nice old movie 😊

The Lord of the Rings_360P

I really liked this movie, and it is true, too many people compare it to the Peter Jackson films. Even more impressive was that they fitted two books into one film, many people consider that a mistake and that things were missed out, when actually considering the books aren't very easy to adapt, I thought this film wasn't too bad an attempt. The animation was very impressive, a little dated by our standards, but bear in mind people it was made in the 70s and that it is lower budget than that of Disney or Pixar. The music was very well done especially the orks' march to Isanguaard, very haunting indeed. Though speaking of the orks, a very young audience will find them very frightening, and will be deterred by the sight of blood. The film is also overlong and a bit slow, but anyone who's seen the Peter Jackson films will argue that they have the same problem. The voice talents are exceptional, standouts being Christopher Guard as the idealistic Frodo, William Squire as the wise Gandalf(very good but Ian McKellan was better but only marginally) and John Hurt's brave Strider/Aragorn. Some of the scenes in this film are very hard to depict, like the scenes with the Black Riders(the scene in the inn was genuinely creepy), and I must say, that in general, the execution of those scenes were well-above average. In conclusion, despite the flaws, this film is nowhere near as bad as people say it is. My dad and my brother are both die-hard LOTR fans, and they say that this film was very well done. 7/10 Bethany Cox.

LOTR had potential as an animated feature; too bad Bakshi screwed it up royally. First of all, the animation is crap. Bakshi must have been on some highly potent hallucinogens when making this film because a lot of the backrounds look that way. The practice of drawing upon live actors just looks crappy, especially when mixed in with the animated actors. And let's face it, Middle earth never looked this bad. Second, the movie ends abruptly at about the twin towers segment. Hey, if you are going to put out a movie, then finish the damn thing rather than just leave the ending lagging. Even if Bakshi ran out of money, he should have had more ethics and shelved the film until he could complete it. Then again, this is from the guy who made Fritz the Cat (which, interestingly, was more impressive despite its OK animation). Third, no character development. Any animated feature, including Disney films have some character development, and this film has none of it. The characters are as 2 dimensional as they are on film. Peter Jackson had done infinitely more justice to Tolkien's masterpiece with his first film alone, which is able to stand on its own. If you have to see LOTR on film, then go see Peter Jackson's version. This (animated) version belongs in the bowels of the cutting room floor and should never have been released. God knows why some of you guys gave it a rating above 5!

the movie is an interesting mixture of techniques. the colours are vivid. the atmosphere is the same as in the book. the story is great. it is a must for fans of j.r.r. tolkien and a terrific opportunity for people who haven't met the world tolkien created. see it if you can.

As a kid I was quite astonished with the dark and gloomy tone of this film, especially in comparison to Rankin/Bass's take on the same material around the same period. Also at the time I didn't really care for the animation, which I found to be rather cold and creepy (having no idea it was rotoscoped or even what rotoscoping was). However as the years have gone by and the Jackson adaptations come and gone, I feel more and more drawn to this rare piece of absolutism as I would a painting by Vincent Van Gogh or Salvadore Dali. Bakshi always had a flair for adult-oriented animation, and finally with this he found a subject befitting of his style. Lord of the Rings is some overall dark, intriguing material in comparison with The Hobbit and really was deserving of something imaginative and stylistic as only Bakshi's team could deliver. Most everything comes together quite well here with the bizarre rotoscoped animation, the characterizations, the voice performances, and Leonard Rosenman's supercharged score (one of his career best, up there and quite similar to his work on THE CAR and RACE WITH THE DEVIL). It's rather unfortunate that funding ran out and the project had to be hurriedly wrapped, quite a similar heartbreaking story as to what happened with his previous year's WIZARDS. The film is clearly unfinished in many regards. The most heinous act it commits is to end right in the middle of a major action scene with absolutely no resolution to speak of! Even ignoring its abbreviation of the books, one has to admit that narratively this film is a complete disaster. I can't imagine the marketing for this movie honestly claiming it to only be the first half of the book trilogy brought to screen. Needless to say I'd be surprised if angry audiences didn't get up and boo at the screen en masse back in 1978 witnessing perhaps the biggest cheat or, dare I say even, "rip off" in cinematic history. Similarly this film has a very rough feel to it in terms of animation and pacing and is entirely inconsistent. Things begin fairly polished and kid-friendly but get darker, drearier, more violent (with some surprisingly graphic gore), and sloppier as the film goes on. By the end we get the vast majority of the film not even properly animated and more or less just treated film material with undercranked smoke and clouds filling in the for the background plates. It's quite similar to the bizarre psychedelic cost saving measures Bakshi made when he took over the second season of the animated 60's "Spiderman" cartoons. This whole Joseph Conradian experience of a descent into hell is pretty overwhelming, oppressive, and possibly even emotionally scarring for young viewers, but it's something I've strangely come to love about this film over time. Yes, dare I say it, I just love this movie. You can't deny that it has its share of magical moments like Frodo's escape from the Wraiths, Gandalf opening the doors to Moria, and the showdown with the Balrog. Much like David Lynch's DUNE it created a vivid, creative, and whole-hearted realization of a world out of the severe butchery its source material. There's a small, artistic, and very personal loving feel given to this movie which I found lacking in Jackson's trilogy. Bakshi and his overworked team of animators may not have created the best film ever, but they did a lot with the little they had. I just wish they'd been able to see it through.

