Lord of the Rings - Ralph Bakshi Version (film review)

[avariambush]

Bashki's work is genius. Get a clue fatboy.

[MasterofArda]

@avariambush

Which of Bakshi's work is genius? This half-assed Lord of the Rings? The porno? The Conan the Barbarian rip-off? The Who Framed Roger Rabbit rip-off? Face it, fanboy, Bakshi's a hack compared to real geniuses in animation.

[avariambush]

@MasterofArda

Fritz the Cat & Lord of the Rings are both genius and both milestones in animation. Fire and Ice isn't bad either.

[aquelescaraaaaaaaaaa]

re-edited version of this film:

/watch?v=13kcUUkTyKg

includes switched endings, the Saruman/Aruman issue fixed and the Part One in the title screen. please enjoy it.

[MrsPennywise96]

This film was great. Sure, it's no where near as great as Peter Jackson's, but it's great.

[amaxamon]

Wow, you did zero research & have no clue what you're talking about.

[MasterofArda]

Thank God for Peter Jackson. That's all I have to say.

[Bandersnatch41]

this movie wasent that bad you dum fuck. the live action was amillion times better in almost every way. but this was certianly better than fritz the cat. and i do have to agree with you on some things like charactar apperances and names . bakshi did manage to fuck that up in his film. will give you that.

[LikaLaruku]

There is one thing I really liked in this movie l liked better than the Jackson version; Aragorn.

[IamthePopeRome]

What terrible blasphemy! Your review is "absolutely abominable".

[JosephRGrych]

I take it that he didn't like this film.

[TheNightBadger]

They didn't "resort" to rotoscoping - they used it from the start. The film made £30+ million dollars on a $4 million investment. If Bakshi had roughly the same (adjusted) budget as Jackson he would've had over $40 million to work with, but there were no secondary rental / sell-though markets at the time. The only reason there was no part two is because the studios didn't want one. He'd had been assured it would be called "Lord of the Rings Part 1" - which it wasn't - thus confusing everyone.

[ReasonAndPurpose]

There's worse crap out there, like Turkish or Brazilian Star Wars. After seeing them you'll consider this one as a masterpiece. It had some neat ideas, and rotoscoping is underrated, but they could have done so much better with it.

[boondocks43]

wow this review is so biased, and laughable, it wasn't even funny.

[joeylodes]

your review and facts about this film is SO off its laughable. fact.....this film was the first of a planned two from the studio and was originally going to have a "Part One" in the title. fact ... they were never going broke during filming & all the principal photography of the live shots that were to be rotoscoped were done before any animation ever began. fact .. this was the FIRST exposure that millions of people ever had to Rings including myself, and MUCH more importantly .. Peter Jackson!

[illbetilbake]

So in other words, Jesus would react to the film the same way a normal human being reacts to the Gospel when they first hear it? Sorry, but as horrible stories go, the one with Jesus is one of the most morbid (and most poorly told, as well). So his opinion is out, as far as I am concerned.

[desotowrong]

Well, this movie is pretty much either loved or hated. It wasn't as epic as Peter Jackson's trilogy, but it was okay in my opinion. He did what he could with the time and money given to him by an unreasonable studio that wanted two films rather than a trilogy. Still, I'll admit that it has some seriously cringeworthy stuff like the portrayal of Samwise Gamgee...which just baffles me to this day.

[cartmanfan4life]

i know that this movie has random retarted moments all throughout it but it's still alright and it's definetley worth watching and if your a lord of the rings freak like i am it's worth watching more then once the only issue with this movie is that it just plain stoppes and they don't finish it but other then that their is nothing wrong with this movie and it's pretty good

[najbjergpoulsen]

kiddies, or wait for the disney version

[najbjergpoulsen]

u r sooo wrong....fuck the Jackson trilogy, dread the hobbit movie, see the cartoon instead..it´s not perfect but ok.

the cartoon above did also include, Bill(Sams pony),Grishnák( the orc not urukai) and Tom Bombadil..characters in lotr u just dont write out..

