William Hurt Movie:

				Salesrank: 171579
		Our Price: $94.00
		Used Price: $9.00
		MPAA Rating: PG (Parental Guidance Suggested) Media: DVD

Editorial Review:
Although it was ultimately overshadowed by Peter Jackson's live-action Lord of the Rings trilogy, Ralph Bakshi's animated adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy classic is not without charms of its own. A target of derision from intolerant fans, this ambitious production is nevertheless a respectably loyal attempt to animate the first half of Tolkien's trilogy, beginning with the hobbit Frodo's inheritance of "the One Ring" of power from Bilbo Baggins, and ending with the wizard Gandalf's triumph over the evil army of orcs. While the dialogue is literate and superbly voiced by a prestigious cast (including John Hurt as Aragorn), Leonard Rosenman's accomplished score effectively matches the ominous atmosphere that Bakshi's animation creates and sustains. Bakshi's lamentable decision to combine traditional cel animation with "rotoscoped" (i.e., meticulously traced) live-action footage is jarringly distracting and aesthetically disastrous, but when judged by its narrative content, this Lord of the Rings deserves more credit than it typically receives. --Jeff Shannon

The Lord of the Rings [Region 2] Reviews:
Uneven, at times horrificly bad, but does have advantages
2009-12-04 - At first I was very critical of this low-budget animated retelling of the first half of Tolkien's epic, especially due to the fact that I have seen the epic Peter Jackson trilogy. If I had done this review immediately after seeing this movie surely I would have passed it off as poorly constructed, and a butchering of Tolkien...but after discussing the film with other enthusiasts and making comparisons to the books I must say there are a few things they do better than Jackson...nothing major, but there are a few things that make this adaptation commendable.

Pros
Frodo - This is more of Tolkien's Frodo than the Elijah Wood Frodo. This Frodo will willingly throw himself into danger, draw his sword, and fight without screaming like a pansy for his larger companions (or later Sam) to rescue him. The one problem is the voice-actor doesn't capture any real emotion.

Aragorn - Don't get me wrong, I liked Viggo in the new films, but he really never seemed like a king...just a mercenary. John Hurt on the other hand (one of the greatest screen actors of all time) gives the brutality of a rogue, as well as the elegance of royalty in his voice. Why he is portrayed as a Native American in a miniskirt remains a mystery in my mind because it practically destroys the credibility of Hurt's voice-acting.

Okay
Gollum - He's okay, but just seems poor after you've seen Jackson's. At least they get most of the key concepts of the character

Battles - Now, Jackson may win on sheer AWESOME levels when it comes to his actions scenes, but while these scenes may be "bad" at least none of the characters come across as superheroes as they did in the Jackson movies.

The Ugly
Animation - Most of the film is very choppy and poorly put together. Sure, when it's fully animated it's okay, but in the second half of the film they seem to run out of money so attempted more cheap techniques than could be counted

Character Designs - Between Borimir being a Viking, hobbits looking like small children, Saruman (or as this movie says "Aruman") being Santa Clause, and the before mentioned Native American Aragorn...but nothing can compare to the horror that is Bakshi's abominable Balrog (special mention to Julius Caesar Elrond)

Cut and paste dialogue - It feels like they took lots of key quotes from the book without thinking at all of the build-up dialogue that made the quotes work in the books. This results in many scenes (especially the Council of Elrond) coming across as confusing.

Sam - Do not get me started on this physically and mentally retarded interpretation

So this movie is good for the kids for exposing them to Tolkien, but it isn't an opus of Tolkien's work (that goes without saying), but then again neither is Jackson's. The only way to truly revel in Tolkien's work is to let yourself be consumed by his books, but Jackson's movies did come close to hitting the magic of Tolkien.

It's Amazing How Bad This Movie Is
2009-11-25 - No movie adaption of a book can be perfect, as any honest movie-goer will admit. Some films get very close -- like Jackson's Lord of the Rings, at least in my opinion -- while others fall flat. And then there's Bakshi's film.

When i first saw it, i had read a plethora of bad reviews, and had no fond childhood memories to soften it with nostalgia. That being said, one of my first thoughts once i finished watching this was:

Some people like this??! How?

THE ADAPTION

Within the first two minutes of the film, it becomes clear that the screenwriter(s) either never intended to actually adapt Tolkien's novel or never paid attention when/if they read the book (heck, even the CliffNotes). Or possibly, never cared in the first place.

