The Lord of the Rings (1978) User Reviews

Severe, Psychotronic 70's Cinema

[Aylmer · 7/10 · 14 June 2010]

As a kid I was quite astonished with the dark and gloomy tone of this film, especially in comparison to Rankin/Bass's take on the same material around the same period. Also at the time I didn't really care for the animation, which I found to be rather cold and creepy (having no idea it was rotoscoped or even what rotoscoping was). However as the years have gone by and the Jackson adaptations come and gone, I feel more and more drawn to this rare piece of absolutism as I would a painting by Vincent Van Gogh or Salvadore Dali.

Bakshi always had a flair for adult-oriented animation, and finally with this he found a subject befitting of his style. Lord of the Rings is some overall dark, intriguing material in comparison with The Hobbit and really was deserving of something imaginative and stylistic as only Bakshi's team could deliver. Most everything comes together quite well here with the bizarre rotoscoped animation, the characterizations, the voice performances, and Leonard Rosenman's supercharged score (one of his career best, up there and quite similar to his work on THE CAR and RACE WITH THE DEVIL). It's rather unfortunate that funding ran out and the project had to be hurriedly wrapped, quite a similar heartbreaking story as to what happened with his previous year's WIZARDS.

The film is clearly unfinished in many regards. The most heinous act it commits is to end right in the middle of a major action scene with absolutely no resolution to speak of! Even ignoring its abbreviation of the books, one has to admit that narratively this film is a complete disaster. I can't imagine the marketing for this movie honestly claiming it to only be the first half of the book trilogy brought to screen. Needless to say I'd be surprised if angry audiences didn't get up and boo at the screen en masse back in 1978 witnessing perhaps the biggest cheat or, dare I say even, "rip off" in cinematic history.

Similarly this film has a very rough feel to it in terms of animation and pacing and is entirely inconsistent. Things begin fairly polished and kid-friendly but get darker, drearier, more violent (with some surprisingly graphic gore), and sloppier as the film goes on. By the end we get the vast majority of the film not even properly animated and more or less just treated film material with undercranked smoke and clouds filling in the for the background plates. It's quite similar to the bizarre psychedelic cost saving measures Bakshi made when he took over the second season of the animated 60's "Spiderman" cartoons. This whole Joseph Conradian experience of a descent into hell is pretty overwhelming, oppressive, and possibly even emotionally scarring for young viewers, but it's something I've strangely come to love about this film over time.

Yes, dare I say it, I just love this movie. You can't deny that it has its share of magical moments like Frodo's escape from the Wraiths, Gandalf opening the doors to Moria, and the showdown with the Balrog. Much like David Lynch's DUNE it created a vivid, creative, and whole-hearted realization of a world out of the severe butchery its source material. There's a small, artistic, and very personal loving feel given to this movie which I found lacking in Jackson's trilogy. Bakshi and his overworked team of animators may not have created the best film ever, but they did a lot with the little they had. I just wish they'd been able to see it through.

Animated version of The Lord Of The Rings - quite good, but suffers because too many unfairly compare it to the new Peter Jackson version.

[barnabyrudge · 7/10 · 30 May 2006]

More than twenty years before Peter Jackson's visionary adaptation of The Lord Of The Rings, there was this 1978 animated effort from director Ralph Bakshi. An ambitious and reasonably faithful version of the story, this has sadly been rather over-shadowed by the Jackson trilogy. Indeed, many reviewers here on the IMDb (mainly those who saw the newer version first) seem to be fiercely unkind to this version.... but if one applies a little common sense, and takes into consideration the time when it was made and the technical possibilities that existed at that time, then they will realise that this is a pretty good film. Indeed, it was shortly after seeing this animated movie back in the early '80s that I sought out Tolkien's book and immediately became a lifelong fan of these richly detailed Middle Earth adventures. So, in some respects, I owe this film a degree of acknowledgement as the film which shaped my literary tastes forever.

Sauron, the Dark Lord of Middle Earth, forges an all-powerful ring that gives him incredible power. Following a great battle during which Sauron is defeated, the ring falls into possession of a king named Isildur…. but instead of destroying it he foolishly chooses to keep it. For centuries the ring passes from hand to hand, eventually coming into the possession of a hobbit named Frodo Baggins who lives in a peace-loving community known as The Shire. Frodo learns from a wizard named Gandalf that his ring is in fact The One Ring, the very same that was forged by Sauron all those centuries ago, and that its master is once again searching for it in order to restore his dark power over the entire land. Frodo embarks on a perilous journey to protect the ring with three other hobbit companions, but every step of the way they are hunted by Sauron's ring-wraiths, the Black Riders. There follow many adventures, during which a company of nine adventurers is formed to guide the ring to the only place where it can be "unmade" – Mount Doom, in the land of Mordor. The film concludes with Frodo and his best friend Sam on the borders of Mordor, closing ever nearer to their horrifying destination. Meanwhile Gandalf and the other members of the company fight off a huge army of orcs at the legendary fortress of Helm's Deep.

This version covers just over half of the original book. A second instalment was planned to bring the story to an end, but was sadly never completed. While the ending feels abrupt, it does at least end at a sensible point in the story. One has to feel a little frustration and regret that no sequel exists in which we might follow these animated heroes to their eventual goal. The animation is passable, with a nice variety of locales and characters presented in interesting detail. The music by Leonard Rosenman is suitably stirring and fits in appropriately with the epic narrative. The voice-overs are decent, too, especially John Hurt as Aragorn and Peter Woodthorpe as Gollum. On the other hand, Michael Scholes - who provides the voice for Sam - is rather campy and goofy, which is not well suited to the character. The Lord Of The Rings is a commendable attempt to visualise the staggering book on which it is based.

Underrated adaptation

[jvowles-2 · 7/10 · 12 February 2000]

As an animated film from 1978, this is pretty good--generally well above the standard of the days when Disney hadn't done anything good in years (and Tolkien cared little for Disney anyway). It gets major points for innovative and careful camera work, applying cinematic techniques with relative success. The much-maligned rotoscoping actually works pretty well, especially with the Ringwraiths, and the opening narration. However, it is so drastically overused--possibly as a money-saving technique--that it detracts from the overall effect. The same technique that makes wraiths spooky and otherworldly doesn't fare so well in the Prancing Pony.

