I wouldn't recommend this movie too the average person who likes movies. But I would recommend this to LOTR fans and fans of animation. The visuals are really good and do a good job capturing the story and world of Tolkien. The huge negative was that it only goes to the Two Towers, and some of the character choices could annoy you. But overall it's enjoyable and well worth a watch...or two.

It's J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings books 'The Fellowship of the Rings' and 'The Two Towers'. Hobbit Frodo Baggins must guard the one most powerful ring against powerful dark forces with the help of Gandalf, Samwise and others.Ralph Bakshi directed Wizard. Using the same rotoscoping of live-action footage, it has that fascinating 70s animation style. It's actually very effective for the material especially since the needed special effects haven't been perfected yet. The style is definitely a very interesting vision and gives an adult sensibility in the animation. However there are limitations with the compressed nature of the film and it also doesn't help that this movie never got the needed sequel. It ends in an unsatisfying cliffhanger. It's a fascinating cinematic oddity but not much more.

This movie is not directly a sequel to the Rankin/Bass 1977 TV movie The Hobbit but among fans, including myself, it is the second film in the series (it's just not officially the sequel).I was about 6 years old when I saw this TV movie. I can still recall being excited and engrossed in the story. It is a captivating film although it is by no means perfect. I can still enjoy this classic today. There is no comedy in this flick even though it is a cartoon - it really is a mature film that adults can enjoy.Watching the film all these years later: the animation is gorgeously dark and vivid & the storytelling is superb! The is a delicious mixture of animated  live action  along with the actual hand-drawn animation - well done! No wonder this film stood out in my childhood memories!This is well worth watching if you are a fan of the books, Peter Jackson's film series or the old TV movie The Hobbit.9.5/10

It's not fair at all to dismiss Ralph Bakshi's animated treatment of "Lord Of The Rings" for being what it's not, the three-part, 11- plus-hour version we got 25 years later. You have to judge it on its own terms. So let's do that.On its own terms, "Lord Of The Rings" is a somewhat goopy, occasionally gripping screen handling of the first book and most of the second book from the J. R. R. Tolkien fantasy epic. In it, hobbit Frodo Baggins finds himself the possessor of a powerful magic ring, the key to defeating the growing forces of darkness. Yet the ring can't be used by Frodo in any constructive way. To be of use to him and his good allies, it must be taken to the heart of the enemy, Mordor, and there destroyed."It is altogether evil," Frodo is warned by his wizard friend, Gandalf. "It will corrupt and destroy anyone who wears it, until he passes into the world of shadows under the power of Sauron, the Dark Lord of Mordor."Bakshi was an animator of powerful and unique vision, yet there are too many occasions where marrying that vision to Tolkien's story seems to have been too much. Frodo and his fellow hobbits are too cutely designed in animated form, with their big eyes, moptop haircuts, and tendency to cower in each other arms as their trek grows more perilous. The animation relies heavily on rotoscoping, basically filming real actors and then sketching over them. Bringing this off in concert with more fully animated sequences creates a lot of lulls in the action.For an animated film, it sounds great anyway. Leonard Rosenman's sterling score builds up suspense and grandeur, and provides majestic payoffs all the way through to a riveting finale. The voice acting is solid, especially John Hurt's work as Aragon, the hobbits' valiant ally. Bakshi introduces him effectively in a barroom sequence that is the film's high point. Unfortunately, that's over thirty minutes in. Peter Woodthorpe oozes corruption as the most Bakshi-type character in the trilogy, Gollum, while William Squire's Gandalf brings Alec Guinness-like authority and humor to his work.Mordor's dark emissaries, the Ring Wraiths, are effectively rendered, so much so their glowing eyes and grey robes seem to have gone to Bakshi's head. Every orc and balrog in Middle Earth sports a similar look.As the film goes on, the problems of bringing off Tolkien's grand design seem to accumulate. The bigness of Tolkien's vision is reduced to a few obvious actors moving in the foreground while matte paintings of others stand stationary around them. Some of these paintings are quite breathtaking, but Bakshi leans on them too much. Big crowd scenes seem to consist of Rosenman's music playing majestically while the screen presents still images broken up by a flapping pennant or waving spear. In battle, the fully animated figures of the main characters mesh awkwardly with the real-life rotoscoped actors around them.There's also the problem of ending the film with half the story yet to occur. Of course, that's not Bakshi's fault; he was given to believe he'd have another movie to tie up these loose ends. His job here was to give us an appetite for that next chapter, and guided by Tolkien's story he almost does. It just doesn't grab one as a unified vision. This is more of a compromise, a noble one, but a bit of a failure all the same.