What This Film Needs Is One Ring With A Purpose

The Good: I'm searching my memory for some. And yet . . .
The Bad: Animation, Costumes, Story, Characters, Conclusion, Purpose
The Basics: A surprisingly unsatisfying attempt to tell a classic story. Fails in shoddy animation, disjointed plot, lack of character development and surplus of camp.


The Lord Of The Rings is a story that is difficult to retell without evaluating the work in comparison with the original novels. The latest (2001) film incarnation (reviewed here!) succeeds in all of the ways Tolkien fails, making an interesting film out of a tedious historical novel series (reviewed here!). Conversely, the 1978 attempt at retelling The Lord Of The Rings on film completely, ineloquently but accurately stated, blows.

If you've ever watched Mystery Science Theater 3000 and enjoyed it, then the best I am able to recommend is getting together some friends and watching this film with the express purpose of tearing it apart with quips and sarcastic remarks. That's about all it's good for.

The Lord Of The Rings is an animated feature that tells the story of the One Ring of Middle Earth and how it is created and manipulates its way to Frodo Baggins, a hobbit of the Shire in Middle Earth. This film tells the tale of Frodo as he comes to learn what the ring is and goes on a quest to destroy the ring. Accompanying him is a fellowship of travelers from distant lands who vow to fight alongside him and help him get the ring to Mt. Doom where it may be destroyed. The group is led by Gandalf, a wizard, until he apparently dies, and then Aragorn. When another member of the group tries to take the ring, Frodo leaves with his assistant and they go it alone. The remaining members are divided: one is killed, two are captured by the enemy, and the remaining three seek to rescue the two lost hobbits as opposed to going after Frodo. Frodo and Samwise, for their part, don't stay alone terribly long, as they are joined by Gollum, the owner of the ring before it came to the Shire. After that, Frodo's story is tedious, the other hobbits' story is pointless, and the other tale - which dominates - it annoyingly oversimplified.

Comparing this film to other incarnations, it's surprising how closely the beginning resembles the latest film adaptation of the novel. And that is where the similarities end. The characters are misrepresented: Galadriel, for example, is impossible to take seriously during her temptation by the ring. Instead of appearing even remotely tempted, she is flighty and thus the weighty matter of the ring is grossly misrepresented.

As my reviews tend to illustrate, I favor evaluating each thing I am exposed to as it is, as opposed to in comparison to other versions of itself or such.

The Lord Of The Rings fails in the editing process: the scenes are choppy, none of the characters truly develop. Certainly, none of them come alive in any meaningful way. They do not react like real people or even with a sense of reality to them. In short, the way the characters appear, the way they are described and present themselves, makes them impossible to take seriously. There is not a redeeming one in the bunch.

The animation is decidedly sub-par. The figures move as if they were the product of 1950s animation, as opposed to 70s animation. I swear, I got so sick of seeing Aragorn's brown lollies that I nearly vomited.

Perhaps the most distressing aspect of this The Lord Of The Rings is the resolution. The last lines of the film completely negate the Ring or the importance of it entirely. The plot with Merry and Pippen ends without any sense of resolution or purpose (indeed, Treebeard's appearance at all is utterly pointless) as does Frodo's plot, which is a fairly important one.

I try to find the good in every film, but this one is one of the impossibilities where the thought of sitting through this piece again sends a chill up my spine.

For other animated film reviews, please be sure to visit my takes on:
Wizards
Wall-E
Hoodwinked!

0/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to check out my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2011, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

No Magic In Wizards, A Film Gutted By Itself.

The Good: Opening themes, Amusing visual style
The Bad: Thematic conclusions, Characters, Simplicity of plot, Narrative devices, Overriding simplicity
The Basics: A sad attempt to be innovative, Wizards fails due to complete hokey camp quality and thematic reversals.


It's always a shame when someone in the movie or music industry attempts to be innovative and fails. I'd rather sit through twenty innovative failures like Wizards than watch Gladiator ever again. That said, the troublingly campy Wizards is an animated film that tries to be adult and fails. Horrible.

The film, made in the mid-1970s, is a fantasy film about the world two million years from now. Humanity having destroyed itself, the last remnants have long mutated into something barely recognizable as human. The earth is populated by evil mutants in the radiation-filled wastelands that were our planet. In the long interim, mythical beings have re-emerged, including pixies and elves. As the opening voice-over tells us, there is now great conflict between the forces of magic and those of technology.

Wizards centers around two prominent magic-users, twins born a couple thousand years ago. Avatar is the good, though clumsy, wizard who preaches peace, love and earthloving magic. The evil Black Wolf starts his place in the film by showing the 70s flair for blatant psychology; as a child he tortured animals and didn't visit his mother. Black Wolf is marshaling all of the forces of evil in an attempt to reunite Earth under a totalitarian regime. Avatar, in the company of an exposed fairy queen, a young elf warrior, and a robot reprogrammed and named Peace, leads an effort to thwart Black Wolf's attempt to establish a Nazi-esque power base. Neither wizard seems to use magic very often.

With names like Avatar for the good wizard and Black Wolf for the sickly mutant wizard of evil, it's obvious right off the bat that this film is going to be polarized and juvenile. While the film attempts to be adult with the costuming of the fairy queen, the images of Nazis played as background to the hordes of animated mayhem, and depicting multiple instances of carnage, it fails to be adult in that it goes over the top; it's too obvious.

The plus sides of the film are that it begins with some good thematic messages and it's fun to look at. Wizards, while establishing a classic good vs. evil dichotomy, plants some good ideals of peace, love and brotherhood in its opening scenes. Too bad it does not stick with it. Avatar's ultimate resolution to the problem is thematically disgusting and disheartening to those who do believe in peace, love, and brotherhood! As for the look of the film, it's easy on the eyes. The animation is mixed with still backgrounds and moving footage, setting it apart from anything made today.

But even that is not flawless. A large chunk of the film is presented as still images with voice-over work, as if the viewer is being read from a picturebook. It's somewhat insulting. The flops between the moving animation and the still frames with voice-overs is not seamless and it's more distracting than illuminating. It has the feeling of the production company running out of money to pay the animators and explaining things rather than maintaining continuity.

The plot is simple and none of the characters are particularly genuine. The film views like a children's picturebook. And while most fairy tales (especially Grimm's) contain adult themes and are marketed toward children, this anti-genocide, antiwar (if it can be called that) film is marketed towards adults, but despite the cartoon violence, can only be appreciated by children.

Ideal for an evening with friends for a session of Mystery Science Theater 3000 mockery.

For other animated films, please check out my reviews of:
The Nightmare Before Christmas
Despicable Me
The Little Mermaid

2/10

For other movie reviews, please click here to visit my index page!

© 2010, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.



| | |