Waste of time

Thanks for the memories!

Purely Joyful Movie!

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

The Lord of the Rings shows that talent and vision go a long way. Peter Jackson has taken the responsibility to bring one of the most daunting (and beloved) books on the screen and it is a success. The fellowship of the rings starts are the saga and we are introduced to all the beloved characters from the Tolkein books. The cinematography, art design, editing- everything is top notch and you feel as though you are transported to hobbit land. Watch this film to understand the art of cinema(Best gift for a Tolkein nut or even if you are not)

This movie is, quite simply, bad.I was aware of Ralph Bakshi's "Wizards" and I found most of it appealing although I was not a fan of the rotoscoping. But the actual artwork I liked a lot.Then I was at the 1977 Houston Comicbook Convention and Art Festival and some woman from United Artists hosted a talk where she showed artwork and stills from the upcoming movie.I was pretty excited. I loved The Lord of the Rings, and had a habit back then of rereading it every year starting in April.The movie showed up and it was terrible. Yes it took ridiculous liberties with the story but the biggest issue in my mind was the endless rotoscoping. Sometimes you would see the same scene over and over, rotoscoped into different shades of color.I get it - rotoscoping is cheap compared to actual full animation, especially when you are just using clips from other movies and shows. And sadly that is what it made this movie look - cheap.I still remember when the movie ended some guy a couple of rows up from me said, "What the hell was that?" And I heard several variations on the theme, "That was it?"In short, not enough artwork and too much reliance on cheap rotoscoping, too much reworking of a story too well known (if you think you can write a better story, write it! Don't steal someone else's), and just an abrupt end to the movie.People can say now it was great but it was not well received as evidenced by the fact that Bakshi studios never made the second part.

Yes, I know that people who have seen Peter Jackson's version insist that this version, assuming they have seen it at all, is vastly inferior in every way. And yes, I know this version of the story actually ends in the middle of the narrative. However, those points being granted, one has to acknowledge that Peter Jackson enjoyed several advantages that Ralph lacked, namely time and a budget. Peter Jackson had three years in which to complete his epic film trilogy, which was far more time than the amount of time Backshi was allotted. In addition it should be mentioned that Ralph Backshi produced his film on a budget of only $4 million, an amount which is dwarfed (or, perhaps one might more accurately say, "hobbited") by the $281 million Peter Jackson spent producing his movie trilogy. For that reason, comparisons between the two versions are more than a little unfair. However, that being said, what Ralph Backshi did have in abundance was imagination and artistic skill. I'm sure there are those who will consider this heresy, but I think one might compare Ralph Backshi to Orson Welles in that none of the animated features that he directed ever really came out as well as he intended. Like Orson Welles, Ralph Backshi never seemed able to get sufficient financial backing to complete his movies as well as he originally visualized them. The 1970s was not a good period for animators, unless one had the backing of a huge studio like Disney, which Backshi certainly never did.So, if you watch this again, bear in mind that it was produced on what today would be considered a tiny financial budget. In fact, it appears that Backshi was so strapped for cash that he was never even able to finish more than the first part. Like Eisenstein's "Ivan the Terrible", Ralph Backshi's "Lord of the Rings" remains unfinished.

*Spoiler/plot- The Lord of the Rings, 1978. Totally animated version of the first two books of J.R. Tolkien's fantasy world of Middle Earth.*Special Stars- Voice and character Movement: Billy Barty, Anthony Daniels, John Hurt, Felix Silva.*Theme- Friends working together towards a common goal can achieve anything.*Trivia/location/goofs- A totally rotoscoped animated film. Listen for many famous actors voicing lead and supporting roles. Locations: Spain.*Emotion- I saw this in the theaters when it came out in the 70's and it was the center of a J. R. Tolkien mini-fad. There were belt buckles, maps, and other marketing blitz items rolled out for the public. Even Star Trek's 'Spock', L. Nimoy included a silly Hobbit song on his record he released in that year. That is when I read the trilogy books and enjoyed my introduction to Middle Earth. I found this film unique, strange and interesting because of Ralph Bakshi's use of odd animation and rotoscoping and actor movements. The film and the film's music themes were heroic and strong, too. I bought the record from the film. However, I was disappointed that the quest of little Frodo never got to finish in a sequel, but this film introduced me to all things Hobbit. I would say see this film for it's Hobbit beginnings that Peter Jackson took to incredible heights, first.