[Fourhand1917]

@najbjergpoulsen

this film contained Tom Bombadil? When? I do not remember any Bombadil in Bakshi's movie.

[jeskar0407]

dud you need to learn from the best cheack out nostalgic critc he kicks your ass

[cartmanfan4life]

I think that if bakshi had finished it then people wouldn't make fun of it as much as they do

[flamingbartman]

i only saw it once, and i said never again do i want to see it, there only one lord of the rings films and that the once done by peter jackson

[Iisdabest889]

i saw this when i was 10 and thought it was horrid! i at least said to myself that this abominable film went through the whole trilogy and it didnt! this film is worse than diarrhoea. great review btw.

[drcoxcentral]

This was pretty funny. While its not that bad its still pretty mediocre compare to the live action films.

[MythicDude]

yah rotoscoping makes my head hurt.

[Killerkuh9000]

look in one of the books : there it says book ? and book ?+1

[Killerkuh9000]

thats the way ONE publisher published the books. tolkien wrote six books:

book 1+2 = fellowship

3+4 = towers

5+6 = king

[zanafarr]

This is correct.

Sorry everyone who disagrees, deal with it.

[Killerkuh9000]

no. six parts. look on wikipedia. the only trilogy are the pj movies.

[TiniNormi]

Someone probably pointed this out already, but Jackson admits to directly lifting several shots/scenes from Bakshi's film and putting them in his own films.

[zanafarr]

Yes, he did. And if I ever get around to doing a scathing, vicious review of Jackson's work, I'd be sure to point and mock that too.

[arunproductions]

not a very good review

[lyriz465]

Let me take a wild guess, you probably saw Peter Jackson's adaptation and immediately did a side-by-side comparison.

While you may think that Bashki's work is not up to snuff, remember, um he works primarily in animation and Jackson always in live action. Two totally different mediums almost 30 years apart.

Take it easy, chief.

[zanafarr]

Yes, because that's totally the only way to view this film. Not based on, y'know, the original book, or even compared with Bakshi's other works like Fritz the Cat, Coonskin or so forth. Or even just on its own merits. Nope, this film can TOTALLY only be compared with Jackson-fanboys' wet dreams. You're so on the ball there. Go get 'em, tiger.

[lyriz465]

That wasn't a review so much as it was the absurd rantings of another fanboy.

Rotoscoping was used for years in animation, but you probably know of it today as "motion capture."

I am so tired of the laziest, cheapest computer graphics getting a pass while traditional animation is constantly being picked apart.

Besides Bashki's film, though it had some problems, you cannot ignore the genius of this animator who only comes behind Richard Williams in craftsmanship and ambition.

[zanafarr]

Actually, rotoscoping was used extensively before and after this film; including in some of Disney's films. Some of the best examples (if you ask me) can be seen in Bakshi's 'Heavy Traffic'. By the same director as this piece of shite. He made some excellent films, some exceptional works of art, but that doesn't make this particular one excusable.

[TerrawindX2]

But you can't beat the quality of the animation in this one.

[fanofisengard88]

this is an excellent review, i was roflmaoing.

[jmonnatXWP]

in ways your right about alot of stuff but I kinda fund this film pretty intresting

[Lumotaku]

Rotoscoping is horrid this film sucked ass compared to the rankin bass films.

[vincent4500]

to the contrary, the rotoscoping is one of albeit few, good things about this movie...when i saw it as a kid the rotoscoping effect stayed with me and left a creepy mark in my subconcsious....

[kingrexrex666]

There are a few good scenes in this movie...that i enjoyed...suck it up biatches.

[taziekins]

Where can I download that version of "Bright Eyes"?

[supressorgrid]

I watched it back in the seventies when it came out. Ifound it quite enjoyable at the time as I was very stoned.