As for the adaptation of the story, it's actually quite good. We lose little bits here and there, minor details such as the Old Forest and Tom Bombadil, the Gaffer and the Sackville-Bagginses. We compress a few characters, such as revising Legolas as one of Elrond's household and an old friend of Aragorn's, but that's a rather wise decision for film. In books you have room to include the references to the larger world of the Elves and Middle-Earth's vast history. In film, you trade that for visuals and sound that convey the same elements in a different way. Nothing critical is truly lost here, and although I have minor quibbles about some of the changes, I'm generally pretty happy with it.

If only the dratted writers had managed to remember Saruman's name--he's frequently referred to as Aruman, a decision probably made to make him more distinct from similarly-named Sauron; it took me a second viewing before I was certain I hadn't misheard it. It's also annoying that Boromir is a bloody stage viking, and irritable from the start. However, Gandalf is excellent, and most of the rest of the voicework is excellent. If only John Hurt weren't too old to play Aragorn; I love his voice.

Of course, with the film ending at the midpoint of the story, there's a vast disappointment built in. What makes it far, far worse is the altogether miserable job done by the Rankin & Bass crew on the sequel. That they were permitted to do Return of the King after butchering The Hobbit remains a huge mystery; they seem more interested in bad songs than in proper storytelling. For all its faults, this film's heart is solidly in place and it tries very hard to accomplish a nearly impossible task. I can only hope that the upcoming series of films keeps as true to its vision...

it's almost like trying to put judgment on some brave, weird, unique piece of interpretation, that only has half its limbs

[Quinoa1984 · 7/10 · 17 September 2006]

Godard once said a way to criticize a movie is to just make one, and probably the strongest kind that could be made about Ralph Bakshi's take on Tolkien's magnum opus the Lord of the Rings, has actually been made by Peter Jackson. The recent trilogy, to me, aren't even total masterpieces, but they are given enough room with each book to breath in all the post-modern techniques crossed with classical storytelling to make them very good, sweeping entertainments.

But as one who has not read the books, I end up now looking upon the two versions, live-action (albeit partly animated in its big visual effects way) and animated (albeit partly done with actual live action as the framework) in relation to just the basic story, not even complete faithfulness to the books. And with Bakshi's version, it's almost not fair in a way, as what we do see is really not the complete vision, not what Jackson really had (probably final cut). Robbed of Return of the King's big climactic rush of the story, and with the other two parts becoming rushed, I ended up liking it more for what it did within its limitations, though as such those same limitations make it disappointing.

What's interesting too, after seeing the Jackson films first- which I also slightly regret being that I might've reacted to this differently when I was younger and prior to five years ago- is that the basic elements of the story never get messed up with. Everything that is really needed to tell the Fellowship of the Ring story is actually pretty much intact, and if anything what was probably even more gigantic and epic in Tolkien's book is given some clarity in this section. The actors playing the parts of the hobbits and the other heroes, are more or less adequate for the parts, with a few parts standing out (John Hurt as Aragorn and William Squire as Gandalf).

The lack of extra characterization does end up making things seem a little face-value for those who've not even seen the other films or read the books and can't put them into context. But there is some level of interest always with the characters, and here there's a more old-fashioned sensibility amid the large aura of it being more. This is not a garden variety Disney adaptation- warts and all, this is a Bakshi film, with his underground animation roots colliding with the mythical world of Middle Earth.

And what Bakshi and his animation team bring to the film is one that ends up giving what is on screen, in all its abbreviated form, its hit or miss appeal. Along with being not totally complete as a film, or as stories, the form of the film is an experiment, to see if something can be entirely rotoscoped. The results end up bringing what seems now to be retro, but at the time of course was something that was a rough, crazy inspiration on the part of the filmmakers. Might it have been better with more traditional drawn animation? In some parts, yeah; it does become a little noticeable, as was also the case in Bakshi's American Pop, that the main characters move in such ways that are a little shaky, like some kind of comic-book form done in a different way. Still, there's much I admired in what was done.

The orcs, for example, I found to be really amazing in they're surreal surroundings. They're maybe the best part of the combination of the animation on top of the live-action, especially during parts where there isn't battle footage (that's really the real hit-or-miss section, as there isn't continuity from the good and bad rotoscoping), and the chiaroscuro comes through with big shapes on top of horseback. It's creepy in a good way. And the backgrounds, while also very rough and sometimes too sketchy, are beautiful with the mixtures and blasts of colors together. It's almost something for art-film buffs as much as for the ring-nuts.

So, how would I recommend this animated take on the Lord of the Rings? I don't know, to tell the truth. It's certainly a good notch above the other Tolkien animated film I've seen, the Hobbit (and I've yet to see the animated ROTK), and there is some real artistry going on. There's also some stilted dialog, an all-too-rushed Two Towers segment with the most intriguing character Gollum being reduced to maybe two scenes in all. And seeing something as fragmented like this ends up only reinforcing the completeness of the more recent films.

If you're a fan of the books contemplating checking this out, I would say it's worth a chance, even if it's one of those chances where you watch for forty minutes and then decide whether to stop it or not. As for it fitting into Bakshi's other films I've seen it's an impressive ambitious and spotty achievement, where as with Lynch's Dune it's bound to draw a dark, mordor-like line in the sand between those who hate it passionately and those who don't. I don't.

fascinating but limited

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 15 March 2015]

It's J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings books 'The Fellowship of the Rings' and 'The Two Towers'. Hobbit Frodo Baggins must guard the one most powerful ring against powerful dark forces with the help of Gandalf, Samwise and others.

Ralph Bakshi directed Wizard. Using the same rotoscoping of live-action footage, it has that fascinating 70s animation style. It's actually very effective for the material especially since the needed special effects haven't been perfected yet. The style is definitely a very interesting vision and gives an adult sensibility in the animation. However there are limitations with the compressed nature of the film and it also doesn't help that this movie never got the needed sequel. It ends in an unsatisfying cliffhanger. It's a fascinating cinematic oddity but not much more.

For back then, this is very impressive.

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 14 May 2009]

I really liked this movie, and it is true, too many people compare it to the Peter Jackson films. Even more impressive was that they fitted two books into one film, many people consider that a mistake and that things were missed out, when actually considering the books aren't very easy to adapt, I thought this film wasn't too bad an attempt. The animation was very impressive, a little dated by our standards, but bear in mind people it was made in the 70s and that it is lower budget than that of Disney or Pixar. The music was very well done especially the orks' march to Isanguaard, very haunting indeed. Though speaking of the orks, a very young audience will find them very frightening, and will be deterred by the sight of blood. The film is also overlong and a bit slow, but anyone who's seen the Peter Jackson films will argue that they have the same problem. The voice talents are exceptional, standouts being Christopher Guard as the idealistic Frodo, William Squire as the wise Gandalf(very good but Ian McKellan was better but only marginally) and John Hurt's brave Strider/Aragorn. Some of the scenes in this film are very hard to depict, like the scenes with the Black Riders(the scene in the inn was genuinely creepy), and I must say, that in general, the execution of those scenes were well-above average. In conclusion, despite the flaws, this film is nowhere near as bad as people say it is. My dad and my brother are both die-hard LOTR fans, and they say that this film was very well done. 7/10 Bethany Cox.