It's been mentioned how Boromir brings up 'hiding and destroying' at the Council when no one has brought up hiding and destroying, Aragorn is declared to be the heir of Elendil but no one bothers explaining who that is or why anyone cares, and that Gandalf throws the Ring into the fire at Bag End for no particular reason. These are almost nothing compared to the vast wilderness left unexplained by this "film". Want to know who this Sam guy is? How exactly Bilbo found the Ring? Why Celeborn and Galadriel help the Fellowship? What the Balrog is? What Frodo intends to do when he reaches Mordor? What the Ring actually does anyway? Well, that's just too bad, because no one explains. Ever.

The script resembles a first draft, written at one sitting through increasingly late hours, by the hand of a time-crunched writer aided only by CliffNotes and coffee. I gather this by the way things get worse, and worse, and worse. The introduction and early parts of the movie (as flyingmoose's review notes, up to about the Council of Julius Caesar - i mean Elrond) are loaded with information, which may or may not be accurate, the middle part bears a superficial resemblance to the book but is so badly executed you can hardly tell, and in the third part the diseased and crippled plot disintegrates and frays into oblivion, grinding to a halt with a third of the story to go and nothing resolved. By that point, though, it's hard to imagine that anyone cares.

Some have praised this movie for its book accuracy being greater than Jackson's films, pointing out that more of the books' dialogue is used in the film, and dismissing various problems as being limited by time and budget. This does not hold water if you pay any attention to what is being said. A longer film with better animation does not solve the jewels of inaccuracy, such as round rings being hammered out on anvils, the Ringwraiths being made after the fall of Sauron, and (my personal favorite) Gandalf's declaration that anyone who so much as wears the Ring comes under the power of Sauron.

I have my doubts that a film of this length could do justice even to just "The Fellowship of the Ring"; but if this is representative of what it would look like, no one should even try.

THE CHARACTERS

As if the "adaption" (so-called) wasn't enough to ruin this nightmare of a film by itself, no book character - however minor - survives contact with the screenwriter(s), animators, director and other workers of evil.

The most egregious victim is Sam Gamgee (the loyal servant is changed into a retarded, deformed buffoon); but Gandalf certainly is a close second. Bakshi's wizard is a doom-prophesying, short-fused, overly-dramatic, ballerina who first rails at the hobbits over the mildest of errors, then proceeds to pet (yes, pet) them on the head in creepy sex-predator fashion.

The war between Isengard and Rohan might be because Saruman and Theoden are trying to prove who is the better Santa Claus. Theoden might have an advantage in terms of voice. Saruman (or is it Aruman?) sounds like an ancient frog.

Merry and Pippin, in addition to being perpetually indistinguishable, appear out of nowhere with a minimal explanation, easily lost in the rush of the movie. As if all of this wasn't confusing enough, they both change hair colors several times ... sometimes in the same scene. Geez, guys, was it really that hard to use the same color every time? Apparently, yes.

Gimli, the dwarf, is at least six feet tall. No, i'm not making it up. I wish i was.

Aragorn and Boromir are both members of League of Stuck Up Jerks Who Wear No Pants. This is all they have in common, despite being the same race and culture. Boromir, the oldest son of the most powerful man in the greatest city of Men, is dressed up like a Viking, complete with horned helmet. Aragorn looks like a Native American. Oh, and they both have really short tempers -- and apparently really brief memories, too. Outside Moria, one minute Boromir is suggesting they go to Saruman for help, an idea Aragorn vehemently disagrees with, and the next Gandalf opens the doors to Moria and the two shake hands. Shake. Hands. So, I guess insulting the ability of your best friend and proposing it would be better to replace him with a treacherous wizard on the side of the Dark Lord isn't that big of a deal to Aragorn.

Despite the age-staying effects of their rings, the Nazgul apparently have aged to about 20,000 years old. It seems they also have short attention spans and absolutely no idea what to do with horses. I guess they keep the horses because off of them they limp like broken haunted-house zombies. In the Flight to the Ford sequence, they either can't control their horses or they are actually afraid of hobbits, as they back away from Frodo at least once.

There is not one single character well-done in this film. Frodo is as close as it gets, and i'm allowing him only because it appears the poor fellow got pulled into this movie without really knowing what it entailed -- more than once he looks either utterly bewildered at what is going on, or throws a desperate plea to the camera, as if to say: Get me out of here, please!

