Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
35 of 38 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Interesting for fans; non-fans will be confused., December 24, 2001
When I was 7, my Aunt Bobby took me to see Ralph Bakshi's animated Lord of the Rings at the Zigfield Theater in Manhattan. I will always remember sitting in that cavernous theater, watching the amazing story of Middle-Earth unfold, and just generally being amazed by the lushly colored animation on the gigantic screen. SO.....bear in mind as you read this that I will always have a soft spot in my heart for this much-maligned film. That was over 20 years ago, and I think I've seen this movie once since then, so when it was released on DVD I eagerly snapped it up. So how does it hold up to the childhood memories?
Pretty good, actually. The story is basically the same as in the book: The Hobbit Frodo is joined by eight companions in a quest to destroy the evil Ring of Sauron. The characters and locales look pretty much as one would imagine from reading the books. (This movie adapts The Fellowship of the Ring & half of The Two Towers.) I had a problem with Strider and Boromir trudging through feet of snow in nothing but their little dresses, though.....bundle up, guys!
The scenery is by turns lush (The Shire), and forbidding (The excellent Mines of Moria sequence). The problems were pretty much all the same: Bakshi's use of "Rotoscoping", or filming real actors and drawing over them. The rotoscoped portions just don't fit with the rest of the movie, and it can be QUITE jarring to look at. (Check out how all of the Orcs seem to have just 2 kinds of faces.....couldn't they at least have made different masks to film the Orc actors in????) Also troubling (in a very minor way...) was how "Saruman" was pronounced "Aruman" about half the time. People who aren't familiar with the story will find that confusing; people who ARE will find it more and more irritating each time it happens......and it happens A LOT. The film also ends a little too abruptly; I remember being bothered by that as a kid. (It still bothers me!) On the plus side, the DVD looks great; the colors are perfect, and the sound is great. It's too bad there aren't more extras: all there is are a few text features. (Not even a trailer!) Overall, not as good as the new film adaptation, but worth a look for Tolkien fans.
|
|
|
16 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
A failed effort, but it had potential., October 27, 2004
The first effort to bring "The Lord of the Rings" to the big screen was an animated film, as J.R.R. Tolkien himself originally intended as far back as the 1950's (legendary fan Forrest J. Ackerman wrote a treatment back then that Tolkien loathed; fortunately for all concerned, Ackerman's version was never filmed). Director Ralph Bakshi had intended to follow up this effort with a sequel which would finish the story, but the second film was never made. His 1979 version covered all of "The Fellowship of the Ring" and roughly half of "The Two Towers," and the decision to cram a thousand-page novel into roughly four hours of animation had significant deleterious effects on the only movie that was actually drawn and filmed.
With that said, the adaptation of the books, written by Tolkien acolyte Peter S. Beagle and Chris Conking, includes a perfectly workable abridgement of "The Fellowship of the Ring," even while the treatment of "The Two Towers" is jagged and rushed, but mostly loyal to the original work. There are no armies of elves riding to save Helm's Deep, Frodo never runs Sam off or offers the One Ring to a Nazgul, and, thank Illuvitar, Arwen Evenstar is never called upon to draw a sword (of course, that's partly because Arwen doesn't appear in the film, but every little bit helps.) To do a really authentic version of LOTR would require at least half a dozen hours per volume, and even then you'd have to leave stuff out. For this film--clocking it at two hours and thirteen minutes, an extraordinarily long running time for an animated feature--the cuts and minor alterations mostly make sense. For instance, substituting Legolas for Glorfindel early in the story is perfectly reasonable
So what's good about it, other than the source material and the script? The voice cast, led by John "I Have A Belly-Ache" Hurt as Aragorn, is top-notch. Much of the character design, particularly the hobbits, Gimli and Gandalf, is excellent, although there are plenty of knucleheaded decisions as well--Boromir the Viking being the most obvious example. Hobbiton is picture-perfect. The Paul Kont/Leonard Rosenman musical score is fine, with the exception of a famous, poorly-chosen cue at the very end of the film. When I saw this movie in the theater as a kid, all my buddies who hadn't read the book thought that the orcs had made friends with Theoden and Aragorn, thanks to the ill-selected music.
And speaking of the orcs... this is as good a time as any to address the movie's problems. "The Lord of the Rings" was billed as a huge advance in animation, an example of "painted armies" marching into a spectacular battle. The reality was somewhat less spectacular. Prior to beginning animation, Bakshi took the extraordinary step of filming the entire script with live actors. The animated movie was then drawn to match the motion of the live footage, sometimes literally traced on top of that footage. The result is a wildly uneven finished product. While the fully animated main characters do move with a lifelike grace, the battle scenes are a ragged rotoscoped mess, backed with really bad live-action lighting effects that probably looked cool if you were a stoned viewer in 1979. Today, they just look cheesy and out of place.
