5.0 out of 5 stars Very good

J. · April 16, 2025

(function() { P.when('cr-A', 'ready').execute(function(A) { if(typeof A.toggleExpanderAriaLabel === 'function') { A.toggleExpanderAriaLabel('review_text_read_more', 'Read more of this review', 'Read less of this review'); } }); })(); .review-text-read-more-expander:focus-visible { outline: 2px solid #2162a1; outline-offset: 2px; border-radius: 5px; } For my fiance and his collection

5.0 out of 5 stars Great price and product

S. · February 12, 2025

Got this as a birthday gift for someone. It played well with no issues. They are happy with it. Great product and price

5.0 out of 5 stars A Piece of Cinematic History!

R. · January 17, 2020

Ralph Bakshi’s 1978 film, “The Lord of the Rings,” adapts the first two volumes of J.R.R. Tolkien’s epic, covering material from “The Fellowship of the Ring” and “The Two Towers.” The story generally follows Tolkien’s novel, though Bakshi condenses Frodo’s journey from Bag End to Bree. He also blends Glorfindel with Legolas. Unlike the Rankin/Bass adaptation of “The Hobbit,” Bakshi and United Artists intended the film for an adult audience so they do not shy away from violence in the battle scenes or pathos in more emotional moments, like Boromir’s death. John Hurt portrays Aragorn and Anthony Daniels voices Legolas. Though WB acquired the rights to this film alongside the Rankin/Bass pictures, there is a noticeable difference in their production. It works, however, as “The Hobbit” is for younger readers while “Lord of the Rings” is more adult in its tone. Bakshi hoped to make a sequel in order to complete the narrative, but it never happened. The DVD ends with a narrator summarizing, “The forces of darkness were driven forever from the face of Middle-Earth by the valiant friends of Frodo. As their gallant battle ended, so, too, ends the first great tale of The Lord of the Rings.”The film is very experimental, blending traditional animation with rotoscoping (animation drawn over traditional filming) and some shots that were put through a color filter or exposed differently, similar to color-tinted silent films. This color-tint process creates a high degree of contrast, leaving the figures rather dark at times so that, in their armor, they somewhat resemble the art for Prince Valiant. In terms of technique, the only modern work I could compare it to is Richard Linklater’s 2006 film, “A Scanner Darkly.” One of the bonus features is “Forging Through the Darkness,” a look at Ralph Bakshi’s life as an animator and how his work fit into the animation scene. It points out that Disney, who had traditionally dominated American feature-length animation, was then at its nadir (see the documentary, “Waking Sleeping Beauty”) while connecting Bakshi’s artistic vision to the underground comix scene of the 1960s and 1970s.

5.0 out of 5 stars Let's Be Fair

K.D. · May 10, 2013

First let me say it's easy to argue that Peter Jackson did for J.R.R. Tolkien what the Italian genius Franco Zeffirelli did for Shakespeare such as in Mel Gibson's "Hamlet." (Fascinating images, great music, and careful attention to the intentions of the writer.)However, IT IS NOT FAIR TO COMPARE THIS LATE 70s MOVIE TO PETER JACKSON'S EVENTUAL MASTERPIECE THAT WOULD COME OVER 20 YEARS LATER WITH MORE MONEY AND MORE TECHNOLOGY.I'd rather not go through a plot synopsis. Mainly because if you're on this site, you are probably already familiar with the story.I'll just say it starts off some time after "The Hobbit" and covers material from "Fellowship of the Ring" to "The Two Towers."The animation is good as well as interesting and unique. In some ways I kind of like the animation with less computer resources. John Hurt really was a convincing Aragorn. Anthony Daniels is probably branded as C3PO from "Star Wars." But I like him better here as Legolas.One thing I have to say about this film is that it is less Hollywoodish. By that I mean, there is a much lesser body count of Orcs. But the fewer body counts are actually underlined more. (We see blood during the fighting.) And I found Boromir's death in this animated film even more disturbing than in the eventual Peter Jackson film.Another thing I like about this film is that Peter Jackson seemed to go out of his way to make the Orcs ugly and repulsive. In this film, the orcs are more dark and sinister. And interestingly enough, they are more fascinating than repulsive. We almost have a dark liking for them.The one complaint I have is that the film ends a little too quickly in that we don't get to see Saruman's comeuppance at the hands (or should I say the branches) of the Ents.But all in all, it's a good express version of "Fellowship of the Ring" and "The Two Towers" that made the most of what resources were available in the late 70s.The animation and music are well done. And for the most part, the movie has a nice flow.My advice is to give this a fair chance without comparing it to a masterpiece that would come over 20 years later.

Un clasico que merece la pena

P. · April 29, 2025

(function() { P.when('cr-A', 'ready').execute(function(A) { if(typeof A.toggleExpanderAriaLabel === 'function') { A.toggleExpanderAriaLabel('review_text_read_more', 'Read more of this review', 'Read less of this review'); } }); })(); .review-text-read-more-expander:focus-visible { outline: 2px solid #2162a1; outline-offset: 2px; border-radius: 5px; } La película es un tesoro audiovisual, merece mucho la pena tenerla, y más por ese precio y subtítulos en castellano. No la he visionado aún, así que no puedo hablar de la calidad. Si me acuerdo, actualizaré esta reseña.

