The Lord of the Rings (1978) — A Review.

1st February, 2026 — The Lord of the Rings (1978).

An Introduction.

OK … it’s a Sunday afternoon: and … ?

I have dinner cooking.

Sausages, so you know: with potatoes.

Exciting stuff, eh … ?

At any rate: it’s quiet, my browser isn’t making my Mac over heat … and there’s laundry doing.

Which has just reminded me: putting things in the dryer, helps … !

At any rate?

I’ve a quiet night in, and a pile of movies to watch.

And … ?

Ever since seeing Ralph Bakshi’s Wizards, a while back, there was something else I meant to catch … 

Catch, review … and tell you about by Wednesday … 

~≈🧙🏾‍♂️≈~

1st February, 2026.

Part One: The Summary.

Ralph Bakshi’s version of The Lord of the Rings opens with the usual idents: idents that tell us this is a United Artists film, presented by a company called Fantasy Films.

Then shifts, after the opening credits, to a narration that tells us how, many years ago, the Elves made powerful magical rings.

But that the evil Sauron made a master ring, the One Ring, that would dominate all others.

It tells how, in the war between the forces of Sauron and the Last Alliance of Men and Elves, Prince Isildur defeated Sauron … and took the Ring … only to be killed by orcs.

And to lose the Ring in the process.

Many years later?

The Ring is found by a creature called Gollum … who, in turn, loses it to a Hobbit called Bilbo Baggins.

The scene shifts, again: to Bilbo’s home in the Shire, where Bilbo is celebrating his 111th birthday.

Only to disappear at the climax of the party: to the consternation of his guests.

Little do they know that Bilbo has used the Ring to get back to his home, Bag End.

Where he’s saying his goodbyes: both to his old friend, Gandalf … and to the Ring … 

~≈🧙🏾‍♂️≈~

2nd February, 2026.

Part Two: Initial Thoughts.

So … what did I make of Bakshi’s animated version of The Lord of the Rings?

Of something that leaves Tolkien’s epic work, unfinished … ?

Of the look of a film that has issues … but a certain amount of guts?

Let’s try and talk about the look of this film, shall we … ?

In November of 2025, I caught Wizards, the 1977 film from Lord of the Rings director, Ralph Bskshi: and came away … if not awed, then certainly impressed.

Wizards is no polished Disney piece: but is good looking, and very watchable.

The rotoscoping, the technique, the character design, the voices … ?

Again, The Lord of the Rings is no polished, fluffy, Disney piece: but something that has a feel all of its own.

And is — if anything —an improvement on the work Bakshi and his team put in on the earlier film.

Just as an example?

The backgrounds in Wizards were quite amazing: there’s few I think that match that look.

Until I saw Bakshi’s The Lord of the Rings: which are more than equal.

Then there’s the character design: which I have to call memorable.

I’ve seen the Peter Jackson version of The Lord of the Rings: and think very well of it.

It’s a monumental piece of work.

But for me … ?

There’s times when my imagination presents me with images of the characters.

And some of them?

I’ll see as Jackson’s version of the characters: Miranda Otto’s version of Eowyn stands out, as does Serkis’ version of Gollum.

But Aragorn … ?   Is Bakshi’s John Hurt voiced version.

Galadriel … ?   Is Annette Crosbie, rather than Cate Blanchett.

Legolas?   Anthony Daniels, C-3PO, has better Elven than Orlando Bloom.

And Sam Gamgee?   Michael Scholes’ broad Mummerset accent is still the one that comes to my mind, over Sean Astin’s version.

Although, to give Astin his due?   I didn’t realise he was American, until many years later: as he kept using his Sam voice for the publicity junkets I saw him do.

At any rate, Bakshi’s work … ?

Stuck in my mind for years: those performances were those characters.

~≈🧙🏾‍♂️≈~

Part Three: Other Thoughts.

There’s other things to address, here.

I first caught Bakshi’s The Lord of the Rings many years ago: when it aired on Channel 4, here in the UK.

I’ve got memories of the ad-breaks that showed up on the VHS recording.

I’ve got memories of how bleached, how unsaturated, the colours seemed in that broadcast.

‘Bleached’ is possibly the wrong word, there: but it seems to be the nearest I can use.

That lack of colour was remedied, however, in the bluray version I got.

The colour palette used in the remastering process made this blu-ray version look far more vibrant than the one I last saw.

