The Lord of the Rings

The Lord of the Rings

74% Liked It
liked it

The Lord of the Rings

Christopher Guard, Michael Scholes, John Hurt, William Squire, Simon Chandler

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 ow...( read more  read more... )n. 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

Id: 2254538

Do you want to see this movie?

My Friends Said...


Recent Reviews


  • September 29, 2009
    I really liked it as a kid! What was the name of that little furry animal and who was it supposed to be again?
  • July 18, 2009
    Now this is much better than the live action movies. Its done with rotoscope and looks great. Very dark, brooding and alittle eerie, especially the orges and the landscapes. It really looks sooo good, the animation is also good for the time and hurt offers that classic touch. Thi...( read more)s is how the Lord of the Rings should have been.
  • February 3, 2008
    Pending Review...

    Photobucket
  • October 28, 2007
    Under studio pressure this was to become part one of a two-part piece (Bakshi wanting to provide three films). This is not a total loss. But then again, its hardly a classic. Some of the use of the Rotoscoping works fine... The nazgul are suitably creepy, and I liked the orcs wel...( read more)l enough, but the principle characters seem to be in a constant slur of motion and the film falls apart under its scale. The story, while at times staying more faithfully to the novel than Jackson, is simply too compressed, and it has all the evidence of inadequate funding and excessive studio interference (the incompleted rotoscoping, the use of the word "Aruman", rather than "Saruman", the shrinking to two films, the lack of any indication it was merely the first part... it goes on...).

    I wonder if the original film structure was used by Jackson as a basis for his films (he says he originally approached New Line with a 2-part conception)? I don't know, and its not important. However, Saul Zaenz produced both films, and Jackson seems to make references to the earlier film in his version.

    I tried to watch this film again recently - but despite some affection I have for it I couldn't make it through the whole film, and when it comes down to the nitty-gritty it has to be said, it isn't great.
  • August 13, 2007
    Not a good movie.
  • January 6, 2010
    Keren Bangetzzzzzzzzzzz
    rugi lo; ga' liat
  • January 1, 2010
    all they did was walk
  • December 28, 2009
    A good beginning to the trilogy. Keeps up with the book.
  • December 27, 2009
    Of course, all of these movies deserve a 5...
  • December 18, 2009
    I remember it a bit, I think I need to watch it agaiin just to remember and than rate it correctly~

Opening This Week

Top Box Office

Upcoming Movies

New on DVD