Interesteg What makes it different from others?

SincereFinest disgusting, overrated, pointless

Contentar Best movie of this year hands down!

Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

mrscerullo Now those of you who watched the Peter Jackson adaptions of the book first, I can understand the disappointment you may have seeing this animated version from the 1970s. If however, you were growing up during the late 20th century when this was the only version available to you, I'm sure you probably have now a completely different opinion, in fact you may even look upon it oppositely.When I was very young I was enthralled by this film - it was well animated and the use of rotoscoping for the Orcs really works a treat. The Orcs are genuinely frightening for younger audiences and I sometimes wonder that had the film been made today, would they be at all? The 1970s was a glorious time for powerful disturbing imagery, we saw it in many commercials for the period and it has not been spared here.Almost all the characters in this adaptation have the perfect voice actors. I particularly liked John Hurt as Aragorn and I also liked William Squire as Gandalf very much. You can tell that they really researched their roles here and executed it with passion. The other great thing with this film is the music score, almost the same as in 'The Car' (same composer) but here it really is perfectly suited.The artwork you may find familiar-- any fans of HR Giger out there? Well he designed much of the beautifully haunting backdrops for the film and combined with all these great talents, this movie really deserves appreciation. In fact Peter Jackson himself gives much credit to Ralph Bakshi for his efforts.It not without its flaws though I assure you. For one thing, Sam is IN LOVE with Frodo, and he is also quite irritating at times. The film is indeed cut short but believe there was due to be a following film later which never materialised. There are other things but they're really just quibbles.It's a very enjoyable animation, just don't compare it to Peter Jackson works.

robertguttman Yes, I know that people who have seen Peter Jackson's version insist that this version, assuming they have seen it at all, is vastly inferior in every way. And yes, I know this version of the story actually ends in the middle of the narrative. However, those points being granted, one has to acknowledge that Peter Jackson enjoyed several advantages that Ralph lacked, namely time and a budget. Peter Jackson had three years in which to complete his epic film trilogy, which was far more time than the amount of time Backshi was allotted. In addition it should be mentioned that Ralph Backshi produced his film on a budget of only $4 million, an amount which is dwarfed (or, perhaps one might more accurately say, "hobbited") by the $281 million Peter Jackson spent producing his movie trilogy. For that reason, comparisons between the two versions are more than a little unfair. However, that being said, what Ralph Backshi did have in abundance was imagination and artistic skill. I'm sure there are those who will consider this heresy, but I think one might compare Ralph Backshi to Orson Welles in that none of the animated features that he directed ever really came out as well as he intended. Like Orson Welles, Ralph Backshi never seemed able to get sufficient financial backing to complete his movies as well as he originally visualized them. The 1970s was not a good period for animators, unless one had the backing of a huge studio like Disney, which Backshi certainly never did.So, if you watch this again, bear in mind that it was produced on what today would be considered a tiny financial budget. In fact, it appears that Backshi was so strapped for cash that he was never even able to finish more than the first part. Like Eisenstein's "Ivan the Terrible", Ralph Backshi's "Lord of the Rings" remains unfinished.

Jimmy L. If it weren't for Peter Jackson's ambitious live action "Lord of the Rings" trilogy in the early 2000s, Ralph Bakshi's 1978 animated epic would be the definitive screen adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkein's fantasy saga.Having never read Tolkein's books, my understanding of "The Lord of the Rings" came from Peter Jackson's films, and it's surprising how similar this earlier animated version is. Besides following the same storyline, some visual designs and many of the shots are very similar. It's almost as if Jackson used Bakshi's film as a guide for his storyboards, unless the images come from Tolkein's descriptions or the books' illustrations.Bakshi's THE LORD OF THE RINGS is an ambitious undertaking, condensing the first two books of the series into a single epic animated feature. And while many directors considered Tolkein's story impossible to film in live action (until Jackson pulled it off), Bakshi's film is actually largely live action itself. The animation makes heavy use of rotoscoping, i.e., drawing over live action reference footage to capture lifelike movement. In fact, most of the film tries to blend animation with live action footage, with some characters completely animated and others (usually the gruesome orcs) barely filtered live action. And there are times (usually the action scenes) when characters are clearly colorized live action footage, or they sort of phase between animation and live action.It seems like rotoscoping was used as a shortcut, to save the animators the pain and agony of hand-drawing an army of beastly orcs frame-by-frame. And perhaps as a way to capture realistic motion (with flowing capes and lots of running hither and thither). The blending of animation and rotoscoping/live action yields mixed results, but it doesn't get in the way of telling the story.Bakshi's film is not dumbed down for the kiddies. It's dark and violent and, I imagine, faithful to the spirit of Tolkein's work. Of course that's not to say that kids can't enjoy the movie. The tone seems just right and the adventure tale is as captivating as ever.I was very interested to see this animated LORD OF THE RINGS and as I watched it I was impressed by how the film manages to cover most of the important scenes and include most of the important characters I remember from the Peter Jackson trilogy. At the time I was expecting Bakshi's THE LORD OF THE RINGS to fit all three books into a single film, clocking in at just a little over two hours. I was curious to see how he'd done it. But to my surprise, the movie leaves things up in the air with a sense of "to be continued". Apparently the third book, "The Return of the King", was going to be filmed as "Part Two", but such a film never materialized. So the movie we're left with only covers two-thirds of the saga, ending after the battle at Helm's Deep with Frodo and Sam still on their way to Mount Doom. The story of the One Ring is never concluded and Gollum's devious plot is never realized.The film is quite enjoyable, bringing Tolkein's fantasy tale to life, but it ends rather abruptly with empty promises of more adventure to come.

SnoopyStyle It's J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings books 'The Fellowship of the Rings' and 'The Two Towers'. Hobbit Frodo Baggins must guard the one most powerful ring against powerful dark forces with the help of Gandalf, Samwise and others.Ralph Bakshi directed Wizard. Using the same rotoscoping of live-action footage, it has that fascinating 70s animation style. It's actually very effective for the material especially since the needed special effects haven't been perfected yet. The style is definitely a very interesting vision and gives an adult sensibility in the animation. However there are limitations with the compressed nature of the film and it also doesn't help that this movie never got the needed sequel. It ends in an unsatisfying cliffhanger. It's a fascinating cinematic oddity but not much more.