I saw this in the theater as a kid, and lemme tell you, it was mind blowing. Maybe by today's standards it's not quite as special, but back then, no one was doing big screen animation except Disney, and Bakshi pushed the envelope as far as it could go. I do think WIZARDS and AMERICAN POP are far superior to LOTR, but still....it's a really interesting film. HEAVY METAL and WATERSHIP DOWN were other movies that went where Disney wouldn't, and I saw those too.
In 2002 after i saw Fellowship of the Ring on New Years Day. The next day we drove home and that night when we got back home. We were like lets go rent a Video at the Store and then i found this Lord of the Rings. Before both i never know about Tolkien and Middle Earth. Even when Bastian said to the book keeper he did read Lord of the Rings. I thought it's just in Neverending Story. How wrong i was for almost 15 years. 😅 Since i found out it's real it has been my favorite book and films of alltime. I listen to the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings Andiy Serkis books like every week. Just can't get enough of middle earth.
There's a lot that's wonderful in this adaptation. There are some things that are amazing- Peter Woodthorpe's incredible Gollum is a stand-out, and the downright amazingly creepy design- rotoscoping, music, sound design and all other aspects that go into the film's terrifyingly creepy Ringwraiths. There are some negative aspects- the film's realisation of Sam is mocked by many, and it's quite easy to understand why, especially since, ending where it does, he never really gets to shift out of his 'comic relief Hobbit' mode, and Boromir is a very strange misfire on the character design front, somehow, which paired with a vocal performance from Michael Graham Cox which is perfectly adequate, but not at all standout, makes what should be a compelling character oddly forgettable. It would have been interesting to see, if this film had reached Gondor, whether the rest of the people of Minas Tirith shared an 'animal skins and Viking' aesthetic, which is I suppose not incompatible with Aragorn's equally strange native American look, for all neither mesh very well with the design style of the cultures of Bree and Rohan.
I didn't see this when it came out, but a few years later when it showed up on the early version of HBO. I'd seen the Rankin/Bass versions of The Hobbit and The Return of the King, and had read both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, so I knew what was what. Considering how seldom fantasy novels were turned into films, and that the novels that were turned into films were not epic fantasy (think Alice In Wonderland and The Wizard of Oz, whimsical fantasies), Bakshi's version was better than nothing at all. The orcs were terrifying, and John Hurt's voice acting as Aragorn was superb. Even at the age of 12 I could see the flaws in the film. The rotoscoping could be a positive and negative at times. I too was disappointed in the balrog, but I'd seen both better and worse versions in art--see the Hildebrandt Brothers version for a particularly disappointing take from two talented painters. The inconsistency with Saruman's name pronunciation, Sam's absurd characterization, Gollum's surprisingly well-done characterization, and the odd but welcome focus and detail on Merry and Pippin's time with the uruks are all parts of the film that stood out for me. The best scene of the film, for me, was the black rider's search for them while they hid beneath the tree roots, a scene I'm sure Peter Jackson took inspiration from.
Awesome review man, glad you enjoy things in the Bashki adaptation personally I hate this version with a passion. The animation and Roterscoping hasn't aged well, the voice acting can be cringe at times especially for Sam and Gollum, Sam was butchered, I hate that they didn't include Arwen and Eowyn dosen't get a single line. Saruman is wasted, the Two Towers is rushed through too fast, there's no proper ending and no sequel so this film feels redundant by the end!
Well, I'll take the "animation and rotoscoping" that hasn't "aged well" (whatever THAT's supposed to mean) over those crappy computer simulations that you see in every other movie made nowadays.
This is a pretty good review I like Ralph bashki lord of the rings sure it not as good as Peter Jackson movies but it is pretty good movie i too agree it does get a bad wrap
Ralph Bakshi is certainly, at least, the bigger pioneer and innovator over frigging Peter Jackson. For example, modern things like Heavy Metal, Ren and Stimpy, South Park, and Futurama all owe Bakshi a debt. Now, do tell us, WHAT exactly has Jackson influenced? .. . zilch!
Every single fantasy film or seroes which is made now a day, takes a leaf from jackson's book. be it a GoT or a dune or ny other films in tht space. Also the vfx. There is a reason y even cameron goes to jackson for his films' vfx.