Much superior than Peter Jackson's version

A.C. · January 27, 2004

Yes, I MEAN it. Although this film has been criticised previously, this animated version sticks to the story (although truncated and only about half because the director ran out of cash) much more accurately than the films. The live-action/animated Black Riders are especially good, giving one the feeling that they are indeed shadowy figures and adds a sense of unreality.The film does lack the awe-inspiring scenes from Peter Jackon's LOTR trilogy - but just remember that this was made in the late 70s when technology wasn't at it's pinnacle. This version is experimental in its animation - something I haven't seen since - which makes it unique.All the main points of the story are here. Although it is short and could be longer, it does at least STICK to the story instead of making up additional scenes or altering the plot because the director thinks that a modern audience can't cope with a film with only quite minor female characters (yes, Peter Jackson, I mean you!!).The voice talent is impressive - including such luminaries as John Hurt and Annette Crosbie. Gollum in particular is voiced extremely well and looks exactly how I'd pictured him when I originally read the books.The lack of extras on the DVD is disappointing - I can't help thinking that some of the scenes/storyboard which were supposed to be in the second film could have been incorporated into a feature for the DVD.I recommend this film to anyone who enjoys the books, or the more recent films. Definitely worth a look.

I fanatici del mondo di Tolkien o lo amano o lo odiano.

V.G. · January 29, 2020

Mi aspettavo di trovre la copertina mostrata in foto invece è arrivato in veste ridisegnata, avrei preferito la prima. L'ho acquistato usato a circa 5 euro, comprese le spese di spedizione; spedizione un po' lenta (ha impiegato il doppio del tempo previsto) ma arrivato in ottime condizioni. Per chi, come me, si è avvicinato al mondo di Tolkien guardando il film di Jackson, troverà questo film un po' concitato e sbrigativo, ma sarà divertente individuare le scene che Jackson ha copiato nei suoi film. In fine considero questo liguaggio di animazione molto scenografico e favolistico, penso che invecchiando sia migliorato.

the cliché of "a flawed masterpiece" certainly applies here

M.C. · January 24, 2015

This is one of those films that the cliché "a flawed masterpiece" was invented for. Released in 1978, this was an (overly?) ambitious attempt to animate Tolkein's epic fantasy bestseller. Director Ralph Bakshi had a reputation as a bit of an iconoclast, determined to free the art of animation from the banal schmaltz that Disney had become, and make it a credible medium for adult audiences rather than just pap for kids. Long before CGI animation was a possibility, his Lord of the Rings was very innovative technically in filming large amounts of real live action and then rotoscoping this frame by frame into the animated backgrounds. This does result in some excellent fluid motion for characters, particularly in the battle scenes, and the best bits (for instance, Nazgul on horseback) look stunning. However many of the other animated characters are less successful, the hobbits looking rather 'cartoony' and as for Legolas, I laughed out loud when I saw him! And the balrog is just ahine! The backgrounds are often beautifully detailed by may remind you a little too much of Yes albums covers :)The voice acting is also 'good in parts' but overall seems a little nondescript, with too many samey English accents from character to character. The orchestral score does the film no favours in my opinion, generally being rather uninspired, and the sound design is also rather undeveloped for a fantasy film like this.The pacing of the story is rather uneven too, some sequences seem rather drawn out, others whizz by in jump cuts (with, inevitably, some bits of the book omitted - poor old Tom Bombadil!). The greatest flaw of all, of course, is that the film stops in the bloody middle of the story! Apparently the director wanted to put it out as "Lord of the Rings Part 1", but bizarrely the studio vetoed this, claiming it would put people off wanting to see the film (?!) Of course, what happened was that cinema goers at the time almost unanimously felt duped when the film "ended half way". In any case, despite the film making a healthy box office profit, Part 2 was never made.Anyways - so much for the film itself, what about the BluRay? Well, that too is a little flawed. It's clearly made from a print, and is full of speckles and dirt from all that rotoscoping and compositing. Clearly, doing a frame-by-frame restoration from the original negatives so as to fix all these would be insanely expensive, so its not entirely surprising that it wasn't been attempted. Nonetheless, the phrase "this high resolution presentation may reveal limitations of the original source materials" certain applies here. I would have thought they could at least have stabilised some of the film wobble in places, but no. The 5.1 sound mix is rather tame too, although the dialogue is always clear. As a bonus feature, there's a fairly engaging half-hour documentary about Ralph Bakshi that sheds a fair amount of light on how and why the film looks the way it does.All in all, if you like Tolkein and/or animation, this film certainly has some flashes of brilliance. Indeed, you may well spot certain shots which were homaged almost exactly by Peter Jackson in his film version (and also in HTV's 1980s TV adaption of Robin of Sherwood, for those who remember 'The Swords of Wayland'). I'm happy to own a copy, but much as its best bits deserve praise, it's hard not to come away with a shopping list of things about it that you think could've been done better! Ultimately that's as much a testament to the breadth and depth of vision in Tolkein's original book as anything else.

長年入手できる時を待っていました

A.カ. · June 30, 2017

昔映画館で観て、レーザーディスク時代は売り切れで買えず、長年入手できる時を待っていました。原作とはストーリーが違いますが、このアニメーションが好きです。