The Lord of the Rings (Widescreen)

 

 

Create your own review

I guess that I'm a little different than most people, because to me, this was the best animated movie of all times! Unlike most others, the rotoscoping animation made the movie even better. The music was superb, much better than the recent trilogy. I found this animated version a thousand times better than Peter Jackson's. It was much more magical. The Orc's were more mystical than Jackson's hideous sci-fi Orcs. The ring wraith were more dark and interesting than the recent version also. I have seen this movie at least 50 - 60 times, and it just gets better. I only wish that they had finished the movie to include book three. As much as I like Peter Jackson's newer version, it will never be as good as this one!

First of all the good news, the cover says that this movie is presented in a standard format, formated to fit your screen, but it is in fact in a widescreen format (but, since I don't have a widescreen TV, I can't tell you whether it is anamorphic or not). Why the back cover says otherwise is a mystery to me (as the original release of this on DVD stated that it was presented in widescreen).

As for the picture quality, it looks quite good, with only the odd bit of film related dust specks/print damage, to the point that it's almost non-existent. Colours are nice and bold, and detail is very good (I'd hazard to guess that this DVD probably looks better then it did in the cinema back in 1978).

As for the extras, you get a 30 minute bio piece on Ralph Bakshi that actually feels like a cliff notes version of a much larger documentary (but it does have it's merits) and nothing else, not even the trailer for the film (which the original DVD had along with some text info) so if you're a completist like myself then you'll want to keep the original DVD as well.

As for the film itself, for all of it's short comings, it still holds up as being a very regal attempt at putting the books to film, with very little budget and no real support from the studio (to the point that the film just abruptly ends about halfway into the second book with no fanfare, due to the money running out and the studio not paying to have the film completed).

Personally, I applaud Bakshi for his efforts (because think about it, no one attempted to bring this story to film before him, and it took over 20 years and hundreds of millions of dollars for some to try to film it after him) and think the film is very good for what it is.

I bought this film on a semi-impulse, and it is one of my worst buys, ever.
Other than the lousy animation, there are a LOT more problems with this film:
1) The music: Well, it isn't that bad, though it is a bit, um, noisy at the beginning, really 70's music(not Rosenman's fault, afterall this film was made in the 70's), and kinda Batman-ish.
2) Ok, so, basically, Isildur snuck up behind Sauron, then slashed off His ring finger. How heroic!
3) Then, there's this scene of the Shire, '19 years passed sleepily in the Shire'... and we get a nice wide view of the Shire: Winter dissolves into Spring, then to Summer, then Autumn... Typically cartoon-ish, but that's fine. Then, just as I'm starting to get into the mood, they flash heaven knows how many seasons in less than 2 seconds. ...
4) Gandalf the Grey: In Bag End, he recited the Ring inscription. According to the book, he never did so, as the inscription was of the language of Mordor. That's fine, but what really irritates me are his actions and the way he pronounces 'Sauron'. Tolkien has stated quite, quite clearly in the Appendixes that it is pronounced something like 'Sour-ron', NOT 'Sore-ron'. Evidently, they have not made any effort to research. And his actions! As he recites the inscription, he gesticulates as if he was praying to some demented god, and as he translates it to 'and in the darkness, bind them', he wraps himself up in his arms. What the??!?
5) And why on earth would Frodo and Gandalf chit chat about the Ring outside Bag End?? Didn't Gandalf say that the spies of the Enemy are many??
6) Saruman or Airuman? Sometimes he's Saruman, sometimes he's Airuman. Perhaps the filmmakers are afriad me might confuse Saruman with Sauron, but they might as well be consistent about that.
7) Saruman's Voice. Why, oh why does Saruman sound like a toad croaking? What happened to his melodious and persuasive voice?
8) Saruman the Red??!? Saruman's colour should be WHITE. Even when he called himself Saruman of many colours, his robes were multi-coloured, but never plain Red.
9) The First Nazgul scene: Why do Nazgul limp and groan?
10) At the Inn of the Prancing Pony: Basically, its all a bunch of lousy animation
11) Nazgul attacks! When the Nine realised that they had attacked a bunch of pillows, limped to the centre of the room, lifted their arms and shrieked. To whom are they praying to?
12) OK, so Legolas lives in Rivendell, hm? Actually, when he first appeared, I almost went blind, he's so damn bright!
13) During the Council of Elrond, Aragorn announces that he is the descendent of Elendil and he has the Sword that was Broken. However, the movie NEVER mentioned who on earth was Elendil, and why the Sword was Broken, and what¡s its significance.
14) Elrond says: ¡¥We cannot hide it, we cannot destroy it¡ then he goes on ¡¥we must send it to the fires where it was made, to Mount Doom¡. But he never mentioned why that was necessary. Then Boromir said: Why do you speak of hiding and destroying? The filmmakers seemed to have assumed that whoever watched the movie had read the books.
15) In Bree, Aragorn had a broken sword. Outside the Gates of Moria, and after that, his sword isn¡t broken anymore. Now, readers of the original fiction will know why, again, the filmmakers assumed everyone has read the books.
16) Balrogs have no wings!!! If that big, silly looking Balrog has wings, why didn¡t he fly outta the chasm when Gandalf broke the bridge?
17) Now, I¡m really certain that the filmmakers never researched into the pronounciation of names at all. Its ¡¥Keleborn¡, not ¡¥Sell-a-born¡.
18) And Galadriel and Celeborn are way too, too blindingly bright. Hm¡K physical property of elves??
19) So, there are no smiths in Lothlorien, hm? Why on earth was Boromir whetting his sword on a rock? It would make sense if he¡s out in the wilderness, but he was in Lothlorien, for heaven¡s sake! I can bet my head that the Elven smiths will do a better job than he.
20) Nenya¡s a magical glitter spouting ring! So, if anything¡s magical, it must be bright and glittery. Same goes with Gandalf¡s imprisonment at Orthanc, a wonderful laser light show.
21) The way Orcs talk: *mumble mumble mumble growl snarl snarl mumble garble garble* I can¡t understand an eighth what they are talking about, for Iluvatar¡s sake! The only word I could catch was ¡¥Grishnakh!¡
22) Continuity(again): At first, Merry and Pippin were kidnapped by a small bunch of Orcs, all in stone age furs. Then, in the battle with the Rohirrim, they multiply by the hundreds, and are dressed in cumbersome robes.
22) The battle between Eomer¡s troops and the Orcs with Merry and Pippin: stand in two nice, huge lines. A Rohirrim rides out, taunts the Orcs, and shoots one. Orcs cheer him on. Another rides out, got killed and the rest of the Rohirrim goes berserk and attacks! And do the creatures of Middle Earth breathe carbon monoxide? The blood of the dead creatures are a mysterious cherry pink in colour.
23) Why does Treebeard spit leaves whenever he talks?
24) Basically, all the horn calls of middle earth are the same(D A¡).
25) The blasting fires from Isengard comes in the form of fireworks, which came from miles away and hit dead on target in Helm¡s Deep.
26) In the final, desperate charge, the Riders slash and hack their way through the Orcs, then realize that they were being surrounded by millions of them. They were obviously losing, but the music was a triumphant march. Then, Theoden smiles, then look worried again. Then Gandalf and a bunch of Rohirrim arrived! The movie ends in gruesome, slow motion Orc-slaying with plenty of cherry pink blood spewed at the camera.

