Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #7359 in DVD
• Released on: 2001-11-26
• Rating: Parental Guidance
• Aspect ratio: 1.85:1
• Number of discs: 1
• Formats: Dubbed, PAL, Widescreen
• Original language: English
• Subtitled in: Arabic, Bulgarian, Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Spanish
• Dubbed in: French, Italian
• Number of discs: 1
• Running time: 127 minutes

Amazon.co.uk Review
Ralph Bakshi's 1978 animated adaptation of The Lord of the Rings is a bold, colourful, ambitious failure. Severely truncated, this two-hour version tackles only about half the story, climaxing with the battle of Helm's Deep and leaving poor Frodo and Sam still stuck on the borders of Mordor with Gollum. Allegedly, the director ran out of money and was unable to complete the project. As far as the film does go, however, it is a generally successful attempt at rendering Tolkien's landscapes of the imagination. Bakshi's animation uses a blend of conventional drawing and rotoscoped (traced) animated movements from live-action footage. The latter is at least in part a money-saving device, but it does succeed in lending some depth and a sense of otherworldly menace to the Black Riders and hordes of Orcs: Frodo's encounter at the ford of Rivendell, for example, is one of the movie's best scenes thanks to this mixture of animation techniques. Backdrops are detailed and well-conceived, and all the main characters are strongly drawn. Among a good cast, John Hurt (Aragorn) and C3PO himself, Anthony Daniels (Legolas), provide sterling voice characterisation, while Peter Woodthorpe gives what is surely the definitive Gollum (he revived his portrayal a couple of years later for BBC Radio's exhaustive 13-hour dramatisation). The film's other outstanding virtue is avant-garde composer Leonard Rosenman's magnificent score in which chaotic musical fragments gradually coalesce to produce the triumphant march theme that closes the picture. None of which makes up for the incompleteness of the movie, nor the severe abridging of the story actually filmed. Add to that some oddities--such as intermittently referring to Saruman as "Aruman"--and the final verdict must be that this is a brave yet ultimately unsatisfying work, noteworthy as the first attempt at transferring Tolkien to the big screen but one whose virtues are overshadowed by incompleteness. --Mark Walker

Special Features
1.85 Wide Screen
DVD 9
French\Italian
English\Italian
English
Region 2
Dolby Digital 2.0 Surround English\Mono French Italian
Dolby Digital 2.0 Surround
Mono
Interactive Menus
Scene Access
Arabic\Bulgarian\Dutch\English\French\German\Italian\Portuguese\Romanian\Spanish

Synopsis
Ralph Bakshi's animated adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's revered Middle-earth saga captures the dark mood of the books extraordinarily well. The film covers the first half of the trilogy--THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING and the earlier part of THE TWO TOWERS--as Frodo (voiced by Christopher Guard), the cousin of Bilbo Baggins from THE HOBBIT, is given the all-powerful ring sought by the evil Sauron of Mordor. So begins his adventure, as he must elude Mordor's black riders in an effort to prevent the ring from returning to its owner and thereby signaling the end of Middle-earth. Even with the mighty wizard Gandalf as his ally and faithful friends Merry, Sam, and Pippin by his side, Frodo is still up to his hobbit neck in peril.
Bakshi took a big risk when deciding to direct the beloved Tolkien tale, but the resulting work effectively brings Middle-earth to the screen. Bakshi combines painted live-action footage with various styles of animation to create a very unusual collage-style texture for this film. Viewers should be warned that the story ends rather abruptly, leaving room for a sequel that was, unfortunately, never filmed. Still, for fans of fantasy, this moody, atmospheric version of the novels captures the shadowy hues of Tolkien's work in a way that is unique and worth discovering.

Customer Reviews

A classic of it's time - visually inspiring.
I remember going to see this when it was first released in the cinema. I was very disappointed at the abrupt ending and from the first appearance of Treebeard onwards the film seemed very rushed. Years later it is all explained as Ralph Bakshi began to run out of money and did his best to complete the movie at a climatic point - the battle at Helms Deep. The third criticism I have was of the representation of Treebeard himself, while a very difficult character to visualise - I think Bakshi could have done much better.

That aside, the first three quarters of the film, the script and especially the visuals and tone of the film capture middle earth in a way that I believe, to those that have seen this film, remains with you. I do not think it appropriate or fair to compare the animated version with the upcoming movies, that was then - this is now as the saying goes, technology of the 21st Century is making the new trilogy possible.

