I will ignore the obviously superior films by Peter Jackson when evaluating this low-budget cartoon.<br /><br />So ... I think that the team behind this had a success with The Hobbit, even though the animation was horrible. Orcs do not look like toads, Elrond does not have a goatie and stars around his head, gollum does not look like a fish etc. (even if it got worse here when the skeletor-nazguls showed up) Still, The Hobbit (1977) worked in my mind (I gave it an 8 vote here), Glenn's songs were great there, the voices were very good, the story was a children's story, my 4-yr old girl loves it (I saw it for the first time just a month ago). So, The Hobbit was great.<br /><br />How can this fail so miserably? Of course, the whole idea of omitting almost everything in The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers does not work very well. Who is this Aragorn dude who is made king? We feel nothing for him. Galadriel? Whatever. Theoden? Some guy who falls from a horse and dies. He should have had a better horse. Eowyn? Some random girl who gets lucky.<br /><br />Glenn's songs are also worse in this one, including only two numbers I really liked (Frodo of Nine Fingers and Where there's a whip). The folksongs seems much better suited to the children story in The Hobbit.<br /><br />I gave this a 4 ... only because it is still Tolkien somewhere there in the background. It is still the battle of Pelennor fields (and they don't show it just like dots as they did in the battle of five armies). Perhaps I am being too kind to the film.<br /><br />And whoever decided to make Sam a Christian? That was just plain weird.<br /><br />Having said that, the film works best when it deviates from the original story, as with the singing orcs and the dream sequence with the waving orcs or when Sam conquers Mordor.<br /><br />This film is only for the die-hard Tolkien fanatics who just have to see it. I don't think I will even show it to my daughter.