The Lord of the Rings (1978) Review

"One ring to rule them all. One ring to find them..." - Gandalf.

I imagine pretty much everybody is somewhat familiar with J.R.R. Tolkein's fantasy series The Lord of the Rings. Whether you read the books first or were introduced to it through the cinematic trilogy of films directed by Peter Jackson (like I was), chances are this epic tale of good and evil left an impression. Many see the Peter Jackson trilogy as the definitive adaptation of the books, but despite how ground-breaking the films were, I don't think they taint the image of the first attempt to bring the world of Middle Earth to film. Released in 1978, Ralph Bakshi's animated feature is a truly unique piece of work, both for its use of animation and the fact that the film was never finished. With the release of the Jackson trilogy, Bakshi's adaptation is either loved or hated in comparison. Although I prefer the Jackson films, there is plenty to enjoy in Bakshi's adaptation, and may grow on some fans if they are prepared to judge it fairly.

The story follows hobbit Frodo Baggins (Christopher Guard), as he sets out on a quest to destroy an ancient ring created by the dark lord Sauron. Accompanied by friends Samwise Gamgee (Michael Scholes) and powerful wizard Gandalf the Grey (William Squire) amongst others, Frodo encounters Sauron's dark forces and forges new alliances with those threatened by Sauron in order to prevent his return to power. With such an epic story with so many characters and action sequences, it is a great shame that the film was never finished. Instead, it only manages to cover two-thirds: The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers. Even with most of the story covered, the film only runs for just over two hours, so not every character is fully developed or gets enough screen-time to leave an impact. Elf Legolas (Anthony Daniels) and dwarf Gimli (David Buck), two central characters in other adaptations, barley say a word and don't do much in aiding to advance the plot. Thankfully Aragorn (John Hurt) has plenty of focus, and is definitely one of the film's strongest characters. He is involving in a lot of the diplomatic discussions on what to do about the ring and how the quest should proceed, and being voiced by the brilliant John Hurt certainly adds a great deal of class. I have mixed feelings about Gandalf. Though he is certainly memorable and plays a large part of the story, his personality is far from how I would imagine. He repeatedly gets irritated by the other characters, and can't keep still whatsoever, waving his hands around and constantly trying to get his own way. I have to say though, he's very entertaining and I have a lot of fun watching this interpretation of the character. He's totally unpredictable. But what about protagonist Frodo Baggins? Well, I'm happy to say, he isn't completely crushed by all the other large personalities that surround him. Though he isn't the toughest hero, he remains headstrong throughout and isn't overly reliant on the other members of the fellowship. Well, except for Gandalf in some instances in the film's first half. It's when he and Sam are separated from the others and encounter the villainous Gollum (Peter Woodthorpe) where Frodo comes into his own. He is fair, but won't be patronised by Gollum's blatant attempts to appear pleasant. Overall, a well portrayed hero, and one that you could rely on to persevere in the face of adversity. 

One thing that taints the film (or improves it, depending on your mood) is the plethora of unintentionally hilarious moments throughout. Some of these moments are just plain weird decisions by the filmmakers, including changing a character's name part way through! The character Saruman is first referred to as Aruman by Gandalf. Then in the next scene, when Gandalf meets with Saruman, he calls him Saruman! I honestly cannot fathom what the point was in changing the name, but if they did change it, stick with it! Another highlight is possibly my favourite use of an obvious mistake in a film ever. There is a scene where Aragorn is running in slo-mo towards the camera, and his sword hilt gets caught between his legs, causing him to trip. Why on earth did they leave that in?! I can understand the actor providing the physicality of the character (the film was shot with actors then animated later) may have tripped, but why animate it and keep it in the film? Immediately after follows another strange running scene. This time, it's a large group of orcs running from a distance. As they move closer you can see one orc on the right hand side running on his own, some distance away from the rest of them. It's something that has to be seen to be believed, so I've grabbed the images of both these moments to fully illustrate how strange this film can be.

For all its silly moments, I'd say the film has plenty to offer if you want a good fantasy-adventure film. If you look past its inferiority compared to the Peter Jackson films, the film can stand as an enjoyable adaptation on its own. The primary characters are memorable, there's great atmosphere (thanks largely to some well painted scenery), and is well paced. If you're a Lord of the Rings fan, there's certainly enough to appreciate, as Bakshi is clearly intent on creating a serious portrayal of the story, which is sadly hampered by the above mentioned unusual scenes. If only they could have finished it, and then the story would have a point. As it stands, the ring is never destroyed and all it took to defeat Sauron's forces was Gandalf doing what he does best: waving his hands around. Except this time, with a sword.

Pros:
+ Some strong voice acting, most notably John Hurt as Aragorn.
+ Well paced, even if it leaves out important plot-lines form the books.
+ Atmospheric scenery, the film is visually stunning in some instances.

Cons:
- A large number of strange, unintentionally hilarious moments (there are so many more than just the ones I mentioned) that can take away from the film's seriousness.
- It's not finished!