A misfire for Bakshi, that much is certain

[dogenx2 · 8 September 2002]

I won't dwell on the purists' outrage over Bakshi's liberties with story or characters. For the most part, they are correct. I'm certainly not coming to the filmmaker's defense, but in the context of the material's density, animation technology of 1978, et al., this guy really took a swing at bringing this thing to the silver screen.

Sadly, the film wasn't that good. Much of the animation was disjointed, and most of the backgrounds were crudely drawn and failed to create the correct atmosphere that one gets from reading the book. I will say, though, that I have always liked the rotoscoping, in particular that of the orcs. There is something exceedingly frightening about the way they are displayed, something today's CGI characterizations seems to miss. Bakshi used this technique in his other works as well, particularly in Wizards, which is a better, if different, film than his version of LotR. But mixing purely-drawn characters (hobbits) with those that are rotoscoped (orcs) just didn't look right here.

I must agree with some others who assert that some of the frame direction and scene selection is oddly similar to Peter Jackson's version of late. And if Jackson was influenced by at least SOME of the look of Bakshi's film, then what's the harm?

If you want to be dazzled, this version of LotR probably won't rouse you. There's many more misses than hits. But it isn't as bad as many would have you believe. If it weren't a Tolkien adaptation, I think it would be received much better.

Uninvolving but not a total loss

[utgard14 · 5/10 · 4 September 2015]

Ralph Bakshi's attempt at bringing J.R.R. Tolkien's epic tale to the screen years before Peter Jackson is a valiant effort that falls short for more reasons than the obvious. Many purists will no doubt complain about what's been left out or the depictions of some characters. Others will say that the story ends abruptly and, since there was never a part two, it leaves the movie feeling incomplete. Still others will talk about the uneven mixture of traditional animation and rotoscoping. All of those are valid complaints but not major ones for me. Granted, I saw the Jackson films already so there was a certain degree of comparison that was inevitable, however unfair that may be. I'm certainly not going to slight the movie for not being able to compete with something made decades later with a budget over twenty times what this had (for the first movie of the trilogy alone). I'm also not going to nitpick what was left out or who didn't look like they should because the Jackson series gave fans a gazillion hours of footage of to cover almost every base. The animation is good for the era and I generally appreciate Bakshi's use of rotoscoping. The man was an artist, not an assembly-line animator like most at the time, and that should be praised.

The main problem I had with this is that it is not as emotionally involving as the Tolkien story demands. It's a story that deserves a deeper treatment than what we have here. That came later with Jackson, thankfully, but the lack of emotional resonance in this version is a major flaw. I also wish the music score wasn't so unexciting and forgettable. I've read that Bakshi originally wanted to use Led Zeppelin music. At first that sounds like a terrible idea but I can't help but wonder if that would have been so weird that it actually worked. Overall, it's a mixed bag that drags some and never really pulls you in like it should. Bakshi respects the material enough to follow it as closely as he can with the restrictions he had. He also creates some fine atmosphere and fills the movie with so many interesting visuals that it's hard to dismiss it entirely.

By sheer luck, I love this movie

[unga_bungabunga · 8/10 · 27 September 2007]

I happened upon this movie as an 8-10 year old on a cold, dark November afternoon. I was outside playing all day, freezing, and when I came in around 4pm, I had a cup of hot cocoa and sat down in front of the TV with a blanket. I was surprised to be watching a cartoon that wasn't all happy and silly--and was in fact dark, and moralistic. It captured my imagination. I'm sure it misses the text, and is abbreviated in all the wrong places for the Tolkien purist. But it still captures the spirit of the story, the choice to carry a burden for the good of others, the consequences of selfish, rash decisions, etc. The quality of animation leaves room for complaint. But the one place where this movie clearly rises above the new films is the voice characterizations. John Hurt is great in this. If you don't like how the character is drawn, look away, and just listen to him. His voice is extraordinary. I've seen it again many, many times and it always brings me back to that time, as a kid, thirsty for some magical adventure. It's for this reason I say 'lucky', the film is nostalgic for me so I overlook its shortcomings. But between John Hurt, and Tolkien's fantasy, it still reached me, and still does.

Not As Bad AS I Thought It Would Be

[thomfur · 7/10 · 29 April 2004]

My friend had the idea of watching the animated LOTR after seeing the Peter Jackson Return of The King. So I finally bought it off e-bay, thinking right from the start it was going to suck. Actually, it really wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. The animation was good for its time, they used a unique method of blending live action with animation to create some interesting effects, and the guy who did the voice for Frodo sounded somewhat like Elijah Wood.

Not the greatest adaptation of a book, but trust me, I've seen a lot worse. It skips quite a lot of things, since both Fellowship and The Two Towers are compressed into one two hour movie. Definatley worth a watch, kids might like, but still, absoutley no comparision with the Peter Jackson trilogy.

I keep trying to like this movie...

[Aubries · 1/10 · 2 January 2006]

But I just can't. I get that Bakshi's rotoscoping was cutting edge, but to me it just looks awful. That's not what kills this film, though. In a nutshell, the pacing makes the actual story nearly impossible to follow for anyone who hasn't already memorized it. In some parts, it moves too quickly (obviously there were time considerations), but other scenes drag out forever without actually contributing to the plot. The orc battle scenes in particular felt like the same images over and over and over and over again (drenched in the murky rotoscoping), to the point where it was impossible to tell what was actually supposed to be happening. It almost feels like Bakshi was more interested in splashing images on the screen than in telling a story. I guess if you like the images, and you already know the story (or aren't interested in it), then this movie will be great fun for you.

I won't bother with purist complaints about the movie not following the book. Literature and cinema are two related but vastly different forms, and what works for one often does not work for the other. If anything, part of the problem is that it follows the book too closely at times, not allowing for how awkward the written dialog sounds when actually spoken. The only real complaint I have about the adaptation is Bakshi's reading of Sam as a gay, retarded circus midget. I also get the sense that this portrayal was somehow intended to be comic relief. Why take such pains to render such an important character so impossible to take seriously?