I am as excited as everyone else about the new movies, but I certainly will not use it as a vehicle to rubbish anything that came before it. The BBC Radio adaptation is also excellent and has its place and so does Bakshi's Lord of the Rings, as indeed will Peter Jackson's trilogy.

Buy the Ralph Bakshi version, you'll enjoy it. I bet you will even see some (now famous) images that actually first appeared here and have been borrowed by various artists and Peter Jackson. One example is the Hobbits hiding, from a Ring Wraith, under a tree on the way to Bree, take a look at this and then the Peter Jackson scene of this you will see that - well take a look for yourself.

Bear in mind it was this film that first got Peter Jackson interested in Tolkien's LOTR. What also comes out of this film is not just Bakshi's vision of Middle Earth, but the research and thoughts that came from his personal discussions with Tolkien's family.

I wish the new films the best of luck and will be there to watch them, but I also thank Ralph Bakshi for giving me a visual feast that I will continue to revisit.

The precursor for a vision?
I've read with great interest the thoughts of people who obviously are 'modern' Tolkien fanatics (late comers to the party). Whether you know the stories inside out or just like the premise of good versus evil, LOTR is a fantastic story that has homage paid to it through many major media milestones. There has been an awesome radio play that saw the modern Bilbo's actor, Ian Holm, playing the part of Frodo; there has been the inspiring and world dominating LOTR trilogy courtesy of Peter Jackson; and then there's the 70s Ralph Bakshi animated feature (cartoon is too simple a phrase to link to this film).

Bakshi obviously laboured hard to produce this movie and although it is not the polished film that Jackson has made, it was and still is a rough diamond that those who can appreciate good film making will find inspiring, interesting and altogether captivating.

I first saw this film when I was about six years old and ever since, this is the vision of Tolkien that I love the most. Seeing The Fellowship of the Ring in December 2001 brought back memories of it, as PJ obviously took elements from the Bakshi version to help him tell his story. Okay, the special effects are fantastic in the modern film – but is this all we want? Take films like Dracula; we've had modern versions made that have paled in comparison to earlier works because they have been too reliant on modern technology. PJ's version isn't a flawed film, it's just I always remember the RB version.

The characters I feel are far better 'brought to life' in the 1978 animated film: Aragorn in the PJ film is insipid, almost American in his attitude with his 'let's hunt some Orc' spiel that although rendering the new generation of action oriented film lovers dumb struck, left me thinking how much effect the US studio behind the film has really had on PJ? John Hurt's attempt, although lacking the presence of the modern actor in his time on screen, adds tension and desperation to the part that is essentially as a bodyguard who must live for nothing more than protecting the ring and its bearer.

Legolas is a rubbish character from any point of view simply because he lends no 'real' strength to the story. In the real life film he's there as a pretty boy, and in the animated version he is there as a helping hand, an extra of sorts who kills a few people and generally lends a hand talking gibberish (er… elvish I mean).

Gimli is a worthy character because he adds diversity to the story and a prologue to what the Dwarves are capable of (Moria), which in PJ's version is one of the true highlights of the film. In the RB version he's there's because he has to be there as he looks the most removed from a humanoid stature (the hobbits just look like scaled-down men after all) and he makes you remember you are watching a fantasy story.

Gandalf is class in both films; it's that easy to sort. But, I might add, he has presence in both films, just at different stages (in Moria and outside Minas Tirith in PJ's version; as a link to things past and present in the RB film).

The ring and it's master, Sauron, are definitely superior in most ways in the modern films because, although it goes against the rule of hinting at what is there instead of actually showing it in films, you see the evil and the menace that is at the heart of the story.

One part of the modern versions that I found boring and un-needed was Arwen and her association with Aragorn. Yes they are lovers; yes they signify the divide that is among men and elves and how lives can be lost emotionally through the reign of Sauron, but so much screen time on what is essentially nothing directly linked to the fellowship's journey was just an excuse for the cinemas to sell more popcorn and cola! You don't get any of this with Bakshi.

