- Directores: Ralph Bakshi
- Audio: Castellano
- Región: Región 2 (Más información sobre Formatos de DVD.)
- Calificación española (ICAA): Apta para todos los públicos
- Estudio: Warner
- Fecha de lanzamiento: 30 ago 2010
- Valoración media de los clientes: 3.7 de un máximo de 5 estrellas Ver todas las opiniones (3 opiniones de clientes)
- ASIN: B0053CBCWU
- Clasificación en los más vendidos de Amazon: nº150.774 en Cine y Series TV (Ver el Top 100 en Cine y Series TV)
El señor de los anillos (Versión animada) [DVD]
|Otras opciones en DVD||
|Nuevo desde||Usado desde|
"Vuelva a intentarlo"
Los clientes que vieron este producto también vieron
Descripción del producto
En la Tierra Media, desde las verdes praderas de la Comarca, Frodo Bolsón, sobrino de Bilbo Bolsón, se embarca en una larga y peligrosa aventura para evitar que un anillo mágico que perteneció a su tío caiga ahora en poder del malvado Sauron, Señor de Mordor, quien pretende usar su poder para someter a todos los pueblos libres. Adaptación animada de la extraordinaria novela de Tolkien. Se centra en "La comunidad del anillo" y casi toda la historia de "Las dos torres".
Detalles del producto
¿Qué otros productos compran los clientes tras ver este producto?
Opiniones de clientes
Principales opiniones de clientes
Amazon, así como otras tiendas debería exigir de que se explicite si el castellano es el de España o el latino de Sudamérica.
Opiniones de clientes más útiles en Amazon.com (beta)
All told, this hidden gem is definitely worth seeing, although I wouldn't recommend it for kids, as it has some pretty graphic bloodletting in the fight scenes.
And by "stab," I mean he made a rotoscoped, animated movie that attempted to encompass half of JRR Tolkien's classic epic. It's a genuine effort with obvious affection, but unfortunately Bakshi misses the mark more often than he hits it -- from the bizarre character designs to random renamings.
The movie starts (after some background info) several years after Bilbo Baggins gets a golden Ring of invisibility. At Bilbo's 111st birthday party, he vanishes with intent to leave the Shire -- and Gandalf sees that Bilbo is exhibiting signs of falling under its power. He convinces Bilbo to leave the Ring with Bilbo's young cousin, Frodo, and then leaves.
Seventeen years later, Gandalf reappears and tells Frodo that it is the One Ring, and that Frodo now has to leave the Shire (accompanied by his gardener Sam and cousins Merry and Pippin), heading off to the town of Bree and then to Rivendell. Unfortunately, Frodo soon is pursued by the snuffling Black Riders, and accompanied by the mysterious ranger Aragorn. Worst of all, he's being tempted by the Ring -- and it nearly costs him his life.
Then he volunteers to take the Ring into the dark land of Mordor to destroy it -- but the Fellowship of the Ring must deal with horrors and terrors along the way. And when they lose two of their company, Frodo sets out into the wilderness with only Sam beside him, while Aragorn, the elf Legolas and the dwarf Gimli set out to free Rohan from the evil Saruman (or "Aruman," depending on what scenes you watch).
I'll give Bakshi credit -- he put genuine effort into trying to turn "The Lord of the Rings" into a two-part movie. Unfortunately for him, the second part never materialized (the movie clangs to a stop halfway through the second book) and the first one is an awkward, uncertain piece of work that never quite figures out where it's going.
And the animation simply doesn't work -- the characters all have exaggerated gestures and shuffling walks, not to mention odd costuming (a Viking? A Roman senator?). The backgrounds tend to look like matte paintings, and the rotoscoping is bizarre-looking and distracting at best.
The animation is not the only problem. Bakshi's movie is riddled with very choppy editing (we go straight from Moria to Lothlorien), bizarre script changes ("Saruman" becomes "Aruman") and important details that are left out, or left in with no explanation as to why they are there. Worst of all, he has little idea of what looks absurd -- the bat-winged lion-Balrog with its big fuzzy feet is a legendary example, as well as the virtually crippled Black Riders and turnip-shaped Treebeard.
Nor does he succeed with the characters. The mellow young Frodo, skeletal Gollum and ethereal-looking Legolas are well done. But Gandalf acts like a manic old weirdo, and most of the others (especially Merry and Pippin) are barely more than cardboard cutouts. The worst offender is loyal, steadfast gardener Samwise Gamgee -- who looks and acts like a brain-damaged, potato-shaped chimp.
"The Lord of the Rings" was a valiant effort that fell flat on its face somewhere along the way. Watchable as a curiosity, but nowhere near the scope of Peter Jackson's masterpiece.
The obvious downside is that the movie spans about half of the trilogy. I had read that the movie was originally supposed to have been titled, "The Lord of the Rings Part I", but the studio decided to release it without the "Part I" added on. This no-doubt ticked off just about EVERYBODY who saw it expecting the whole story in one movie. Of course, the film did poorly, so the second half was never made. Another studio eventually made The Return of the King, which leaves a large gap in the overall story between the movies.
The movie also has various quirks, such as referring to the character Saruman as "Aruman", to avoid confusion with Sauron. At times, they forget and call him Saruman anyway, leaving the viewer even more confused. And everybody complains that the characters all have 70s hairstyles.
But overall the movie overcomes its own shortcomings with some great animation and incredible scenes involving the Black Riders and the Mines of Moria. It's a fun movie, and even though it is quite violent in places, it's a good introduction to the story for older kids....at least until the live action movies are released.