The Lord of the Rings (1978)

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 Amazon.com

just ok

i saw this for the first time today. being a fan of the live action trilogy and the animated Hobbit movie i figured i would enjoy this movie... and to an extent i did but i think my main gripe was how all the characters seemed to move very un natural. it seemed like everybody kept swaying back and forth and ran/walked awkward. it was a tad distracting. at first i thought the rotoscope animation was cool but towards the end they started to over use it and it got annoying and inconsistant. i realize this cartoon is 30 years old so i'll cut it some slack. another thing that bothered me was how confusing some scenes were. had i not read the books and seen the live action movies i would be very confused on certain scenes that tended to be very quiet and dragged out (frodo in la la land when the black riders are trying to get him as well as the scene where the riders of rohan rescue merry and pippin.. why were bother sides just staring at eachother?). in the end.. it was nice to watch but i the abrupt ending and no proper sequel were enough to make me give it 3 out of 5 stars. May 11, 2008

Fantasy Fantastic

I read the books in the early 70's and passed them on to friends. I still have a set in the house and recently bought all the movies. The movies are not quite up to the books but the last ones are close. I throughly enjoyed them. January 8, 2008

Two stars for the first Tolkien attempt

I remember when this first came out. I was a kid.

As a kid, who had never read Tolkien, I found it somewhat entertaining and it left off at a cliffhanger. It was not until I was older when I realized two things 1)no one had ever done Tolkien before (other than Rankin Bass) and 2)no second part would ever be made.

Upon its own merit, it's not terrible. Bakshi who enjoys using rotoscope technology and reused stock animation did an okay, yet annoying job. The one thing that really takes away from the film (and once again, realized when I got older and read the trilogy) was the character of Samwise Gamgee. As this character was drawn as a pathetic comic relief character instead of the very brave stout honest character that he turns out to be I am more angered by this portrayal than anything else.

Peter Jackson was right to cast Sean Astin in this part where he's entirely believable and stalwart throught the entire trilogy. I have a hard time picturing Bakshi's Samwise as the same individual that would not only kill Shelob but to also carry Frodo up Mount Doom.

Given that Bakshi was the first to attempt this story and the only person before Peter Jackson to tell the story of the Fellowship of the Ring as well as some of The Two Towers, he gets an extra star for his effort. December 4, 2007

Wonderful movie

This was a wonderful movie from so long ago, I had it on VHS and now I have it on DVD. Thanks for sending it to me so quickly, and the case was in perfect condition. October 29, 2007

Not definitive, but has some good points

I saw this way back in about 1981 or something. In fact I saw it even before I read the books. I remember thinking it, in an uncritical 11 year olds view, as a pretty good movie.

I saw this again recently, and although I now see that it has some major flaws, I don't outright dismiss it as terrible.

Bad things first.

1)Okay, even in 1981 I thought it odd that the film skipped massive parts of the later parts of the trilogy. If you're wanting to see the whole trilogy set to animation you won't find it here.
2) Some of the characters just don't seem right. I personally find the hobbits okay, contrary to some opinions, but Boromir and, especially, Aragorn, just aren't right. Boromir is meant to be a bold warrior, but he looks like a Viking sterotype here. Aragorn...well to put it simply, Aragorn looks like a Native American. Speaking with a clipped English accent. The effect is jarring in the extreme.
3) The characters don't stand still for an moment. Although I suppose the intention was to keep the audiences attention visually by constant movement it ends up by simply being annoying and distracting. The animation too is often poor, with simply not enough frames, or the characters making wild gestures and pulling strange faces. I personally liked the rotoscope effects, and they made the orcs especially look more sinister.


Good points,

1) I think the artist and voice actor really hit the nail on the head with Gandalf. His "amiable but gruff" demeanor is almost exactly the way I perceive him in the books. I personally think this Gandalf is closer to Tolkien than the Jackson films.
2) The intro, with sillouettes of live actors against a blood red background is surprisingly effective. It gives an epic and sinisiter feel to the history of the ring,
3) Soundtrack is good.
4) Although the animation wasn't great, I liked the painted backdrops.

Overall it's far from a definitive adaptation of the famous books, but it has some charm on it's own merit. September 12, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...