I so wanted to like this movie. I really did. I kept thinking that I would like it better after reading the book (the first time I saw it was in the theater, and I didn't understand most of it), or when I had gotten old enough to appreciate it. I even thought it might be fun to do a compare and contrast with the new films. None of it helped. I understand that this movie has many devotees and many more apologists. I wish I could see whatever it is you all see when you watch it.

This film is a great and glorious piece of art

[dnvechoes · 10/10 · 26 December 2002]

This film, in my opinion, is, despite it's flaws (which I maintain are *few*), an utter masterpiece and a great and glorious piece of art.

What Mr. Bakshi has done here is to create an utterly beautiful film and has shown his immense talent and versatility as a director of animated films. He does not receive 1/100th of the credit he deserves for literally saving the art of animation for an adult audience. If it were not for Mr. Bakshi, I don't believe animation would have survived the Disney onslaught. What is more, with The Lord of the Rings, he has not only created a beautiful animated film, but he has created an entirely new art form - unfortunately one that never quite made it off the ground.

Most people will complain about the use of rotoscoping in the film (the use of live action images which are used as background images and often animated over using various techniques from what appears to be small amounts of tinting to full blown animation). But I feel that the people who complain about it simply cannot accept an art form which is out of the norm. No, this is not Disney animation. No it's not live action. No, it's not "cheating" - what it is is a new, fascinating, and absolutely wonderful art form. Something so fresh, and so new that it feels completely at home in such a fantastic tale as "The Lord of the Rings". Bakshi's pioneering use of this technique brings the subtleties of Middle Earth to life is a very dark and mysterious way, in particular, the darker of Tolkien's creatures, particularly the Nazgul, are realized in a way that traditional animation or live action have not been able to accomplish.

Peter S. Beagle's screenplay (based very little, as I understand it, on an early draft by Chris Conkling) is a very loyal adaptation of Tolkien's works. Where possible he uses dialogue directly out of the novel and it feels at home in the world which Bakshi has created. There are many cuts that were made to fit the first book and 3/4 into a single 2 hour 15 minute film, but there are very few changes to the storyline. There are a few holes which it would have been nice to have filled: The reforging of Narsil, the gifts of Galadriel, the Huorns at the battle of the Hornburg, but, again, with the time limitations he had (already the longest animated feature in history), these are certainly understandable (though it makes one wonder how they could have been explained in a sequel).

Also there is the delightful (one of my favorites) score by Leonard Rosenman (who also scored Barry Lyndon and Star Trek IV (the score for which is clearly based on his LotR work)). It is bombastic and audacious and, dare I say, perfect. It stands on it's own as an orchestral triumph, but when coupled with the images of the film, it enters a whole new world of symphonic perfection. So far from the typical Hollywoodland fare that it turns many people off.

The voice actors are wonderful. Of particular note is John Hurt as Aragorn who just oozes the essence of Strider.

The character design is also wonderfully unique, though not often to everyone's taste. But remember that it is the duty of the director of an adaptation to show you what he/she imagines, not what you might have imagined, and so Aragorn is realized with a distinctive Native American feel and Boromir appears in Viking inspired garb. This is perhaps not what you imagined, but I can only applaud Mr. Bakshi for showing us what he "saw". It also might be noted that he spent a significant amount of time with Priscilla Tolkien in developing the character outfits for the film.

One farther word - the Flight to the Ford sequence, in my opinion, is one of the most subtlety beautiful sequences ever to be caught on celluloid. Bakshi is not afraid to slow down the pace for a moment, and his mastery is clearly shown by the incredible tension is able to build. Bakshi's artistic ability and Tolkien's incredible work fuse in this sequence to a glorious peak which has yet to be equaled.

The recent DVD release (2001) by Warner Brothers, is sorely lacking. While we can offer our eternal thanks that the film is finally available in widescreen format, the package is woefully short of extras. How glorious it would have been to have had a director's commentary, been able to see the 20 minutes of extra footage that were removed for the theatrical release. Another delightful addition could have been the assembled the live action footage which was later animated over. Also present in the DVD release is the utterly horrible voiceover at the end of the film which is a departure from the simple voiceover which occurred in the very final frames of the film. This version is plastered and poorly rendered right over the musical climax of the score.

Of course, the greatest tragedy of all is that the sequel was never made. We will never be able to see Bakshi's interpretation of Gondor, of Shelob, of Faramir, of the Cracks of Doom, of Eowyn's battle with the Witch King or Gandalf's confrontation with him. We will never be graced with Bakshi's image of Denethor or the Palatir or the Paths of the Dead. It is a shame beyond all shames that we will, in the end, have to accept Peter Jackson's glitz and glitter Hollywood, action film version of these later events in Tolkien's masterpiece, but, I suppose even that is better than having no cinematic version at all.

David

Psychedelic experiment

[briancham1994 · 6/10 · 23 April 2021]

This film is a low budget experiment that is very much a product of its time and full of shoddy production values, yet it is also very endearing as a personal experiment. There is an odd mix of art styles including rotoscoping against psychedelic backgrounds. Sometimes this works, creating an otherworldly atmosphere. Sometimes this style is just confusing, inconsistent and messy. Everything is quite a mixed bag, actually. Some of the character designs are dumpy but others are quite heroic. Some of the voice acting is laughable but some of it is emotional and booming. Some of the music is cheesy but some of it is genuinely riveting. The story itself is extremely condensed to its basics but it works well, up until the end when it suddenly cuts off.

The film has not aged well, certainly not a classic.

[Elrix · 5/10 · 14 December 2003]

I recently had the opportunity to watch this movie again on cable, a film last seen as a young teenager. I enjoyed the movie as a child, but maturity and an appreciation for film has changed my perspective.

Bakshi's LoTR is disjointed at best. The scale of the books is daunting though and I do give this film credit for trying. Peter Jackson was certainly helped in his endeavor by Bakski's attempt, he could see first hand what worked and what failed miserably. Some of the grandest scenes in the books, like Gandalf's confrontation with the Balrog, are rendered so poorly by the animators that I can't help but laugh.

Many Tolkien fans have read the books over and over again, it exists as a film in their own heads. My only explanation for a mature Tolkien fan endorsing this film now is that all the gaps and missteps in the movie are being filled in with their own impressions from the book. Banal lines clumsily delivered are only resonating in a viewer because they are straight from the books and trigger a happy recollection.

The only saving grace of this film for me are the books and nostalgia, take those away and it falls apart.

An excellent production about an immense subject

[shadow-41 · 7/10 · 16 November 1998]

I have been a fan of JRR Tolkien since I was about 8 years old, and I have never failed in my admiration for both him and his literary works.

