Il ritorno del re

I really LIKED the whip song!!!

Considering this was a made-for-TV ANIMATED movie back in 1980, Rankin-Bass did an okay job trying to make amends for Ralph Bakshi's failure. R-B was hired to take the entire finale of LOTR and squeeze it down to under 90 minutes suitable for TV. By comparison, Peter Jackson spent over 90 million to make a 3 1/2 hour movie with a PG-13 rating.

R-B made some tough, hard, and brave decisions to pick what would stay, what would go, and what needed to be changed. Purists should stick with the books, but when you consider that Tolkien himself couldn't tell his whole story within the book and had to include appendices, it really isn't necessary to include every minute detail on TV.

The book spent over 100 pages just wrapping up all the "lose ends" after the ring was destroyed. The quest for the ring was the main plot, not dealing with Saruman, not resolving Aragorn's and Arwen's love, not even dealing with Legolas' and Gimli's bond. While these plots didn't make it to the movie and that's a shame, they are not essential to the main story.

I'm not saying the movie was GREAT. I still chuckle when I think that the actual RETURNING OF THE KING took a five second cameo, I stand by Rankin-Bass if only to pick up Ralph Bakshi's pieces, even in vain.

I first saw this movie when I was about four, and it has influenced the way I have felt about Tolkien for years and years and years. Yes, it has flaws - huge gaping flaws. Some of the plot lines aren't at all what they are in the book, and you jump into the end of the story and have absolutely no idea what went on before. It features the phial of Galadriel, for example, but doesn't mention who Galadriel is or how he got the phial in the first place.

But when you're four years old, what does that matter? For me, at least, it was a nice little introduction into Tolkien's epic trilogy. For parents out there, I won't lie to you - there are scary parts. I don't really remember being freaked out about it, though. Some kids might. Little boys will love it because of all the battle scenes, and little girls will love it because of Eowyn.

The scene with Eowyn and the ringwraith is very well done, in my opinion. Not completely like it was in the book, but very well done just the same. It shows us women that you can be beautiful and feminine and still kick some major butt.

Also the scene in which Sam is tempted by the ring is extremely dramatic. I'm glad that Sean Astin's performance more closely resembles this Sam rather than the 1978 Ralph Bakshi Sam. Sam is a loyal trustworthy friend who won't let people push him around without a fight, and not a gay lover.

So with all this in mind, I'd say that this movie is good for all ages. Adults who are fans of the book should see it, even if just for the sake of seeing it. I think it's more appropriate for children, though,to get them acquainted with Tolkien's work.

Having recently seen this version for the first time in a number of years, I can see its faults, but many of the reviewers here are way too hard on it. Tolkien's masterful trilogy was unfilmable in live action before the advent of CGI, but fans were clamoring for film versions anyway, and then hated them when they arrived. Oy veh! While this Rankin/Bass version was not as good as their THE HOBBIT, I still found it to be quite entertaining on its own level, as long as you don't compare it to Peter Jackson's impeccable epics. The voice cast was great, and it was quite ambitious for Rankin/Bass, known chiefly for their animated Christmas specials.

This film's haters should listen to the lyrics of one of Glenn Yarbrough's---It Is So Easy Not To Try. Rankin/Bass tried, and Tolkien fans who have expressed outrage over this would have been angrier if no one had tried back then. Everyone here needs to take a chill pill.

Although I quite enjoyed the Rankin-Bass kiddified version of `The Hobbit', this one just leaves something to be desired. All in all, it was just generally weak. Perhaps it was the huge gaps left out of the plot? The cheesy, twangy-wow-chicka rock music soundtrack? The Old-Western-state-the-obvious narration that won't stop yammering? Well, this family friendly rendition of the latter half of LOTR is still heaps better than the Bakshi 'Lord of the Rings', but isn't an amazing feat of filmmaking, either. The animation is choppy and TV quality, and the sound is awful. (though that's excusable, as it was a made for TV movie from 1980.) Everything else though, is passable.

Visually it isn't too bad, as everything is quite stylized and neat looking. Gandalf, in particular, looks quite good. But yes, it's oversimplified, and yes, it is filled with lots of corny songs. But wasn't the book filled with songs as well? Tolkien never mentioned anything about slap-bass or singing orcs, but actually including music helps in keeping with the original work. At least it should, in theory. Nice effort, anyway.

Biggest problems with this movie would have to be Merry and Pippin. Whereas in Ralph Bakshi's LOTR, they were actually tolerable - cute even. (Though that may be pushing it.) To Bakshi's credit, in his movie only one of the hobbits was mega-homely. However, in this version, both Merry AND Pippin have been given a severe thrashing with the ugly stick. Merry (same voice as Shaggy) has a face made from glued-together potatoes, and Pippin is an ape wearing clothes. His voice is like a piece of glass scraping against another piece of glass.

Besides that though, this movie is bearable, watch-able even. There are some `so bad it's funny' moments, (especially some of the songs) but there are also moments when it's very loyal to the action/dialogue of the book. It's good and bad at the same time - hence so many mixed reviews. Probably kids would enjoy it more than an adult viewer, although even kids would agree that this version is pretty watered-down and lame. 5 / 10, tops.

In the wake of Peter Jackson's incredibly successful Tolkien series, this movie tends to get a lot of flak. Yet in some regards, I actually prefer this version, and I'll explain why:

The difference of opinion is basically generational and dependent on what the viewer is looking for. If you are hooked on stunning visuals and "epic" proportions in every estimable regard, there is no denying that Peter Jackson's films are better.

While this film deviates from the plot in several instances--no doubt a consequence of condensing so much material into an hour-and-a-half--it does maintain some of the better quotes from the books; keep in mind that these lines are delivered in the style in which they were written, not watered down the way some of the most powerful quotes are in more modern versions.

Combine this with a cast of amazing voice actors (Brother Theodore is the best, creepiest Gollum, hands down; Paul Frees orc voices are chilling; Roddy McDowall and Orson Bean do incredible things; and, of course, John Huston; I am not familiar with the actor that plays Denethor, but I love that performance as well) and you've got what is basically an Elizabethan drama with watercolor backgrounds and animation.

The other major reason why people dislike this film, and again it was a creative choice, is the inclusion of songs. Peter Jackson made films for adults; these animated films are intended for children. I admit that the ratio of song to plot can get tedious in this film, but the reasoning is noble. If you've ever read The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings, you know it is absolutely packed with poetry. I am sure it was this film's intent to preserve this feeling while at the same time emulating the musical style which has been popular with children's programming for years.

In conclusion, people often criticize this film on matters of taste rather than actual merit. If you enjoy animation and well-written dialogue, this is definitely worth a look.