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See all 243 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

 

3.0 out of 5 stars Historical Interest for the LOTR fan
An interesting revisit to my childhood after seeing the Peter Jackson LOTR movies. Of course this cartoon pales in comparison to the movies but it is interesting to compare the... Read more

Published 2 months ago by J. Beeds

5.0 out of 5 stars Lord of the Rings
Excellent.
High quality production.
The original written work can't, of course, be matched.

Published 20 months ago by George Dohn

4.0 out of 5 stars Not finished but worth using as an example.
Although Ralph Bakshi did not finish this movie and had to leave out portions on the way, this movie could be used to help inspire futer productions. Read more

Published on Sep 14 2009 by Daniel R. Lally

5.0 out of 5 stars I love it
this is a classic. I love this movie. I dont know why everyone has to bash it and compare it to Peter Jackson's epic. I love the music. I like the cartoon work. Read more

Published on Sep 28 2006 by Kevin S. Haber

3.0 out of 5 stars Good Story, Bad Art
This movie would've been fabulous, but the art and animation were terrible. Combinig rotoscope with cel animation was a bad descision: The Nazgul, orcs, and Balrog looked very out... Read more

Published on Jun 25 2004

1.0 out of 5 stars Sloppy, awkward and without depth or detail
Even without the comparisons to the extraordinary Peter Jackson-directed epics this 1978 animated adaptation of Tolkien's LOTR book trilogy falls completely flat on it's face... Read more

Published on Jun 23 2004 by Distant Voyageur

4.0 out of 5 stars Worth a Second Look
OK let's start by saying that this is NO comparison to the fantastic recent trilogy of movies by Peter Jackson, and it is animated (I'll come back to that) but it is still a good... Read more

Published on Jun 2 2004 by A.M.Boughey

1.0 out of 5 stars A bad idea and not just because of the rotoscoping
Without making obvious comparisons to Peter Jackson's work, this version of Lord of the Rings plays like a cheap Errol Flynn fantasy movie. Read more

Published on May 26 2004 by J. Ruth

2.0 out of 5 stars Dreadful in Comparison
I saw this back in 1978 and thought it was disappointing mixture. Now I know why I haven't seen it in years. It is now sad to watch. Read more

Published on May 26 2004

3.0 out of 5 stars AVERAGE AT BEST!
Ralph Bakshi's "The Lord of the Rings" offers a mixed bag of treats for Tolkien fans. While the voice talents and music are well done, some of the animation, including... Read more

Published on May 24 2004 by Steven Hancock

Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

› See all 243 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

Search Listmania!