I first read The Hobbit, then obviously The Lord of the Rings and was instantly hooked. Since then I have tried to collect every book that he has published, including his other University works.

The Lord of the Rings is an immense work and to turn it into an acceptable film requires a lot of time and patience. Ralph Bakshi has done a terrific job of representing Middle-Earth through some truly inspired animation.

It is unfortunate that he had to severely abridge some of the less important scenes but overall he has captured the main thread of things.

I was a little disappointed with Sam who was not, as portrayed, a country bumpkin. He was actually quite intelligent and it was through him that Frodo made the journey to Mount Doom without giving up.

It is a shame that the film ends just after the Battle of Helm's Deep as I was looking forward to the main battle at Pelennor Fields and the death of the Nazgul.

Overall Ralph Bakshi has done a wonderful job with the funding that was available, and without the aid of 'computers' to enhance anything.

Disjointed.

[Blueghost · 9 April 2013]

Every time I see this film I grin and them grimace some. Mostly grin because it is a respectable effort at a production, but I can't help but believe that the entire tale was never meant to see the screen via Bakshi. I remember opening weekend for this thing. The theatres were packed. Sold out. Or, more correctly, overbooked. Thousands thronged the theatre. Lines ran out into the streets. You couldn't get a seat for the life of you.

And then the film ran. And people walked out wondering what it was they had just seen. You hear critics give their opinion, but you don't hear fans voicing their amazement at the visuals, but also feeling like they were sold a bill of goods.

The artistry that went into this production is half good, half b-grade material. I think this project was given to Bakshi because he knew that the full tale would not be realized by old guard Hollywood who were paranoid of a culture that harkened back to mythology and days of yore.

At the time I saw the film I had a hard time following it, even with the added narrative supplied by the characters. One moment were in location A, then the next we're in location B with some new characters. Next we're in location C confronting some event, and so on and so forth.

In short, the Tolkien tale that people wanted never had a chance to materialize. It would take thirty years and an Aussie with some filmmaking know how, a track record, and a vision to propose the project and make all of Tolkien's ring saga come to life. In the meantime Tolkien fans had this half hearted effort that had some interesting visuals on one level, but lacked a lot of care on another level. Again, it was done intentionally.

Then again Bakshi's films tend to have an unfinished quality to them. If you look at American Pop, Heavy Traffic, or Cool World, or Wizards, you'll note that the production tends to fall apart somewhat at the end. Cool World feels very rushed at the end, American Pop actually keeps nearly all of its gloss but suffers the same here and there. So it is that we don't just get rotoscoped animation, but full on tinted footage of stuntmen or actors doing things that should have been rendered by hand.

The character design is also hit and miss. The hobbits are well done, the wizards are likewise keenly crafted, but the one dwarf in the film looks like a miner from 1849 California, and not a dwarf at all, while the "elves" tend to have feline eyes for some reason. The backgrounds are interesting, however. Taking a page out of Avante-Garde 1960s and early 1970s, the "sets" for this piece are more abstract at times, and it seems to work well from time to time with the piece that's being presented. Other times it feels like a budget saver.

What to say about it in the end? All in all the film is a rushed effort, and in my opinion never had a chance from the start. My opinion is that there was probably a fear that Tolkien's tales of white heros might have been seen as socially destabilizing for a country that was just coming out of some very hefty social upheavals regarding race, politics and social status; and this falls in line with Tolkien because orcs, men, dwarfs and elves were all different races, although the orcs are the ones who are cast as the heavies. I have no direct proof of that, but one wonders how Disney Studios might have handled a similar project; which, by the way, is right up their alley (minus some of the more graphic violence).

See it once. Odds are you've already made up your mind about this film. Me, I don't have too much love for it, but it's interesting to take a look at it every few years or so.

See it once if you're curious about it.

good cartoon from Ralph Bakshi

[didi-5 · 7/10 · 13 March 2005]

The only version of Tolkien's trilogy (or at least, half of it), until Peter Jackson's recent epic, this cartoon has been unfairly maligned over the years when in fact it is not bad at all.

With exceptional voice talent on board (especially John Hurt as Aragorn, and Norman Bird as Bilbo), and good drawings, largely true to the characters, this version trips along with excellent pace and structure.

The difficulty in translating this complicated novel to the screen shows in the fact that this 'Lord of the Rings' doesn't quite to justice to its source. But it tries, and almost succeeds.

Good animation, not necessarily so good adaptation.

[YeOldeUselessoFilmoBuffo · 7/10 · 21 March 2005]

Bakshi's "The Lord of the Rings" was for a long time the only movie adaptation of the book - and that was a great shame. Mostly simply because it's so... abridged. Two hours long, and it covers most of Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers - hmm...

I remember seeing the animation a long time ago, and thought it was pretty awful. Now, after the Jackson trilogy and all, I finally found it again.

I have to say that I still hold my belief from those days: This is a great animation. I absolutely love the rotoscoping/live-action animation deal shown in the movie. It actually looks better than I imagined. Okay, some of the scenes were done with two-penny budget and are just painful, but at other times, this thing manages to be beautiful or just plain amazing, or even just stylish.

Yet, I'm a nitpicker here. If you want to see a good LotR movie, try the new trilogy. This isn't a good LotR movie. This is a very chaotic mess compared to them. Some of the deviations from the book are just flabbergasting. Dialogue gets weird. Some of the action scenes are just dumbfounding and corny.

But I still think it's a good *animation*. If you like awful movies, like I do, or just want to see something that definitely has style over substance, this isn't going to hurt you. Just grab something to eat and beware not to choke on it if you see something really funny. And every fan of the books should also see it, if not just for education, at least as an example of how *not* to do LotR movie adaptation.

I was going to hit this harder, but I don't have the heart, I sometimes just love a good "effect movie". 7/10 it is...

An honest (but lengthy) reaction to the film !!!Spoilers!!!

[NightTrekker · 3/10 · 27 January 2004]

I saw this movie during a Tolkien-themed Interim class during my sophomore year of college. I was seated unfortunately close to the screen and my professor chose me to serve as a whipping boy- everyone else was laughing, but they weren't within constant eyesight.

Let's get it out of the way: the Peter Jackson 'Lord of the Rings' films do owe something to the Bakshi film. In Jackson's version of The Fellowship of the Ring, for instance, the scene in which the Black Riders assault the empty inn beds is almost a complete carbon copy of the scene in Bakshi's film, shot by shot. You could call this plagiarism or homage, depending on your agenda.