[Garren16]

While I don't entirley agree with you, you bashed it very well. 4 stars.

[cybeavertoo]

well, animation was not what it is these PJ-days, with all its CGI splashing from the screens from superspeed camera's, but unlike mr Jackson mr Bakshi DID know how to tell a story, without ripping the original, without betraying original plotlines, without insults through made-up scenes and made-up creatures, and without needing about three times as much reel

Bakshi made so many beautiful and just interpretations of so many scenes, that i think we must have seen two different movies mr Zanafarr

[zanafarr]

Yeah, I especially loved the way that Bakshi kept all of the original scenes intact and didn't betray any of them. Especially that Tom Bombadil scene.

Oh wait, he DIDN'T.

So I guess that when you consider that taking book to film is an ADAPTIVE and not a DIRECT TRANSLATIONAL artform, it kinda makes the idea of 'argument from faithfulness to source text' pretty moot, and utterly pointless when discussing ANY film, not just this one.

Just something you might want to think about in future.

[cybeavertoo]

well zanafarr,at least u know the old trick of first putting words into someone's mouth and then feeling king of your own argument. Seems u definitely could get a yob at PJ's for the adaptation of The Hobbit

So next time when u react, try to react to the things that were said please,cause nowhere did i even suggest that mr Bakshi did ALL the scenes, let alone that thats the way to do the dirty job. For the latter part of ur statement i can only agree. Adaptation doesnt come free. pls tell mr PJ

[zanafarr]

Sorry, couldn't hear what you were saying with all that cock in your mouth.

[Eldalie]

So very low, zanafarr. Is that your way of responding to people who disagree with you, and where you've clearly run out of arguments? Pitiful...

[neddx]

I know Bakshi had a tight budget, but what killed the movie for me mostly was the character designs(just look at Legolas!) and the script. They reveal the Smeagol part so damn early. I know in the book it was revealed at the beginning but since this is a movie don't you think they could have revealed it later for dramatic. I did actually like some of the voice acting though and I guess if this wasn't made there'd be no Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings

[twasbrillig33]

Bakshi ran out of funds to create the second installment. Bakshi's condensed version of the first and one half books, PUTS TO SHAME the JOKE of the 3 combined Peter Jackassman's version,in all aspects. PERIOD!

--- Mr. Underhill. =D

[LordPhillock8]

you guys should all seriously just check out our dubbs. We're dubbing the ENTIRE Ralph Bakshi movie. Go now!

[charlieRicketts]

well, I started watching this film when I was 2 or 3 and have loved it ever since. This will always remain one my most favorite movies.

[Vergodden]

one good use would be to piss off hardcore tolkien fans ;)

[coollotr55]

If I remake this movie and makes it 100000000000000000000000000000­000000000000000000000000000000­000000 times better will you watch it???

[nikki121781]

Well I think u made an awesome review and it was also very entertaining!!

[aaaiiieee]

Good review, by the way.

[aaaiiieee]

As a nine year old watching this movie for the first time in a theater in 1978, I have to say that I was enchanted to say the least. I had no idea who Tolkien was or what the story was about.

There are many flaws in this movie but it will always have a place in my heart as a stepping stone to Tolkien's work and the written word as a whole!!!

[zanafarr]

That's a spectacular comment. Thank you very, very much for sharing this with us. That's genuinely marvelous.

[hurley501]

right on dude!!!

[neddx]

To each is own...or however you say that

[Holowachuk]

it's unbelievable how much peter jackson actually copied from bakshi without even mentioning him.

[mmagicalmunk]

Actually, he did mention him. Listen to the commentary in the Fellowship of the Ring.

[robtheheartboy]

Peter Jackson actually mentioned Ralph several times during the DVD commentary. But the fact of the matter is, Peter Jackson made a much better movie than Ralph Bakshi. Sorry, but you can't animate lord of the rings.

[retardskull]

Well, you can. Bashki just failed.