The Ring Wraiths – such magnificent characters that are key to the story. Because Sauron is not physically prominent in the film (apart form the eye in the PJ version) they are really Sauron personified and his evil motives. Ralph Bakshi did a magnificent job of animating live action footage and the scene in The Prancing Pony is chilling and terrifying, unlike its modern counterpart, which is simply formulaic.
My only defence for the Nazgul in PJ's film is in the return Of The King when Eowyn faces The Witch King – that moment when he rises from behind the decapitated Fell Beast is one of the truly electrifying moments of cinema. Well done to the Kiwi on that score.

There are so many other things I could wrangle over; Saruman and his need for power; the difference between Grima Wormtongue in the two films; but it’s one character that makes the RB version stand head and shoulders above the modern films – Gollum.
Gollum in the RB film is fantastic. He’s not got the split personality that makes the modern digital Gollum interesting, he a wild animal who shrieks and spit, claws and wails at everything that he despises – including the hobbits how carry his ‘precious’! When same Sam asks him whether he’s sneaking, he replies, “Sneakin’, Sneakin’!!!” in the shrillest, most hate-filled voice imaginable – none of this is apparent in the modern film.

The issue of the RB film not being completed makes me feel sad and elated: sad because I’ll never see the vision of what the Black Gate, Mount Doom and Minas Tirith in battle would look like, but it leaves me hoping that Frodo and Sam will make it. This story is about inspiration and provoking thought. Bakshi did this. Jackson has done it. But Bakshi’s is still the blueprint that most 20-something LOTR fans will hold dearest to.

Ralph Bakshi's flawed attempt to bring LOTR to the screen
Ralph Bakshi's "The Lord of the Rings" is one of those flawed but generally absorbing movies whose legacy seems to be that it was better than nothing, and even that point is hotly debated. I think this may well be the "Gulliver's Travels" of our generation, an animated film with a unique visual style that sets it apart from its contemporaries because of the innovative technique of rotoscoping, i.e., filming live actors and lying animation over the top. Cleary Bakshi was trying to avoid using the same visual style as he had employed for "The Hobbit," which, ironically, he returned to when he filmed "The Return of the King."

For those few people who do not know, "The Lord of the Rings" adapts the first half of J. R. R. Tolkien's epic tale of the War of the Ring. Consequently the film ends, rather suddenly, in the middle of "The Two Towers." When you remember that each volume of the trilogy consists of two "books," then Bakshi animated five-sixths of the three books in two different animation styles.

The adaptation, written by Peter S. Beagle and Chris Conkling, is an example of ruthless streamlining (then again, this one at least has an Ent). Watching this is comparable to watching the original film version of "Dune," where your love of the book fills in the errors and omissions as you go merrily along. But for the most part this film races along like the Fellowship running through the mines of Moria, so you really have to know the story to keep up. The standard joke is that this is like the Cliffs Notes version of "The Lord of the Rings," but I have to tell you, the little yellow book with the black stripes has much more details than this movie.

The rotoscope process really does not bother me all that much. It was a novel approach to the problems of telling such an epic story told in the dark days before computers made such things a piece of cake. If Bakshi had been able to experiment with it more on some other film, then he might have been able to do some more creative work on this film. On the other hand, I have just never been able to get used to Aragorn looking for all the world like a Native American and Samwise Gamgee looking (and acting) so much like a total buffoon. The movie also suffers from a rather abrupt ending, more appropriate to a serial than a 133-minute film that falsely promises "to be continued..."

In the final analysis, I find that there is really nothing to recommend this film beyond its love for the source material. I know there are those who want to toss Bakshi into the fires of Mount Doom, but he made an effort and whatever fault people want to find with his thinking in making this film, I am never going to be convinced that his heart was not in the right place. Maybe he should have stuck to the original animation approach; certainly the film would have benefited from John Huston's gravely voiced Gandalf and I always thought he did a nice job in "The Return of the King" with my favorite scene in the trilogy, when Eowyn fights the Lord of the Nazgul. Then again, just remember what animation was like way back when in the Seventies and put this effort in some historical context.

I do not hate this version of "The Lord of the Rings," mainly because I was never bitterly disappointed by it, which seems to be the key factor. I remember how we all discussed the many flaws of the film as we were walking out of the theater, but we were rather happy that at least somebody had tried. Peter Jackson has made all of this moot, but please note that took several decades before it came to pass. Maybe the charm I find in this film is entirely residue from the Trilogy itself, but I have to admit it is still there for me.