Have one to sell? Sell yours here
The Lord of the Rings (animated version) [VHS]
 
See larger image
 

The Lord of the Rings (animated version) [VHS]

Christopher Guard , William Squire , Ralph Bakshi    Parental Guidance   VHS Tape
3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (81 customer reviews)

Available from these sellers.




Product details

  • Actors: Christopher Guard, William Squire, Michael Scholes, John Hurt, Simon Chandler
  • Directors: Ralph Bakshi
  • Writers: Chris Conkling, J.R.R. Tolkien, Peter S. Beagle
  • Producers: Saul Zaentz
  • Language English
  • Classification: PG
  • Studio: Warner
  • VHS Release Date: 26 Nov 2001
  • Run Time: 132 minutes
  • Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (81 customer reviews)
  • ASIN: B00005NMXF
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 4,153 in Video (See Top 100 in Video)

Product Description

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 film'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

Suggested Tags from Similar Products

 (What's this?)
Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product)
 

Your tags: Add your first tag
 


Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews
52 of 60 people found the following review helpful
By A Customer
Format:DVD
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.

Comment | 
Was this review helpful to you?
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
proud to be different 21 July 2008
Format:DVD
some weeks ago i came across the gem for under £2 in a second hand shop, and was both horrified at how such a classic story could be priced so low, and also intrigued at how a much earlier, british director would handle the saga.
firstly, it should be made known that this premake/original is missing the final chapters of "the return of the king", which if you have seen the new movies, matters little anyway.
secondly, for the hardcore readers who expect a word-to-word adaptation, you won't find this either. rather, what i would interpret this film as is this: a fairytale, almost disney-esque telling of quite a violent and adult live-action follow up. rather than except peter jackson's empirical trilogy, that is to say, "the one and only movie adaptation", it is nice to see an alternative, visually inventive and overall more optimistic telling of a milestone in the fantasy genre.
this film does more for adults therefore than the very young, acting as a reminder of the innocence and imagination of yesteryear.
Was this review helpful to you?
12 of 15 people found the following review helpful
Format:DVD
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.

Comment | 
Was this review helpful to you?
Most Recent Customer Reviews
A DECENT BUT FLAWED ATTEMPT AT (HALF) THE FAMOUS FANTASY TRILOGY!
Years before PETER JACKSON launched his brilliant LORD OF THE RINGS Trilogy of films, a big screen adaptation had been attempted by RALPH BAKSHI. Read more
Published 3 months ago by Napoleon
An incomplete classic
The only flaw with Ralph Bakshi's beautiful, scary and atompsheric animated version of Tolkein's classic is that it is not the whole story. Read more
Published 3 months ago by Eric Ian Steele
A good version
Sometimes art can be "dated": you can perceive it is not new but that does not matter. And this is the case. Good conversion of the original of the 1978. Read more
Published 5 months ago by Balthy
Interesting...
I am (far) too young to have seen this film on release. I had heard of it only in passing as it was referenced in regards to when I tried to read the books (which I must confess I... Read more
Published 6 months ago by Lee Boyes
. A must have for any Tolkien fan
This version of The Lord Of the Rings was always meant to be made in two parts. Unfortunately the second part was never made. Read more
Published 6 months ago by Reckshaw
This is my childhood
It suddenly occurred to me the other night that I should get this on DVD. So I did. I had this film on tape all through my childhood recorded off TV. I loved it. Read more
Published 7 months ago by Jax Dakota Cash
Better Than I Remember But Still Pretty Bad
I have very dull memories of this film from when I was a kid. I feel that the only way I can explain my opinion is a brief history of my connection to the books. Read more
Published 7 months ago by Stuart McCunn
Mostly excellent but a shame
This much maligned version of Tolkien's classic story is actually very good. On the positive side it is appropriately dark, it is well voiced, the genuine animation is excellent... Read more
Published 9 months ago by Shrewlord
good
this is one of the first versions of the lord of the rings by mr bakshi i thought it was quite good it starts of as a cartoon and then it starts getting animated when it gets to... Read more
Published 13 months ago by dc
Flawed but fab
This was the first version of LOTR that I saw and it is still my favourite. Many scenes in this cartoon are similar to those in Peter Jackson's epic. Read more
Published 22 months ago by Mal Page
Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

Customer Discussions

This product's forum
Discussion Replies Latest Post
No discussions yet

Ask questions, Share opinions, Gain insight
Start a new discussion
Topic:
First post:
Prompts for sign-in
 


Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
Search all Amazon discussions
   
Related forums


Listmania!


Look for similar items by category


Look for similar items by subject








i.e., each product must be in subject 1 AND subject 2 AND ...

Feedback