I saw this in the theater as a kid, and lemme tell you, it was mind blowing. Maybe by today's standards it's not quite as special, but back then, no one was doing big screen animation except Disney, and Bakshi pushed the envelope as far as it could go. I do think WIZARDS and AMERICAN POP are far superior to LOTR, but still....it's a really interesting film. HEAVY METAL and WATERSHIP DOWN were other movies that went where Disney wouldn't, and I saw those too.
In 2002 after i saw Fellowship of the Ring on New Years Day. The next day we drove home and that night when we got back home. We were like lets go rent a Video at the Store and then i found this Lord of the Rings. Before both i never know about Tolkien and Middle Earth. Even when Bastian said to the book keeper he did read Lord of the Rings. I thought it's just in Neverending Story. How wrong i was for almost 15 years. 😅 Since i found out it's real it has been my favorite book and films of alltime. I listen to the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings Andiy Serkis books like every week. Just can't get enough of middle earth.
There's a lot that's wonderful in this adaptation. There are some things that are amazing- Peter Woodthorpe's incredible Gollum is a stand-out, and the downright amazingly creepy design- rotoscoping, music, sound design and all other aspects that go into the film's terrifyingly creepy Ringwraiths. There are some negative aspects- the film's realisation of Sam is mocked by many, and it's quite easy to understand why, especially since, ending where it does, he never really gets to shift out of his 'comic relief Hobbit' mode, and Boromir is a very strange misfire on the character design front, somehow, which paired with a vocal performance from Michael Graham Cox which is perfectly adequate, but not at all standout, makes what should be a compelling character oddly forgettable. It would have been interesting to see, if this film had reached Gondor, whether the rest of the people of Minas Tirith shared an 'animal skins and Viking' aesthetic, which is I suppose not incompatible with Aragorn's equally strange native American look, for all neither mesh very well with the design style of the cultures of Bree and Rohan.
I didn't see this when it came out, but a few years later when it showed up on the early version of HBO. I'd seen the Rankin/Bass versions of The Hobbit and The Return of the King, and had read both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, so I knew what was what. Considering how seldom fantasy novels were turned into films, and that the novels that were turned into films were not epic fantasy (think Alice In Wonderland and The Wizard of Oz, whimsical fantasies), Bakshi's version was better than nothing at all.
The orcs were terrifying, and John Hurt's voice acting as Aragorn was superb. Even at the age of 12 I could see the flaws in the film. The rotoscoping could be a positive and negative at times. I too was disappointed in the balrog, but I'd seen both better and worse versions in art--see the Hildebrandt Brothers version for a particularly disappointing take from two talented painters. The inconsistency with Saruman's name pronunciation, Sam's absurd characterization, Gollum's surprisingly well-done characterization, and the odd but welcome focus and detail on Merry and Pippin's time with the uruks are all parts of the film that stood out for me. The best scene of the film, for me, was the black rider's search for them while they hid beneath the tree roots, a scene I'm sure Peter Jackson took inspiration from.
Awesome review man, glad you enjoy things in the Bashki adaptation personally I hate this version with a passion. The animation and Roterscoping hasn't aged well, the voice acting can be cringe at times especially for Sam and Gollum, Sam was butchered, I hate that they didn't include Arwen and Eowyn dosen't get a single line. Saruman is wasted, the Two Towers is rushed through too fast, there's no proper ending and no sequel so this film feels redundant by the end!
Well, I'll take the "animation and rotoscoping" that hasn't "aged well" (whatever THAT's supposed to mean) over those crappy computer simulations that you see in every other movie made nowadays.
@@viceversar-do1cn "hasn't aged well" is one of the most insipid forms of criticism these day.
This is a pretty good review I like Ralph bashki lord of the rings sure it not as good as Peter Jackson movies but it is pretty good movie i too agree it does get a bad wrap
Ralph Bakshi is certainly, at least, the bigger pioneer and innovator over frigging Peter Jackson. For example, modern things like Heavy Metal, Ren and Stimpy, South Park, and Futurama all owe Bakshi a debt. Now, do tell us, WHAT exactly has Jackson influenced? .. . zilch!
Don't blame Bakshi for South Park
Every single fantasy film or seroes which is made now a day, takes a leaf from jackson's book. be it a GoT or a dune or ny other films in tht space. Also the vfx. There is a reason y even cameron goes to jackson for his films' vfx.