---
product_id: 3922740
title: "PPI Entertainment Bolinker The Hobbit [VHS] [VHS Tape] (1977) Orson Bean; John Huston; Brother Theodore"
brand: "orson beanjohn hustonarthur rankin jr.jules bass"
price: "A$84"
currency: AUD
in_stock: true
reviews_count: 13
url: https://www.desertcart.com.au/products/3922740-ppi-entertainment-bolinker-the-hobbit-vhs-vhs-tape-1977-orson
store_origin: AU
region: Australia
---

# PPI Entertainment Bolinker The Hobbit [VHS] [VHS Tape] (1977) Orson Bean; John Huston; Brother Theodore

**Brand:** orson beanjohn hustonarthur rankin jr.jules bass
**Price:** A$84
**Availability:** ✅ In Stock

## Quick Answers

- **What is this?** PPI Entertainment Bolinker The Hobbit [VHS] [VHS Tape] (1977) Orson Bean; John Huston; Brother Theodore by orson beanjohn hustonarthur rankin jr.jules bass
- **How much does it cost?** A$84 with free shipping
- **Is it available?** Yes, in stock and ready to ship
- **Where can I buy it?** [www.desertcart.com.au](https://www.desertcart.com.au/products/3922740-ppi-entertainment-bolinker-the-hobbit-vhs-vhs-tape-1977-orson)

## Best For

- orson beanjohn hustonarthur rankin jr.jules bass enthusiasts

## Why This Product

- Trusted orson beanjohn hustonarthur rankin jr.jules bass brand quality
- Free international shipping included
- Worldwide delivery with tracking
- 15-day hassle-free returns

## Description

PPI Entertainment Bolinker The Hobbit [VHS] [VHS Tape] (1977) Orson Bean; John Huston; Brother Theodore

## Images

![PPI Entertainment Bolinker The Hobbit [VHS] [VHS Tape] (1977) Orson Bean; John Huston; Brother Theodore - Image 1](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51MB2T4KNXL.jpg)

## Customer Reviews

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 







  
  
    THE GREATEST ADVENTURE!! (well, it's prologue, anyway.)
  

*by J***R on Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on April 18, 2019*