I recently had the opportunity to watch this movie again on cable, a film last seen as a young teenager. I enjoyed the movie as a child, but maturity and an appreciation for film has changed my perspective. Bakshi's LoTR is disjointed at best. The scale of the books is daunting though and I do give this film credit for trying. Peter Jackson was certainly helped in his endeavor by Bakski's attempt, he could see first hand what worked and what failed miserably. Some of the grandest scenes in the books, like Gandalf's confrontation with the Balrog, are rendered so poorly by the animators that I can't help but laugh. Many Tolkien fans have read the books over and over again, it exists as a film in their own heads. My only explanation for a mature Tolkien fan endorsing this film now is that all the gaps and missteps in the movie are being filled in with their own impressions from the book. Banal lines clumsily delivered are only resonating in a viewer because they are straight from the books and trigger a happy recollection. The only saving grace of this film for me are the books and nostalgia, take those away and it falls apart.

After seeing Peter Jackson' miraculously brilliant movie version of The Lord of the Rings, I had to finally see the much maligned 1978 animated version. Let me get this off my chest first. There are those out there who thinks that the movie is alright to watch, and there are those who still cannot get over the shock of seeing their beloved story being torn and shredded into little pieces. At first I thought, how bad can it be? But upon seeing this movie, I became a true believer. A believer that Ralph Bakshi had indeed turned a great novel into trash. For those who hasn't seen this movie and need recommendation, you just hav e to watch this movie just to understand why it has deserved so much criticism for all these years. First of all, the artwork is TERRIBLE and very, very inconsistent to the point where you think that Ralph Bakshi must have ran out of time and money to do a decent job. The movie combines characters that seemed naturally hand-animated with rotoscoped human beings that looked eerily real, it doesn't look like if it belongs there. Just imagine an artist blending surrealism with cubism into one canvas, or Walt Disney with Leonardo Da Vinci. Chaotic backgrounds is often depicted as rough paintbrushing work. Visually, this movie is a total mess. Now for the characterisations, which I'm afraid its no good either. Saruman is often pronounced as "Aruman" and he wears red and not white gown, and as a wizard who supposedly possess a beautiful and spellbinding voice, he sounded like a croaking frog. Gandalf is so theatrical its not funny, with his riverdance-esque spins and exaggerated hand-weaving gestures. Samwise Gamgee is being turned into such a coward, all he does is hug people when he gets scared (but unfortunately the other hobbits do the same thing) and instead of being down-to-earth and courageous, he is too effeminate and annoying, unlike his likeable novel counterpart. Aragorn wears Robin Hood's short skirt, Gimli is turned into a monstrously tall Dwarf, and Boromir is now a Scandinavian Viking sporting an awfully thick red beard. Why did the Nazguls limped at first but later on managed to walk normally? Also, there are a lot of bad editing, such as the fellowship suddenly arrived in front of Galadriel from Moria's exit without any transition shots of them travelling from one point to the next. The Balrog looked laughable as opposed to be striking fear into our hearts, and what's up with his growling? The Balrog is no zoo lion, and it does not growl! The soundtrack did not enhance any emotions or situations in the slightest bit, which doesn't help at all. There are some good, well-executed moments, but they are a rarity. This movie has too many flaws, and that is not good enough considering the mythical status of Tolkien's stories. Peter Jackson's version is billions of times more superior in every single way, and thank goodness we can all watch that one instead!

But I just can't. I get that Bakshi's rotoscoping was cutting edge, but to me it just looks awful. That's not what kills this film, though. In a nutshell, the pacing makes the actual story nearly impossible to follow for anyone who hasn't already memorized it. In some parts, it moves too quickly (obviously there were time considerations), but other scenes drag out forever without actually contributing to the plot. The orc battle scenes in particular felt like the same images over and over and over and over again (drenched in the murky rotoscoping), to the point where it was impossible to tell what was actually supposed to be happening. It almost feels like Bakshi was more interested in splashing images on the screen than in telling a story. I guess if you like the images, and you already know the story (or aren't interested in it), then this movie will be great fun for you. I won't bother with purist complaints about the movie not following the book. Literature and cinema are two related but vastly different forms, and what works for one often does not work for the other. If anything, part of the problem is that it follows the book too closely at times, not allowing for how awkward the written dialog sounds when actually spoken. The only real complaint I have about the adaptation is Bakshi's reading of Sam as a gay, retarded circus midget. I also get the sense that this portrayal was somehow intended to be comic relief. Why take such pains to render such an important character so impossible to take seriously? I so wanted to like this movie. I really did. I kept thinking that I would like it better after reading the book (the first time I saw it was in the theater, and I didn't understand most of it), or when I had gotten old enough to appreciate it. I even thought it might be fun to do a compare and contrast with the new films. None of it helped. I understand that this movie has many devotees and many more apologists. I wish I could see whatever it is you all see when you watch it.

My friend had the idea of watching the animated LOTR after seeing the Peter Jackson Return of The King. So I finally bought it off e-bay, thinking right from the start it was going to suck. Actually, it really wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. The animation was good for its time, they used a unique method of blending live action with animation to create some interesting effects, and the guy who did the voice for Frodo sounded somewhat like Elijah Wood. Not the greatest adaptation of a book, but trust me, I've seen a lot worse. It skips quite a lot of things, since both Fellowship and The Two Towers are compressed into one two hour movie. Definatley worth a watch, kids might like, but still, absoutley no comparision with the Peter Jackson trilogy.