Rating: 
Summary: Worth a Second Look
Review: OK let's start by saying that this is NO comparison to the fantastic recent trilogy of movies by Peter Jackson, and it is animated (I'll come back to that) but it is still a good movie. Considering the year of production for a second, director Ralph Bakshi had a vision, and the same kind of idea as Jackson, but without the backing, the money, or the technology to carry it off. The film follows the book very closely, and those having watched the new movies will see and hear identical scenes in this version, lifted straight from Tolkeins pages. The idea was to make TWO movies (but not simultaneously) which means this is a little muddled in mixing books 1&2, made with the obvious expectation of a sequel.The animation is mixed with a process called rotoscoping (traced over live action integrated into cell animation)in a surreal fashion in places which adds much in the way of atmosphere, and certainly makes the dark armies appear more menacing. This idea of animation was more than a little groundbreaking at the time, even though it was done chiefly to save money, and annoyed more than a few puritans in the business. Sadly this movie went down like a lead parachute at the box office, and with it went Bakshi's backing for the second film, and knowing this means you are expecting an anti climax of sorts. The DVD has little in the way of extra's, but the budget price certainly makes it worth owning. Repeated viewing does get you inside the directors vision, and obvious love of the material, and one could argue that had this been made 20 years later, Peter Jackson & Co may have been out of work, Enjoy this Cult and Collectible Classic at a great price.
Rating: 
Summary: A bad idea and not just because of the rotoscoping
Review: Without making obvious comparisons to Peter Jackson's work, this version of Lord of the Rings plays like a cheap Errol Flynn fantasy movie. The direction and choreography of the characters is sloppy and flat. I got no sense of urgency from what should have been moments of great tension.
Rating: 
Summary: Dreadful in Comparison
Review: I saw this back in 1978 and thought it was disappointing mixture. Now I know why I haven't seen it in years. It is now sad to watch. The introduction of the Balrog made me burst out in laughter! It's a guy with a lion's head on and motionless paper wings! Everyone has commented on the music by Leonard Rosenman. I found it repetive, annoying, and unable to involve me in any events on screen. The only saving grace with this movie is as cheap as it seems, it does present the story in a pretty direct way, and though that, you get involved with Tolkien's story.
Rating: 
Summary: AVERAGE AT BEST!
Review: Ralph Bakshi's "The Lord of the Rings" offers a mixed bag of treats for Tolkien fans. While the voice talents and music are well done, some of the animation, including "rotoscoping" live-action stuff, is a bit cheezy. This is less about friendship and sacrifice than it is about watching the scenes of "acid rock" where you feel like you've stepped into a drug film rather than an epic tale of good versus evil. The battle of Helm's Deep is a good example. You're distracted from the battle by all the "acidy" colors.
This "Lord of the Rings" is both good and bad. I recommend it only to those who already love it to begin with. As for others, I recommend Peter Jackson's acclaimed trilogy.
Grade: C+
Rating:
Summary: Poor
Review: Maybe if you saw this when it was new, it was impressive or entertaining. Today, the animation is jittery and the rotoscoping is jarring, distracting and doesn't mesh with the rest of the animation. The storyline doesn't flow well, but jumps in fits and starts. And the character design is utterly atrocious and at in many cases is blatently at odds with the depictions in the books.
Rating:
Summary: Merely a sampler
Review: From its initial release in 1978 until 2000, Bakshi's adaptation of the Tolkien classic had to settle for the closest version put on film. Since the release of Peter Jackson's trilogy, I don't know if I can ever go back to watch this version again. However, I do need to be fair: this edition does have some positive aspects. First of all, the backdrops and rotoscope animation (Bakshi's trademark) I found mesmerizing. Many other reviewers found them as distractions. However, the painstaking ordeal to achieve this I can't help but recognize. Leonard Rosenman's score is terrific. If anything stands out here as a monument, it's the music.Of course, what ultimately destroyed this film for Tolkien fans and the critics was the rushed storyline, glazing over and simply leaving out certain characters and events, the lack of depth in the characters, and what made the books such classics: DETAIL. Bakshi was under pressure to get the entire trilogy in one film. Can't do it. Sorry! The studio ran out of time and money. So, they had to cut it right after the battle of Helms Deep (which by the way, Bakshi rotoscoped battle footage from 1952's IVANHOE with Robert Taylor). The details left out are too many to mention, and they do lead to the film's ultimate failure. LOTR fans who have not seen this should definitely catch this for curiosity and may well want to own it to check out scenes here and there for comparisons. Those are the ONLY reasons. Parents may well approve this version for young kids who are interested in the story. However, this version does have heavy action although not quite as intense as the trilogy. I ultimately now recognize this film as the "could-have-been" so many other reviewers have. However, this is a nice appetizer and sampler for the real thing.
