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.

starwolf This movie is, quite simply, bad.I was aware of Ralph Bakshi's "Wizards" and I found most of it appealing although I was not a fan of the rotoscoping. But the actual artwork I liked a lot.Then I was at the 1977 Houston Comicbook Convention and Art Festival and some woman from United Artists hosted a talk where she showed artwork and stills from the upcoming movie.I was pretty excited. I loved The Lord of the Rings, and had a habit back then of rereading it every year starting in April.The movie showed up and it was terrible. Yes it took ridiculous liberties with the story but the biggest issue in my mind was the endless rotoscoping. Sometimes you would see the same scene over and over, rotoscoped into different shades of color.I get it - rotoscoping is cheap compared to actual full animation, especially when you are just using clips from other movies and shows. And sadly that is what it made this movie look - cheap.I still remember when the movie ended some guy a couple of rows up from me said, "What the hell was that?" And I heard several variations on the theme, "That was it?"In short, not enough artwork and too much reliance on cheap rotoscoping, too much reworking of a story too well known (if you think you can write a better story, write it! Don't steal someone else's), and just an abrupt end to the movie.People can say now it was great but it was not well received as evidenced by the fact that Bakshi studios never made the second part.

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.

WakenPayne Everyone knows of the cultural phenomenon that is Lord Of The Rings through either the book or the trilogy of films done by Peter Jackson. So I found this adaptation which not many people know about and in my opinion this movie does have enough to worth people coming back to it despite it only being a half done adaptation.So in case you don't know the story. Frodo is a hobbit who comes across a ring of great power that is made for a man of great evil and turns almost anyone who comes across it into insane addicts. Frodo somehow can resist the ring and a wise wizard named Gandalf decides for him and his friends to go the the Elven council to decide to throw the ring into the fire and must face the terrors that Middle-Earth has between Frodo's home and the Mountain.I may compare this movie to the Jackson films but if you've seen Fellowship Of The Ring and The Two Towers, the comparisons are inevitable. I think a big problem this movie had is that it becomes a little bit too reliant on exposition. It isn't as bad as "every line we say will contain a form of exposition" but some things are told instead of shown and sometimes both at the same time which in my opinion we do not need to be told.If there is one other complaint and yes, I may be seen as nitpicking when I say this too is the animation style... I know, This isn't Disney but seeing The Orcs and the Ring Wraiths side by side I could barely tell the difference between them, the Hobbits all look similar and the knights at Helms Deep... Was there a method of cloning in Middle Earth? Seriously every soldier looks the same. Again, it seems like nitpicking but it just takes away from the story. Oh and BTW, just as a side-note the Balrog in this movie is awful.In terms of what I liked, well a complaint I raised with Fellowship is that Frodo was less of a Luke Skywalker-style protagonist and more of a damsel in distress. Here, that is gone. I mean he gets stabbed and he does go to Rivendale but he fights back even after getting stabbed and he wasn't taken away by Arwen (who isn't in this movie). It just seems like he's the better person to follow then the one in the first movie. And before the fans of the Jackson movies have a heart attack, he did get better across the other 2 movies.The atmosphere and action of this movie is nailed right on the head. The scene where the Orcs are marching towards Helms Deep is probably one of the most atmospheric scenes I have seen in a fantasy movie. With the action, it feels a little more realistic - like when you see someone is stabbed you feel the impact of them getting stabbed. Although the action does have it's weak points like in the battle of Helms Deep the soldiers don't take cover when the Orcs are firing arrows at them. With that said if you're a fan of atmospheric movies then this does have some good scenes in it which alone make this worth checking out.Oh and this might be me nitpicking but I'm going to say it anyway. The voice acting, except maybe John Hurt and a few others just doesn't feel right. Maybe because with the Jackson movies Ian McKellen, Andy Serkis and a few others nail their performances hearing Gollum, Gandalf, Saruman and some of the others sound like how they do in the movie just feels wrong. Don't get me wrong they do throw in solid performances but you just can't compare with the performances that got the characters seemingly perfect for the roles (I say seemingly because I never read Lord Of The Rings). Oh and by the way, Samwise is probably the most useless, annoying side-character (in this movie) since Jar-Jar.So I think that while the Jackson movies are inevitably better this does have some things well worth checking out. I've heard that it's either loved or hated by fans and considering these side-by side there is a lot to suggest either opinion. Me personally, I'm somewhere in-between. There are things to complain about but when this movie gets it right, it really gets it right.