[CandyCao7]

i hope you enjoy this comments of mine and no im not spamming for fun....im just asking questions but i do it in my list

PS:if you poor me i'll poor you back!

[DanMacauley]

Thankyou, I appreciated the display of bad grammar you littered this page with. Just out of interest, are you illiterate?

Another great review zanafarr

[CandyCao7]

-=the why list of bakshi's LOTR last part=-

Q:when frodo got shot in spear doing in moria is it lame when frodo does his almost death pose?

A:i guess so most fans doesnt like it and no goblins&troll how shame

Q:bill die in bakshi version? but how come its alive in peter jackson version?

A:well its a horse and i guess bakshi somehow doesnt like horse...

Q:is gimil looks like from snowwhite and the 7 dwarfs?

A:i dont know watch it again

[CandyCao7]

-=the why list of bakshi's LOTR part 2=-

Q:why boromir is like a viking?

A:bakshi somehow put some random ideals into him

Q:is gandalf ok or not?

A:well depents on choices of hate or like it he is gandalf after all...

Q:why nazgul brown insted of wearing black?

A:i think saruon's orcs accidently put different color messed up?

[CandyCao7]

-=the why list of bakshi's LOTR part 1=-

Q:why aragon doesnt wear pants?

A:i bet he left it on his home

Q:why sam is ugly?

A:one of bakshi's arts did this to him

Q:why saruman to aruman?

A:maybe the script somehow change back and forth...

Q:why gollum is brown?

A:i guess somehow bakshi is rapist? or change his color somehow..

[fionndempsey]

The point I want to make is that you can be quite comical without claiming, incorrectly, that the film is cinematic excrement.

[zanafarr]

That'd be true, if this film wasn't poo.

[almanacofsleep]

I like rotorscoping

[MediStalgia]

Roto-scoping was a horrible decision.

[beanabus77]

Tell that to Walt Disney. Snow White was clearly a mistake.

[zanafarr]

Snow White didn't feature men with swords and loincloths shot entirely in brown sepia tones which nobody bothered to ink or animate over, though.

[mrx618]

hmm, i can see why u found my review of lotr fellowship of the ring now

[Stormunicorn]

Oh wow, I never knew this version existed. The only animated version I knew of was The Hobbit.

You know, you never cease to amaze me with your knowledge of books and film. I would have sworn that there were only 4 books to the whole series but according to Wiki the LotR series was divided into six or seven books...then add in The Hobbit and that would make 7 or 8 books?

I really do enjoy your reviews, they always manage to put a smile on my face. :)

[zanafarr]

Bah, it's not that good ;)

But yes, originally the Lord of the Rings trilogy was to be published as six books, plus appendices. If you pick up a copy of one, you'll notice it's divided into two 'halves', each one was initially to be a book in its own right. They were pressed together into three books by the publishers after WW2, due to paper shortages.

Tolkien himself regarded it as one full story, irregardless of how many parts it was published in.

[Eldalie]

You're wrong: JRRT wanted all parts published as one book, but the publishers thought that too expensive and made it into three parts. And 1954-1955 is not that close to the end of WW2 after all, and Allen&Unwin was not a poor publishing company. Read the correspondence between Unwin and Tolkien, published in "The Letters of JRR Tolkien".

[zanafarr]

Close, but not quite; he wanted it COMPILED in one volume, but the story was originally written in six books. If you pick up a copy, you'll see that it's structured in six 'books'.

And 1955 is not close to the end of WW2? It ended in '45! Please!

[Eldalie]

Well, as I said, it's not 'that' close. After ten years, and being one of Britains most successful publishers, I do think they could afford the paper!

Books are often divided into 'books' which does not mean that he ever intended it to have been six separate books. Do read "Letters"!

[lotrfan66]

i hate all the animated lotrs and the hobbit, they all suck. My friend and me made a hilarious dub of The Hobbit, but we unfortunately 'lost' it...;)