Rating:
Summary: Why Translation Is NOT The Way To Handle LOTR
Review: Let's get one thing straight. I don't like to brag, but I know my Tolkien. I was read the hobbit before I knew what "ire" and "break of day" meant, and LOTR followed soon after, at the tender age of six. When I first heard that a movie had been made of my favorite book of all time, I had to see it. Unfortunately, Bakshi didn't know how to handle the material. The problem lies in that this movie tried to be a translation of Tolkien's book, only condensed into two two-hour movies. The first one, The Lord of the Rings, falls flat because of how it is presented, not the story. Fortunately, the story here is intact. Of course there were ample numbers of things that were cut out, but the events play out as written, and the dialogue is straight from the pages. Problem is, all that jazz doesn't matter if you don't know HOW to tell a story. That's the difference between the Peter Jackson version, and the Bakshi version. Jackson knew HOW to tell the story; Bakshi did not. Firstly, the main characters all look ridiculous, even for a cartoon. The hobbits look more like kids than little people, Sam is turned into the immensely stupid comic relief, Legolas, a WOOD ELF (you know, with the whole BLEND IN thing) prances around the whole movie in glaring white, and Boromir, a lord of the most advanced human civilization in Middle-earth, is drawn as A FREAKING VIKING. No. Just NO. Additionally, Bakshi chose to use rotoscoping (tracing over live actors to make them look cartoony) and it looks awful, even compared to the regular animation. There were other things that were changed for unimaginable reasons. Sauruman is changed to Auruman, though some of the characters still use the original name, which is confusing as heck. The blasting fire of Orthanc comes in the form of fire works which strike the Deeping Wall at Helm's Deep. And the Balrog *cringe* FLIES. Only once mind you, when it's NOT hurtling down a black abyss. These things were just jarring and ugly. The one real asset to the movie (and the only reason this review is getting any stars at all) is the voice actors. They all do a wonderful job, but those most notable are John Hurt as Aragorn and Anthony Daniels (yes Star Wars geeks, C-3PO) as Legolas. Really, all the voice work is excellent, and the Tolkien dialogue comes off sounding quite believable when spoken. Again, the story is commendable, but the presentation is rancid. Which boils down to why it is NOT a good idea to go for a complete translation of books when making a movie. Not enough time was spent in how to display the world or its people, and there were some really dumb things Bakshi did to the characters. All in all, if you're a die-hard-dyed-in-the-wool Tolkien geek and want to see ALL things Tolkien, this may be stomochable now that we have a decent version of the LOTR trilogy around. However, when I see it, my reaction is the same as it was when I first saw the cartoon at age seven: "What in the world were they thinking?" I can only be thankful that the planned second movie was never made.
Rating:
Summary: Look Beyond the Animation
Review: When I first saw this film, I, like others, was thrown off by the animation style. Particularly the jarring differences between the Helm's Deep orcs and the Disneyish main characters. Switching back and forth was disconcerting to me. But now having the DVD and watching it back to back with the new version, I was quite surprised. If you look beyond the animation and pay attention to the story and feeling portrayed, you will find a movie that is truer to Tolkien than the Jackson version. Both films, old and new, utilize the talents of Christopher Guard. Jackson apparently needed his experience on this film. In this version, Tolkien's use of song is much more obvious, original dialogue is used, Frodo is more the hero that he was in the books, Gollum is very tortured by his promise and addiction, and Sam comes off properly as the quality servant that he is. While the film is very true to Fellowship, it does make a few allowances in Two Towers, although not as many as the new Jackson version. My advice is to watch both versions, old and new, and pay attention to the story and not the eye candy to determine which one is better and truer.
Rating:
Summary: Clever Animation - Cleverly borrowed by Peter Jackson
Review: I recently viewed the 70s animated 'Lord of The Rings' film and found it to be both enchanting and exiting. Although it doesn't include 'The Return of The King' and varies a lot from the books, it is good quality entertainment. The Ring Wraiths are depicted well and are scarier at times than Peter Jacksons version and many of the characters are realisticly portrayed and actually interesting. Frodo has charisma and backbone! I was amazed to see just exactly how much material has been identically reproduced in Peter Jackson's multi million dollar 'Lord of The Rings' and 'The Two Towers'. From the beginning of the film to the end just about every scene is the same, right down to the settings, characters accents and appearance. Gollum is even identical - but more likable as he spends less time screaming 'Precious'. It seems to be happening time and time again in todays B grade (cash grabbing) movie industry - just when you think something original has come along you find out it's a complete ripoff. This is more than mere coincidence and appears PJ is not so talented after all. No wonder all the LOTR fans are screaming bloody murder and trying to push this little cartoon gem under the rug! Definitely check out this animated classic as it is a great tribute J.R. Tolkeins work and is an enjoyable film.
P.S. The game is up Jacko....
Rating: 
Summary: Great!
Review: I'm gonna make this short. I know a lot of people don't like this movie because it was completely overshadowed by the Peter Jackson film. I find it weird that a lot of people enjoy the animated versions of "The Hobbit" and "The Return of the King." This film is much better and the animation IS NOT BAD. If you have never read the book and have seen the Peter Jackson film, I would have to tell you to not watch this movie. It's more based on the J. R. R. Tolkien novel. A lot of people also complain about how the information from the novel is crammed tight into this film and that it leaves out a lot of details. You have to keep in mind that back then, movies were a maximum of two hours long, which this film is. Also, the Peter Jackson movies are divided into the three parts of the book, "The Fellowship of the Ring," "The Two Towers, " and "The Return of the King" and this film has TWO of the parts in it. To wrap it up, please don't include this film in the same series as "The Hobbit" and "The Return of the King" because it's not created by the same people. This film is very bad and the others make it look bad.
|