What's worse, Bakshi never made full use of the wide-open opportunities allowed by animation. It's painfully obviously that he didn't have enough budget for armor, either for the Riders of Rohan or Saruman's orcs, during the live-action filming. So the stuntmen-orcs shared three or four masks, and were dressed in shapeless robes instead of armor. And that would have been fine--after all you're going to draw everything later, and you can just draw cool orc-faces and armor in, right?
Apparently not, because the animated orcs are dressed in shapeless robes, and about the only armor on the screen is on Theoden's horse. The lack of real animation on the orcs is all the more galling when we finally get a look at Gollum, one of the very few characters in the film that was completely animated without a live-action model. He looks and moves perfectly. Smeagol is one of the real treats of this movie... which makes me all the sadder in considering the missed opportunities in the rest of the film.
(Parenthetically, how remarkable is it that Gollum is the one character that's always the closest to Tolkien's vision, in every adaptation of his work? Even in the Rankin-Bass cartoons, when Gollum is stupidly drawn as a frog-monster, his lines and actions are still dead-on. A real tribute to Tolkien for creating such a singularly distinct and memorable character. But I digress.)
Much of the background art looks rushed and incomplete, like production drawings that were slapped down behind the cels when the money ran out. Orthanc in particular is not even close to Tolkein's description, and Moria looks cramped and visually uninteresting, as does the Golden Hall of Edoras. The final battle scenes are a sad mish-mash, as is pretty much everything in the movie after "The King of the Golden Hall." And hey, Bakshi--Aragorn and Boromir are the heirs to the throne and stewarship of Gondor. Why the heck don't they wear PANTS??
At any rate, the disk is cheap, the video transfer is very good, and the sound has been dramatically cleaned up from the muddy VHS releases. As for supplemental materials on the DVD, fuhgeddaboutit. There's no trailer (contrary to the packaging), and the "background information" is scanty and absolutely no news to anyone remotely familiar with either Tolkien or Bakshi's work. If you're going to buy this disc, it's (a) because you recall it with some fondness from your childhood, or (b) because it has Tolkien's name on it. Otherwise, I'd say skip it.
|
|
|
9 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Bakshi Version: Not All That Bad; Not All That Good, November 23, 2001
I was a LORD OF THE RINGS fan before the movie came out. I read it when I was in 6th grade. My friend Ralph and I would talk about the chapter we were on during soccer practice ("Last night I got to the part where Frodo stabs the cave troll in the foot..."). When Ralph Bakshi's film came out I was very excited to see it. I bought a few of the action figures as well as some coloring books and a fotonovel. I liked the film! I was in 6th grade, though ...I just got the DVD version of Bakshi's LORD OF THE RINGS and am glad that it is shown in its widescreen ratio. The film, after all these years, looks good and is entertaining for about an hour. The second half is dark and hard to follow and incomplete. Bakshi seemed to concentrate on the battles. There is a lot of screen time spent on seeing humans confront then kill orcs. Bakshi pushes the limits of his rotoscoping technique, but in the end it still looks like cheaply costumed extras that have been traced and animated. The orcs look fake with their rubber faces and burlap-sack clothes. Some of Tolkien's story points are not covered or skipped (i.e. the gifts that Galadriel gives to the Fellowship). The best thing about Bakshi's RINGS movie is the voice casting. The characters sound like I imagined them to sound. The character designs are pretty good as well, although Aragorn and Boromir look too "Viking-like" for my tastes. Bakshi has been fairly true to Tolkien's descriptions, though. It is unfortunate that the film ends with the battle of Helms Deep. I have read interviews that seem to say that Bakshi ran out of money. Therefore,the ending isn't really a planned stopping point in the story: more like Bakshi simply ran out of money and had to stop there. THE LORD OF THE RINGS (Bakshi version) is not a terrible film. It has some really good moments. And Bakshi's animation experiments are to be commended. However, it's not all that great either and suffers in its story telling and entertainment value. Here's hoping that Peter Jackson's RINGS trilogy gets it right!
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
DVD ~ Orson Bean
DVD ~ Orson Bean
DVD ~ Ralph Bakshi
DVD ~ Randy Norton
DVD ~ J.R.R. TOLKIEN
DVD ~ J.R.R. Tolkien