I'm sure the similarities don't stop there. I'm not going to do any research to find out what they are, because that would imply I have some mote of respect for this film. I'm sure others have outlined the similarities- look around.

This movie is a complete train wreck in every sense of the metaphor, and many, many people died in the accident. I've decided to list what I can remember in a more or less chronological fashion- If I've left out anything else that offended me it's because I'm completely overwhelmed, confronted with a wealth of failure (and, at high points, mediocrity).

*Due to heavy use of rotoscoping, Gandalf is no longer a gentle, wise wizard but a wildly flailing prophet of doom (whose hat inexplicably changes color once or twice during the course of the film).

*Saruman the White is sometimes referred to as 'Aruman' during the film, without explanation. He wears purple and red for some mysterious reason.

*Sam is flat out hideous. The portrayal of his friendship with Frodo is strangely childlike and unsatisfying. Yes, hobbits are small like children, but they are NOT children.

*Merry and Pippin are never introduced--they simply appear during a scene change with a one-sentence explanation. The film is filled with sloppy editing like this.

*Frodo, Sam, Pippin and Merry are singing merrily as they skip through along the road. One of the hobbits procures a lute at least twice as large as he is from behind his back--which was not visible before--and begins strumming in typical fantasy bard fashion as they all break into "la-la-la"s. AWFUL.

*Aragorn, apparently, is a Native American dressed in an extremely stereotypical fantasy tunic (no pants), complete with huge, square pilgrim belt buckle. He is arguably the worst swordsman in the entire movie--oftentimes he gets one wobbly swing in before being knocked flat on his ass.

*The Black Riders appear more like lepers than menacing instruments of evil. They limp everywhere they go at a painfully slow pace. This is disturbing to be sure, but not frightening.

*The scene before the Black Riders attempt to cross the Ford of Bruinen (in which they stare at Frodo, who is on the other side on horseback) goes on forever, during which time the Riders rear their horses in a vaguely threatening manner and... do nothing else. The scene was probably intended to illustrate Frodo's hallucinatory decline as he succumbs to his wound. It turns out to be more plodding than anything else.

*Gimli the Dwarf is just as tall as Legolas the Elf. He's a DWARF. There is simply no excuse for that. He also looks like a bastardized David the Gnome. It's a crude but accurate description.

*Boromir appears to have pilfered Elmer Fudd's golden Viking armor from that Bugs Bunny opera episode. He looks ridiculous.

*Despite the similarity to Tolkien's illustration, the Balrog is howl inducing and the least-threatening villain in the entire film. It looks like someone wearing pink bedroom slippers, and it's barely taller than Gandalf. "Purists" may prefer this Balrog, but I'll take Jackson's version any day.

*The battle scenes are awkward and embarrassing. Almost none of the characters display any level of competency with their armaments. I'm not asking for action-packed scenes like those in Jackson's film, but they ARE supposed to be fighting.

*Treebeard makes a very short appearance, and I was sorry he bothered to show up at all. Watch the film, you'll see what I mean.

Alright, now for the GOOD parts of the film.

*Some of the voice acting is pretty good. It isn't that Aragorn SOUNDS bad, he just looks kind of like the Jolly Green Giant.

*Galadriel is somewhat interesting in this portrayal; like Tom Bombadil, she seems immune to the Ring's powers of temptation, and her voice actress isn't horrible either.

*Boromir's death isn't as heart wrenching as in Jackson's portrayal of the same scene, but it's still appropriately dramatic (and more true to his death in the book, though I don't believe Jackson made a mistake shooting it the way he did).

*As my professor pointed out (between whispered threats), the orcs (mainly at Helm's Deep, if I'm correct) resemble the war-ravaged corpses of soldiers, a political statement that works pretty well if you realize what's being attempted.

*While this isn't really a positive point about the film, Bakshi can't be blamed for the majority of the failures in this movie, or so I've been told--the project was on a tight budget, and late in its production he lost creative control to some of the higher-ups (who I'm sure hadn't read the books).

Let me be clear: I respect Bakshi for even attempting something of this magnitude. I simply have a hard time believing he was happy with the final product.

Overall, I cannot in any way recommend this blasphemous adaptation of Tolkien's classic trilogy even for laughs, unless you've already read the books and have your own visualizations of the characters, places and events. I'm sure somebody, somewhere, will pick a copy of this up in confusion; if you do, keep an open mind and glean what good you can from it.

Uniquely animated drama & characters true to source

[cdunbar-3 · 8/10 · 31 July 2006]

I'm fond of this film and it vexes me that so many "reviewers" rank it below the Peter Jackson trilogy. A filmed novel is always interpretive; in particular an animated film relies on the artist's vision and should be judged on its own terms. Speaking as a purist, this is a finer homage to Tolkien than the updated version. While this film has its flaws it stays truer to the source, especially so far as the characters are concerned.

In the Jackson version Tolkien's Frodo is barely recognizable: from the first scenes he is portrayed as a weakling, constantly wavering, manipulated by forces around him and never standing on his own two feet (this is physically and metaphorically true.) You wonder why fate chose this limp biscuit to carry the one ring to the Cracks of Doom. Jackson unforgivably rewrites Tolkien and robs Frodo of his finest moment when he allows Arwen to rescue him from the Ringwraiths...Bakshi's version respects the original, presenting a Frodo who demands the wraiths "Go back and trouble me no more!" Bakshi sustains Frodo's character as Tolkien conceived it. We see his decline as the weight of his burden increases. Frodo is so pivotal to Lord of the Rings you wonder why Jackson took such liberties (he does so with numerous characters)since character development propels the plot to its inevitable conclusion. Bakshi's film better explores the companionship between Legolas and Gimli in a few judicious scenes that are completely lacking in Jackson's version. Similarly we see Boromir horsing with Pippin and Merry, furthering the idea of fellowship. For my liking the camaraderie is more developed in the animated version than the live action.

Tolkien's poetry is an important ingredient in the novels and Bakshi makes tribute to this in one of my favorite scenes: when Frodo sings the "Merry Old Inn" song, minutes before stumbling into Strider. The cheery tune is chillingly juxtaposed with the darker theme music when seconds later, invisible to his friends but visible to the wraiths, Frodo is dangerously exposed. This is one of the most atmospheric portions of the film and chills me whenever I see it.

The well documented budget/time restrictions limit this film's final impact but had it been completed it may have resonated with more viewers. As it is, it's worth a look. Even its detractors admit that Peter Jackson derived much of his inspiration from this prototype.

