Diagonaldi Very well executed

Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

JohnHowardReid I enjoyed Ralph Bakshi's "The Lord of the Rings" (1978) more than Peter Jackson's somewhat faulty 2001 version. Both films are so faithful in their own way to Tolkien's vision that one could go through them both, vigorously comparing actor with actor, and scene for scene. However, all in all, I thought the Ralph Bakshi product, thanks to his storyboard, actors and artists, more than held their own against Jackson's over-hyped re-make. Both films are available in really excellent10/10 DVD versions, the Ralph Bakshi delight from Warner Brothers, the somewhat less entertaining Peter Jackson effort from New Line.

davibush Jacksons LOTR is very similar to this animated effort. It begins with a well paced narrative , explaining the story and the animation is quite good, but not Disney quality. When the first Horseman arrives it really is creepy and frightening, and the Prancing Pony sequence is also chilling. Sadly , as the film moves on , the quality of the animation drops and towards the end, the director is racing through the story and the animation almost completely disappears. Obviously the makers had good intentions but bit off more than he could chew...or draw, and probably ran out of money. I believe Jackson did see this film in his youth and was determined to do the story justice, which he did beyond the call of duty. Worth watching , but will leave the viewer disappointed . Gollum as usual, stole the show!

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.

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.