[.ca] Lord of the Rings, the

From Amazon.com:
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 own. 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

Chronique amazon.fr:
Le monde se partage en deux catégories : ceux qui ont lu Le Seigneur des anneaux et les autres. Les premiers savent et se jetteront sur la seule adaptation (mythique et inachevée car le film ne couvre qu'une partie de la trilogie) qui existe de ce monument de la littérature fantastique médiévale. Les autres, une fois plongés dans le dessin animé de Ralph Bakshi, seront intrigués par son sens du merveilleux et de l'aventure, cherchant à connaître l'origine de ce film atypique, à la technique à la fois révolutionnaire et obsolète, à la poésie naïve et épique. On croyait Le Seigneur des anneaux perdu : les droits furent vendus avec ceux d'un catalogue quelconque et ses fans désespéraient de ne jamais le revoir. La puissance d'évocation visuelle du dessin animé est telle qu'elle servit de modèle aux designers du film de Peter Jackson dont le premier épisode est prévu pour 2001. Le monde se partage en deux catégories : ceux qui ont revu Le Seigneur des anneaux et les autres... -- Ambroise Ecorcheville

Worth a Second Look:
OK let's start by saying that this is NO comparison to the fantastic recent trilogy of movies by Peter Jackson, and it is animated (I'll come back to that) but it is still a good movie. Considering the year of production for a second, director Ralph Bakshi had a vision, and the same kind of idea as Jackson, but without the backing, the money, or the technology to carry it off. The film follows the book very closely, and those having watched the new movies will see and hear identical scenes in this version, lifted straight from Tolkeins pages. The idea was to make TWO movies (but not simultaneously) which means this is a little muddled in mixing books 1&2, made with the obvious expectation of a sequel.The animation is mixed with a process called rotoscoping (traced over live action integrated into cell animation)in a surreal fashion in places which adds much in the way of atmosphere, and certainly makes the dark armies appear more menacing. This idea of animation was more than a little groundbreaking at the time, even though it was done chiefly to save money, and annoyed more than a few puritans in the business. Sadly this movie went down like a lead parachute at the box office, and with it went Bakshi's backing for the second film, and knowing this means you are expecting an anti climax of sorts. The DVD has little in the way of extra's, but the budget price certainly makes it worth owning. Repeated viewing does get you inside the directors vision, and obvious love of the material, and one could argue that had this been made 20 years later, Peter Jackson & Co may have been out of work, Enjoy this Cult and Collectible Classic at a great price.

Sloppy, awkward and without depth or detail:
Even without the comparisons to the extraordinary Peter Jackson-directed epics this 1978 animated adaptation of Tolkien's LOTR book trilogy falls completely flat on it's face. The animation is absolutely ridiculous even when taking into account that it was made in 1978 and that technology was extremely primitive back in those days but even then, the animation is absolutely atrocious. Even worse are how the characters look. The Hobbits in here made me burst with excruciating laughter because they looked more like giant oranges with chipmunk teeth. Gandalf and his nemesis Saruman both looked like scrapped Santa Claus cartoon shots and what's up with renaming Saruman, Auruman? Was it to avoid the confusion with the name Sauron? Beats me. Boromir looks like some crazed viking drunk than an actual warrior. So much else completel fails on this animated movie. I really love the books so much because of their rich detail, incredible characters, and imaginative scope of the various languages, races of beings, and much, much more but none of the greatness of the books is present on this animated movie and everything that is great about the books gets badly soiled and reduced to complete dust. Ralph Bakshi really drops the ball on this one and his directing is really sloppy and the movie is literrally cut off at the end where it starts with Bilbo's 111th birthday as usual but ending suddenly with the Battle of Helm's Deep and never going any further. No wonder this movie flopped. It's really bad and is unworthy of one's time. Unless one's a Tolkien completist or extreme zealot, this animated version of LOTR is just a waste of time. I'm not saying that this deserves to necessarily be thrown in a magnesium fire necessarily but this movie could really have been a great animated movie but they completely blew their chance at it.

I love it:
this is a classic. I love this movie. I dont know why everyone has to bash it and compare it to Peter Jackson's epic. I love the music. I like the cartoon work. Ok its not comparable to todays CGI animation where everything looks real. I dont care, i love this movie and i love the characters. I like this sam gamgee more than Sean Austins. I like this frodo more than Elijah Wood. I also like the strider. I was so disapointed backshi never finished it. It was this that got me hooked on Lotr in the begining. Its an all time classic, not to be compared, contrasted or evaluated next to Peter Jackson's Academy award winning epic, but it is an old animated classic which i treasure.

Good Story, Bad Art:
This movie would've been fabulous, but the art and animation were terrible. Combinig rotoscope with cel animation was a bad descision: The Nazgul, orcs, and Balrog looked very out of place with the animated backgrounds and Fellowship. Also the character designs were dissapointing: Saruman had vibrant red robes! Also, the beginning looked very fake: the shadow-behind-the-red-curtain looked cramped and poorly done. The story, however was very good: It stayed true to the book, save for some character parts, namely Legolas repalcing Glorfindel. If this movie were made nowadays, though, PJ's LOTR trilogy might've been smoked. This movie would've been good with decent special effects.

My favorite movie of ALL time!!!:
I guess that I'm a little different than most people, because to me, this was the best animated movie of all times! Unlike most others, the rotoscoping animation made the movie even better. The music was superb, much better than the recent trilogy. I found this animated version a thousand times better than Peter Jackson's. It was much more magical. The Orc's were more mystical than Jackson's hideous sci-fi Orcs. The ring wraith were more dark and interesting than the recent version also. I have seen this movie at least 50 - 60 times, and it just gets better. I only wish that they had finished the movie to include book three. As much as I like Peter Jackson's newer version, it will never be as good as this one!