Animation is the way to go

[Igenlode Wordsmith · 7/10 · 3 August 2009]

I remember watching this late at night on black and white TV, long before a live-action version was so much as a twinkle in Peter Jackson's eye... and being very impressed. Finally getting my hands this week on a VHS copy that was being thrown away (and isn't that just par for the course..?) I had the chance to revisit this film, and found that it still stands up quite well, although it's not quite the success that memory had painted.

I have to confess to a certain bias here. Some reviewers announce themselves as confirmed Jackson-lovers, others as Jackson-haters; I'm not exactly either. I was a devotee of the BBC Radio adaptation by Brian Sibley originally broadcast in 1981, and instantly recognised the voice of Gollum here -- Peter Woodthorpe would reprise this performance almost note-perfect for the radio three years later.

I must say, however, that where I found Jackson's films an increasingly indulgent disappointment, the Bakshi version, for all that it has been cut to the bone, is actually more accurate. Yes, there are the usual, understandable changes (here it is Legolas rather than Arwen who is substituted for Glorfindel as the Elf sent from Rivendell to meet the party) and there is a great deal of telescoping of the action. (The only exception to the latter, as others have remarked, is the oddly extended sequence at the ford of Rivendell, where the Ringwraiths, having demonstrated a chilling ability to freeze and draw back Frodo in mid-flight -- which they deploy again when he defies them after crossing the river -- then for some unexplained reason simply chase after him in a prolonged straight gallop, which is initially nightmarish but pointless, plot-wise, and definitely goes on too long.) I would also agree that the Balrog is unsatisfactory, due partly to bad animation, and that Gandalf windmills his arms too much.

But having watched both approaches to the film, I feel more than ever that the animated route is the one to take. In a tale that is half-myth (oddly enough, one thing that is included is a snippet of Aragorn's story of Beren and Luthien) the extreme literalism required by live-action filming, where everything from monsters to mail-shirts has to be created in detail to appear on camera, is counter-productive: latex-faced (or CGI) monsters are less monstrous than sketchily-drawn shapes, heroic costumes tend to look rather silly worn on real bodies, and hobbits or dwarfs with non-human body proportions are easy to animate but hard to film convincingly. Many reviewers have cited the sniffing Ringwraith in the woods, with its crippled, half-human movements, as one of the scariest moments in the film -- it certainly frightened me silly when I saw it for the first time alone in the dark!

The extreme stylisation of the introduction (plus a voice-over done with great skill and economy to sum up the back-story in a few sentences) works very well to depict an almost mythical era, and the change to the comic-book rusticism of the Shire -- I particularly like the Proudfeet -- corresponds effectively to the similar change in tone of Tolkien's prose. I did feel that there were some missed opportunities where the potential of animation could have been used to great effect: Gandalf threatening Bilbo with his true power in the opening scenes, Bilbo seeming to become a Gollum-like creature under the influence of Ring-lust at Rivendell, and Galadriel's famous temptation speech all were drawn more or less straight, where it would have been trivial to distort the scene to reflect the hobbits' changed perceptions. But generally speaking the changes in detail and palette -- firelight hues at Bree, bright colours re-emerging at Rivendell and in the Fangorn clearing, dirty greys and browns for Moria and the desolate lands -- work well to reflect the mood of the various episodes, where a live-action approach simply doesn't allow you to blur the background or sketch in a stylised setting.

As a fan I didn't care for either Jackson's or Bakshi's depiction of Lothlorien -- again, I feel that the radio soundscape was the best evocation I've come across of a beautiful, slightly uncanny woodland paradise caught out of time -- and I feel that Bakshi got the elven singing at this point pretty badly wrong, but I do like the little montage at this point showing the various members of the Company relaxing together after their travails in Moria. Aragorn giving a hobbit-fencing-lesson here is as charming (and equally uncanonical) a spectacle as Boromir engaging with the hobbits in Hollin in the Jackson version.

The depiction of Aragorn as convincingly weatherworn Ranger is good throughout this film (Viggo Mortensen's scruffy Jesus look really didn't work for me), although it would have been interesting to see how they planned to 'clean up' the character in the second half for Gondor's benefit. John Hurt, unsurprisingly, gives a sterling vocal performance, as does a resonant William Squire in the part of Gandalf. The hobbits are, I suspect, intended to reflect contemporary youth as audience-identification figures: I find the animated style (their proportions are much more 'cartoonish' than those of the human characters) works well to differentiate them, and the whole 'hairy feet' thing as drawn here comes across as much more plausible than in more literal depictions, including much fan art.

Personally I have less objection to Boromir as Viking -- he was always a fairly bludgeoning type -- than to beardy-Aragorn (illogical: they were both Numenorians, after all), although I am clearly in a minority here!

The big flaw in this picture is always going to be the fact that it was an unfinished project, with a bizarre tacked-on voice-over ending attempting to resolve matters. A pity; it would have been interesting, not to mention less frustrating, to see what Bakshi planned to make of Shelob and Minas Tirith, never mind the Dead...

Man, those Orcs must have great dental plans!

[La Gremlin · 3/10 · 9 October 2001]

Here it is, folks. It is NOT the _Lord of the Rings_ I remember from college, it is the long lost World's Longest Episode of "He-Man".

I have to wonder, after this mess and "Cool World", why Ralph Bakshi was so hot. You have to wonder about a mindset that skips over the forming of the Fellowship and the Hobbits' harrowing encounters with Gollum, yet gives Frodo an approximately twenty minute long hallucination when the Ringwraiths are chasing him.

The best thing I can say about this movie? The current _Lord of the Rings_ movies are going to look like "Citizen Kane" in comparison, no matter what! It gets a three only for parody value and the unintentional hilarity of the Great Final Battle between a bunch of photocopies and a bunch of extras from an amateur production of "Planet of the Apes".

Underrated Animated Classic

[Rainey-Dawn · 9/10 · 25 October 2014]

This movie is not directly a sequel to the Rankin/Bass 1977 TV movie The Hobbit but among fans, including myself, it is the second film in the series (it's just not officially the sequel).

I was about 6 years old when I saw this TV movie. I can still recall being excited and engrossed in the story. It is a captivating film although it is by no means perfect. I can still enjoy this classic today. There is no comedy in this flick even though it is a cartoon - it really is a mature film that adults can enjoy.

Watching the film all these years later: the animation is gorgeously dark and vivid & the storytelling is superb! The is a delicious mixture of animated  live action  along with the actual hand-drawn animation - well done! No wonder this film stood out in my childhood memories!

This is well worth watching if you are a fan of the books, Peter Jackson's film series or the old TV movie The Hobbit.

9.5/10

Fun to Watch...

