Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

This film tells the tale of Frodo Baggins, a Hobbit, who must go on an epic quest to take the evil ring of power to Mount Doom in the Kingdom of Mordor; all the time under threat of attack by the nine sinister Ring Wraths and evil Orcs. He starts his journey after being given the quest by the wizard Gandalf and is initially accompanied by fellow Hobbits Sam, Merry and Pippin. They are later joined by Aragorn, a friend of Gandalf. He leads then to the elvish town of Rivendell where they are reunited with Gandalf. Here the 'Fellowship of the Ring' is formed as Gandalf, Legolas the Elf, Gimli the Dwarf and Boromir, a human warrior join the four Hobbits and Aragorn. Their troubles are only beginning; the forces of darkness are constantly after the ring and the ring itself threatens to tear the group apart as members think they could use it for good; something which is quite impossible.It must be said that since Peter Jackson's epic three film adaption of 'The Lord of the Rings' this version looks a distinct second best. That isn't to say this isn't worth watching. I certainly enjoyed it when I saw it as a child even if I was disappointed by the ending that makes it clear that this is just the first part of the story… I was even more disappointed when it became apparent that the conclusion wouldn't be made. On the positive side the story moves at a cracking pace and I liked the character designs. Some might not like the obvious rotoscoping used during more action led scenes and scenes involving large groups but I rather liked it as it gave the film a distinctive look and meant we could get for more motion in these scenes than if it was conventionally animated. The voice cast does a good job, never sounding 'cartoony'. Overall I'd recommend this but one has to accept that it only shows half of the story… at least now we can watch Peter Jackson's films to find out how it ends.

Everyone knows of the cultural phenomenon that is Lord Of The Rings through either the book or the trilogy of films done by Peter Jackson. So I found this adaptation which not many people know about and in my opinion this movie does have enough to worth people coming back to it despite it only being a half done adaptation.So in case you don't know the story. Frodo is a hobbit who comes across a ring of great power that is made for a man of great evil and turns almost anyone who comes across it into insane addicts. Frodo somehow can resist the ring and a wise wizard named Gandalf decides for him and his friends to go the the Elven council to decide to throw the ring into the fire and must face the terrors that Middle-Earth has between Frodo's home and the Mountain.I may compare this movie to the Jackson films but if you've seen Fellowship Of The Ring and The Two Towers, the comparisons are inevitable. I think a big problem this movie had is that it becomes a little bit too reliant on exposition. It isn't as bad as "every line we say will contain a form of exposition" but some things are told instead of shown and sometimes both at the same time which in my opinion we do not need to be told.If there is one other complaint and yes, I may be seen as nitpicking when I say this too is the animation style... I know, This isn't Disney but seeing The Orcs and the Ring Wraiths side by side I could barely tell the difference between them, the Hobbits all look similar and the knights at Helms Deep... Was there a method of cloning in Middle Earth? Seriously every soldier looks the same. Again, it seems like nitpicking but it just takes away from the story. Oh and BTW, just as a side-note the Balrog in this movie is awful.In terms of what I liked, well a complaint I raised with Fellowship is that Frodo was less of a Luke Skywalker-style protagonist and more of a damsel in distress. Here, that is gone. I mean he gets stabbed and he does go to Rivendale but he fights back even after getting stabbed and he wasn't taken away by Arwen (who isn't in this movie). It just seems like he's the better person to follow then the one in the first movie. And before the fans of the Jackson movies have a heart attack, he did get better across the other 2 movies.The atmosphere and action of this movie is nailed right on the head. The scene where the Orcs are marching towards Helms Deep is probably one of the most atmospheric scenes I have seen in a fantasy movie. With the action, it feels a little more realistic - like when you see someone is stabbed you feel the impact of them getting stabbed. Although the action does have it's weak points like in the battle of Helms Deep the soldiers don't take cover when the Orcs are firing arrows at them. With that said if you're a fan of atmospheric movies then this does have some good scenes in it which alone make this worth checking out.Oh and this might be me nitpicking but I'm going to say it anyway. The voice acting, except maybe John Hurt and a few others just doesn't feel right. Maybe because with the Jackson movies Ian McKellen, Andy Serkis and a few others nail their performances hearing Gollum, Gandalf, Saruman and some of the others sound like how they do in the movie just feels wrong. Don't get me wrong they do throw in solid performances but you just can't compare with the performances that got the characters seemingly perfect for the roles (I say seemingly because I never read Lord Of The Rings). Oh and by the way, Samwise is probably the most useless, annoying side-character (in this movie) since Jar-Jar.So I think that while the Jackson movies are inevitably better this does have some things well worth checking out. I've heard that it's either loved or hated by fans and considering these side-by side there is a lot to suggest either opinion. Me personally, I'm somewhere in-between. There are things to complain about but when this movie gets it right, it really gets it right.

Ralph Bakshi's 1978 LOTR adaptation is one of the most divisive entries in his filmography. Some see it as a bastardization of its source due to having to condense so much into little screen time. Others praise it as a bold work of art. I can understand both views, but after watching this twice, I am sorry to say I cannot come to the conclusion that this is a good movie. And it has nothing to do with how close it is or isn't to the books.To start with the positive side of things, the score is magnificent. In fact, I like it more than the music from the much-loved Peter Jackson LOTR trilogy, probably because it's less gloomy and bombastic. It just exudes fantasy and adventure. The animation is mostly solid and I enjoyed how Bakshi employed rotorscoping with the more sinister characters.However, even though the animation and rotorscoping are good on their own, I do not think they blend well. The mix of realistic characters, more cartoony characters, and the rotorscoped characters make for a messy, rushed aesthetic that feels more annoying than cutting edge. I think the rotorscoping worked much better in Bakshi's previous fantasy film, Wizards (1977), since it was only a mix of non-realistic characters with rotorscoped demons and monsters.The editing is sometimes awkward and the characterization choices are sometimes borderline strange (in Sam's case, it was downright abominable; "OH HOO-RAYYYY!!"). Some of Gandalf's antics are unintentionally funny. The pacing is atrocious and there are stretches where you find yourself groaning and checking your watch every other minute.In conclusion, the film just feels unfinished. Bakshi often had to work with low budgets and one could accuse him of being an undisciplined artist, but he was certainly capable of better than this if Heavy Traffic (1972) and Wizards are anything to go by.

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.