THE ANIMATION

Whatever the budget for the animation of this film, it wasn't enough. This film tests out a new approach, "roto-scoping", which involves drawing animation over live-action footage. Apparently it didn't hit on, and after watching Bakshi's film, no one will wonder why. Not to be crude, but if the movie had been of dogs throwing up, shown in graphic detail, it could not look worse than this film does.

I will allow that a few (a very few) shots are not bad. The scenery in parts of the Shire are pretty, and i think there's one or two shots on the way to Bree that look nice - but that is it.

Like unto the screenplay, the animation deteriorates over time, with an exception for the opening, which looks like a high school drama team filmed in silhouette with a red background. It improves once the scene shifts to Hobbiton - indeed, it would be hard for it to do anything but improve - but quickly deteriorates again. Bilbo is hideous, and impossibly, the other 'extra-hobbits' (i.e. non main-characters) are uglier. Isengard is drenched in red and black, creating an atmosphere so obviously EVIL that it's a wonder Gandalf even bothers trying to consult with (S)Aruman. The sequence of Bree features hideously deformed townspeople - roto-scoped that clash terribly with the fully-animated hobbits.

The Flight to the Ford sequence almost deserves its own rant. Either the producers were high, or Frodo was. There is no other conceivable explanation for it.

Moria is passable; at least, what passes for passable in this train wreck. I can't comment on Lothlorien as other horrors (namely, Barbie Galadriel, the kaleidoscope Eye of Sauron [oh no, it's soo scary!!!!!!!1one!!1]
and Gandalf's lament) dominate my memory of it, and the River Anduin does not stand out as particularly good or terrible. Amon Hen, however, returns to the red-drenched color scheme of the prologue, only it adds roto-scoping; with what results, i think you can guess. It stays pretty near this level for the remainder of the film.

One positive note -- Treebeard may be a walking giant carrot who spews leaves whenever he opens his mouth, but at least he isn't roto-scoped.

Others have mentioned that the entire cast waltzes about the stage like they were in Swan Lake, the acid-trip 'Flight to the Ford' sequence that's about an hour too long, and how the (roto-scoped, and therefore awful-looking) Balrog looks like a bipedal lion with butterfly wings and fluffy slippers. Let me assure you, none of this is exaggerated; it is the sad, sad truth.

It has also been mentioned that everyone is a terrible fighter in this movie. This could not be more true of the Orcs, who in the battle of Helm's Deep are obviously ramming their battering ram into a wall with a doorway no more than five feet away.

Just how did this movie get made again?

I could spend hours railing about all the errors made in this film, but much as i would enjoy that, this review is long enough as it is. People with good book-knowledge will probably enjoy this on some level; either as an adaption (though i have no idea how) or as laugh-a-minute comedy. Anyone else, do what the production should have done: put it back on the shelf, forget about it, and go see something with real quality. Like Transformers.

Perfect DVD!
2009-11-10 - Great job by the seller! Package arrived as described and professionally wrapped. The DVD was in perfect working order with no flaws! Would definitely order again from this seller!

Great!
2009-11-06 - For 1978, it was a great attempt to bring tolkien to the big screen. Too bad there are so many haters out there...and ralph couldnt finish it.

Consider the context and the history
2009-10-06 - Fantastic, for what it was and is - minor quibbles aside, this animation feast of what was then cutting edge live action/cell animation paints a dark, rich picture with a lot of depth and a trueness to the book that rarely strays from the source material (Legolas surfing down the stairs at Helms Deep in Peter Jackson's movies comes to mind). I'm not bashing Jackson's vision or his movies, they were a singular achievement, one that probably will never be (or should never be) bested. Yet, Bakshi's version holds a special place in my heart...this was the first "vision" of the books I loved on screen (and it absolutely kicked The Hobbit's cheap looking, goofy animation around the block). Seeing things like the Balraq, Modor, The Shire put to film was, at the time, a first, and if you think Jackson didnt borrow some set design inspiration from this, I think you're wrong. Also, the music is fantastic...it very much helps support the mood of whatever is occuring in the film, be it "good" or "evil". Comparing this to the modern manifestations of Tolkien's work is apples and oranges, and frankly, unfair. Watch this as a stand-alone, and appreciate it for what is it, a vision of Tolkien's work that illustrates (pun intended) some of the best parts of the books.