[fearfulofspiders · 6/10 · 27 August 2008]

First off, this is a really big disappointment to any Tolkien-fan, though it is fun to watch just to see the alternate vision Bakshi had for Middle-earth. The prologue is well done, though the vision Bakshi has on Sauron, Isildur, and many other characters seems either lazy in trying to achieve an individual look, or just ugly with no inspiration whatsoever.

The acting is arguably hammy and corny. Sometimes the actors can do their job well, while other times things just get out of control in terms of what we know of these characters (be it from a fan's perspective, or that of a newcomer). The good thing about animation is that it can cloak a very bad performance, and had this been a film in live-action, each of the actors in this film's cast could face their own form of scrutiny in the way they voiced their character.

This film can go out of focus a lot. Too much time is spent on wasteful minutes of a prolonged flight by Frodo from the Ringwraiths -- a tedious 5-minutes of slow-motion to show the wraiths in the Shadow world's view, and endless chase scenes. I laughed out loud when Aragorn tripped over his sword in the montage when the Three Hunters were chasing the Uruks. The battle for Helm's Deep is lackluster action. This film's version of Gollum seems superior to the one used in Rankin Bass's version of The Hobbit and The Return of the King. The writing for this film is all over the place, making it a pretty terrible adaptation -- even though some scenes are nice nods to the book, they come off as glimpses compared to the rest of the film. Boromir looks like a viking and Aragorn is wearing a skirt... need I say more in the lack of detail or attention to the character's Tolkien wrote. Treebeard is poorly realized, as well as Theoden -- who looks like he just came from a film about the Crusades.

The music is pretty good, though is very forgettable. It's a pretty good companion to THIS film, though to imagine it to other scenes is nearly impossible, or poor in taste.

Overall, this film is fun to watch just for the laughs. Bakshi did what he could in so little time, but ultimately, the rush in rotoscoping and drama behind the scenes gives the audience a lackluster adaptation of Tolkien's epic stories. This is just one film that was too rushed. Worth a watch.

Not deserving of the "Lord of the Rings" title

[Lotrlovr61990 · 1/10 · 9 March 2003]

I found this movie by IMDB. My sister and I are very obsessed with Lord of the Rings, and when we found this and read some of the comments that people have posted on the site, we knew we had to rent it. When we did, all through the movie, we couldn't stop laughing! This is a horrible, yet hysterically funny movie that you should never take seriously and only rent if you want a big guffaw.

Sauron: Why does he have 3 foot long horns atop his head? And why is his name pronounced "sore-on"? Perhaps the horns needed to be placed on his helmet because he apparently hides behind a giant translucent red screen!

Elves & Men: What's the difference? You can't see their ears behind their haystack hair! Oh, yeah, the difference is that the Elves have a glow about them that isn't just metaphorical as Tolkien described it in his books. That and Elves wear togas whereas Men wear miniskirts.

Ringwraiths: These "scary" BROWN riders hobble very convincingly and groan most hideously. They also look like someone's been messing with their medicine. Even after a few centuries of riding, they still can't control their horses! They still can't make their horses do more than shift around irritably, the same result as if a fly had landed on the horses' hindquarters. Their attire seems to consist of some sort of brown rags, and a helmet from a reject Viking movie. Fortunately for us, they fall into the pea-soup green Bruinen River.

Gollum: Gollum's eyes look like 2 very large, green Christmas Tree bulbs jammed into his head. Gollum's self looks like a robot made out of compressed garbage.

Bilbo: Can someone say Humpty Dumpty?

Frodo: Frodo is actually pretty well done in this movie, and he isn't that bad, considering that he gets way to comfortable with Sam at Wethertop. If he had a few decent lines of dialogue and some character development, he wouldn't be that bad.

Sam: One of my favorite characters in LOTR has been turned into a potato-nosed, 4-toothed gardener that doesn't even get introduced in the movie, just gets plucked unceremoniously from a bush in the middle of the night (sani-can?). Somewhat resembling a summer squash, or an overipe gourd, Sam seems to waddle about in a state of perpetual confusion. His rubber face lends itself into the most peculiar expressions, from that of a nauseated clown to that of a slightly stoned hobo. My favorite body gesture happens after the dramatic moment when Frodo says, "the Ring is so heavy Sam", when Sam whistles and shuffles about flapping his arms like a fat pigeon that has just had its wings clipped.

Gandalf: Who transformed Gandalf the Grey into Gandalf the Blue? Why is his beard 6 feet long? Doesn't he collapse under it all? We see him seemingly imprisoned on the top of Isengard. Why doesn't he just do a Rupunzel and let all his hair down the bottom? Maybe Radagast would come and rescue him. Although I don't know who would be friends with this melodramatic doomsayer. Plus his staff looks like someone attached a kidney to the end of it.

Srider/Aragorn: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! NOT THE MINISKIRTS!!!!! This Native American imposter trying to be Aragorn looks like an old codger that is permanently sitting on a porcupine.

Merry & Pippin: They don't get the chance to say much in this movie because it gets cut halfway in the middle of the second book, but from what they do say, they are pretty well played out. If it weren't for their lack of dialogue, they could actually do something in this movie. But maybe it's good that they don't talk much since all the characters who do get a lot of screen time end up being noisy, wildly gesticulating buffoons.

Boromir: Love that horn-call! Speaking of horns, why are there some on his helmet? His helmet is adorned with two antler-sized spikes that he could use as weapons to just head-butt the orcs. Plus he seems to have a fondness for Karate, which is unfortunate because he apparently doesn't have much on under his fluffy tunic.

Gimli: There are 3 things wrong with this character: 1. He could compete with Legolas in height instead of kills.

2. He is bald. 3. Hi ho, hi ho.

Legolas: When I saw him, I thought at first that they had made Arwen blond! Then, however, Aragorn shouted, "Legolas!", and I laughed so loud it woke my mom up from her nap. (I was covering my mouth with my hand, and a blanket, too.) Later on, you will see more signs of his "masculinity": his curly bow, and well-permed toupee.

(S)-Aruman: Ok, is he Saruman, Aruman, Santa, or all of these? If he was to be Saruman or Aruman, then you would have to add on "the Red" to the end of one of these names. About his voice, I have one word: HA! It sounded like Sleeping Beauty's Maleficent with a very bad headcold. All that I can infer from his 5 minutes on screen is that his character is trying to prove that his fireworks are better than Gandalf's.

Treebeard: Dr. Seuss, eat your heart out!

That's the end of this, I hope you enjoyed it :)

LOTRLOVR61990