Noticeably so: Frodo’s hair, and irises, looked amazing, Gandalf looked fantastic … and Saruman … ?

I could only truly appreciate the colours of his costume, Saruman the White’s ironically red costume, when I saw this blu-ray.

The same goes for the Black Riders.

In the earlier parts of the movie, the Nazgûl are the traditional black-clad figures with red eyes: just as fearsome as the first time I saw them.

But, later in the movie … ?

We seem them partially uncloaked: and in shades of black and green, and with glowing red eyes.

The things were scary, when I first saw The Lord of the Rings: especially during the Riders attack on the hobbits at the Prancing Pony.

But … ?

The improved colour saturation helped make them scarier, helped make that attack far more frightening: I can only imagine a youngster watching this film would find the Nazgûl terrifying, whether fully or partially cloaked.

~≈🧙🏾‍♂️≈~

Part Four: Some Issues.

There’s other things I should highlight, I think.

For one thing … ?

Saruman … Saruman … !

Anyone who’s read Tolkien’s original novels — or seen the Peter Jackson movies — knows the character is called Saruman.

But there’s a couple of occasions in this film, where the character’s called Aruman: why I don’t know, but it’s very noticeable.

The slightly more problematic issue?

Is Gollum … 

Andy Serkis did one hell of a job playing Gollum in the Peter Jackson movies.

Although I think Serkis gave a far better performance as Ian Dury, in Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll, but his career defining role as Gollum was his making: by turns, tragic, comic, menacing, schizophrenic, sympathetic … and utterly riveting.

The problem I have isn’t with Serkis’ performance in the Jackson movies, but with Peter Woodthorpe’s voicing of the part in the Bakshi version.

It’s a competent performance, from the little I know of these things.

But, to me, Woodthorpe sounds like a caricatured version of someone Jewish: like an exaggerated version of Shylock, or Fagin.

Characters who aren’t exactly flattering, in the first place.

So highlighting that aspect?

In highlighting that, I’m only highlighting an unwanted, anti-semitic trope, as unwanted as having a white actor playing Othello.

What do we do about it?

Bar learning from this film?

I don’t know.

But I’m very aware that we couldn’t — indeed, Andy Serkis hasn’t — repeated the performance.

~≈🧙🏾‍♂️≈~

3rd February, 2026.

Part Five: Other Things.

What else can I tell you … ?

Oh, yes: the ending … 

If you’ve not seen the Bakshi version of the story, you may not know this: but it finishes at the Battle of Helm’s Deep.

In other words, the film ends halfway through The Two Towers, the second book of Tolkien’s series, and halfway through the overall story.

Yes: I’ve known about that, ever since I first heard of Bakshi’s film.

But wasn’t sure of why: beyond guessing money was involved, somewhere.

There’s an explanation in the film’s Wikipedia entry.

It seems Bakshi had just enough money to make The Lord of the Rings as a two part film, and was going to call this one, “The Lord of the Rings, Part One”, but … ?

United Artists, the film’s distributers, refused to have anything to do with a sequel, refused to put “Part One” in the title: as they felt audiences wouldn’t pay to see half a story.

In retrospect?

And with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Parts One and Two, and The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Parts One and Two, making serious money … ?

And with Dune Parts One and Two, doing likewise?

We can look back at UA’s decision, and call it stupid.

~≈🧙🏾‍♂️≈~

Part Six: Last Thoughts.

So … 

What did I make of Ralph Bakhi’s version of The Lord of the Rings?

Of a film I last saw, many years ago … ?

I think we can say there’s good and bad to it.

The downside … ?

I’ve already highlighted the downsides.

The film only tells half the story.

And does so with a dubious portrayal of Gollum that may only have been redeemed … had we seen the story’s second half.

The upsides?

Even though I found the 133 minute length a chore, even though I found Gollum problematic, even though I was saddened Bakshi’s version only tells us the first half of Tolkien’s tale?

Even given all that, I watched and enjoyed a beautiful looking piece: one that’s lived in my mind, ever since I first saw it, and whose take on Middle Earth, its peoples, stories and characters … 

Meant later versions had to work be anywhere near as good … 

Yes: there’s issues with Bakshi’s The Lord of the Rings.

But I can’t fault the things ambition, achievement … or beauty.

The Lord of the Rings.

★★★★