when compared to Peter Jackson's adaptation
Review: On its own this film may have been impressive for its time I very much doubt that special effects in the late 1970s would have made for a very good live action Lord of the rings film. Bakshi was a talented animator but he just didnt have the budject for this film. The anamation is horrible in over half the film. Boromir's viking costume is absurd. The live action scenes are laughable. The only part I found impressive was the battle at Helms Deep. But the abrupt ending and butchered stroyline doesnt do the film any good. John Hurt, as Aragorn, was the only voice actor I found to be convincing as a character, but Aragorn's character design was so terribly bland that it just didnt work. The rest of the voices are terrible. Bad film stick to Jackson's trilogy
Rating:
Summary: Not worth it
Review: I use to watch this film when I was a kid and I thought it was kinda cool. My disgust and disappointment when I watched this film recently can not be measured. This film is just plain ugly. The art is bad and the art style is truely annoying. The characters are never still for a moment. They constantly moving some part of their bodies and it is a distraction at times. The voice over work in this is also pretty bad. Compared to the Hobbit or Return of the King, the acting is below average, especally Golum. Gone is the sense of strange sense of danger from the former and later films, instead they potray him as a weak, pathetic worm. Sam too is particlarly bad. They tried to hard to make him comic relief. There is nothing appealing about this film to be honest, the storyline is butchered, the animation is of the worst kind, and the characters look hidious. Gimli's a very tall, bald guy, and Boromir looks like Hagar the Horrible. Don't waste your money on this video. Ge either of the two other nimated films, or the live action movie. This film is an insult to Tolkien and his masterpiece
Rating:
Summary: The Lord Of The Rings
Review: The Lord Of The Rings animated movie is a must have for J.R.R. Tolkien fans. This film is great for children and adults. I only wish that this great film was fully completed insted of ending at The Battle Of Helms Deep in The Two Towers. But above all The Lord Of The Rings animated movie , directed by Ralph Bakshi , is the best animated movie ever made. I give it five stars as it deserves.
|