it got lost in the shuffle, to say the least, upon the turn-of-the-century arrival of Peter Jackson's magnificent Lord Of The Rings movie trilogy, it seemed only natural to abandon it at the time, not unlike "trading up" for the latest model car or computer. upon rediscovery, though, the original Rankin/Bass edition of The Hobbit, circa 1977, retains it's wholesome charm.it has a sincere affection and admiration for it's source material, as well as a stellar voice cast. to this day it can be hard to read J.R.R. Tolkien's book and not hear in one's head Orson Bean (Bilbo), Hans Conried (Thorin), Otto Preminger (The Elvenking), Richard Boone (Smaug), or especially John Huston (Gandalf). (by an interesting twist of Fate, Huston directed The Maltese Falcon, which was the greatest film of all time until the aforementioned Peter Jackson extravaganza(s) came along.) so it certainly has strengths to balance with it's weaknesses.what weaknesses, you ask?the chief drawback is that it's a bit too breezy. this is of course to be expected whenever a book is adapted, but this one got rather over-abbreviated. at the time, a tv movie timeslot, minus commercials, was somewhere around 95 minutes. this film clocks in at 77 and a half, leaving about 18 minutes of available "wiggle room" unused. there are a few loose ends they could've used that time to clear up. there's no mention of Gandalf's prior relationship to Bilbo's family, for instance, so it's never made clear why he chose Bilbo. it's as if he went eenie-meenie-minie-moe or something. also, Thorin's grandfather, Thror, is more than once referred to as "King Under-The-Mountain" as though it were a proper name rather than a title. and everyone's favorite part, the riddle duel with Gollum, is woefully compressed. poor Bilbo only gets to ask one riddle!interestingly, there was a time when it's very existence was controversial, as some argued that Tolkien's work wasn't necessarily suited to, as cartoons were still dismissed at the time, "kid stuff." (i don't supposed it reassured those folks any that it came from the studio best known for the likes of The Year Without A Santa Claus and Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer.) actually though, this reflects an interesting dichotomy about The Hobbit. it's pitched at the standard fairytale level and often described as a children's story. Tolkien's narrative even assumes the role of grandfather regaling a child on his knee from time to time. even so, it's perilously articulate and sophisticated, not to mention a sizable 300 pages. so Dr. Seuss it ain't.one inevitable question is, how does it stack up against Peter Jackson's Hobbit movie(s)? therein hangs a quagmire, as those films have taken their fair share of knocks. i don't claim those movies are faultless: the love triangle is famously out of place, and the hitherto unseen Alfred character doesn't even try to be anything but a carbon-copy of Wormtongue. but i am nonetheless convinced it's yet another case of The Just For Being A Sequel Syndrome. someone has conditioned the world to hate and fear sequels as a concept, and this is hardly the only (mostly) worthy production slandered for it. of course the brainwashed are now no doubt saying "you mean he likes the Star Wars prequels as much as the original trilogy? well, what does he know then?" think what you will. i can't stop you.personally i quite like Jackson's Hobbit films, though i must concur that they fall a bit short of the LOTR films of a decade before. it was originally designed as a two-parter rather than a trilogy, and that would indeed of been the wiser course. the overriding gripe is that so much was added to the story, which only became necessary when some studio bigwig demanded a third film.but on the other hand, much of what they added is Tolkien canon, or at least compatible. since, for instance, we later learn that Thranduil, king of the Elves of Mirkwood Forest, is Legolas' father, it makes sense to explore Legolas' take on what was going on at the time. or, take the council that necessitated Gandalf's sudden departure, to which we weren't privy in the book. since it concerns the machinations of Sauron as later dealt with in LOTR, it's not entirely irrelevant.my favorite is it's use of Radagast The Brown, wizard guardian of woods and wildlife. i've always found this character intriguing, but he was so peripheral that i had no reason to expect him to turn up in a movie. so it was a pleasant surprise when Jackson managed to incorporate him into the central action. that he's played by Sylvester McCoy, one of the very best of the Doctors Who, doesn't hurt, either.also, consider this: LOTR is in effect the last fairytale, the story of how that age of wonder came to it's end. the Hobbit movies offer a glimpse of that world in full flower.but i digress...the Rankin/Bass Hobbit's sequel, the 1980 telefilm of Return Of The King, is similarly charming and magical, though not quite so accomplished. but of course, given that the book it summarizes is itself one third of the story, it was bound to be a tightrope. inevitable omissions include several key characters, such as Saruman, Legolas, Gimli, and Faramir. Argaorn appears in king form so as to facilitate his titular return, but there's no hint of his previous "Strider The Ranger" identity.it's other obvious weakness is some of it's music. songs like "The Bearer Of The Ring" and "Where There's A Whip" are richly atmospheric and marvelously enhance the ambiance. however, "It's So Easy Not To Try," "Things I Can't Do Without," and "Leave Tomorrow 'Til It Comes" are frankly sappy and only really serve to take up room. without such ballast the film could've, for instance, fleshed Aragorn out a bit more.still, it maintains the sense of wonder with aplomb. taken for what it is rather than lamented for what it's not, this Return isn't at all bad. it manages, surprisingly if not miraculously, to tell a faithful and coherent story, and it's cast additions are inspired, not least Roddy McDowell as Samwise. so at the very least it's a worthy companion piece to the version of The Hobbit it adjoins.(the surprisingly distinguished cast also features Casey Kasem as Merry, William Conrad as Denethor, and Theordore Bikel as Aragorn.)of course i could be biased, in that it served as my initial glimpse beyond Bilbo's story into Frodo's. very well, consider that a mitigating circumstance if you like.in any case, it wouldn't have to be much to beat the hell out of their awkward adopted cousin, Ralph Bakshi's cinematic Lord Of The Rings from 1978. although to be fair, that most notorious and derided chink in it's armor, that it tells only half the story, reflects what should've been an astute strategy. knowing well that a single film couldn't do the story justice, Bakshi intended to make two, but clashed with United Artists executives over his plan to subtitle them Part One and Part Two. the hierarchy worried that no one would want to pay to see "half a movie," whereas Bakshi realized that people would feel gypped if not warned that it was an incomplete work in progress. the studio won the debate, irate audiences spread the word, and the film subsequently underperformed. this made an already tense working relationship impossible, leaving neither Bakshi or UA terribly anxious to finish the job.somewhere along the line, someone decided that Rakin/Bass' Return Of The King could serve as a de facto conclusion. maybe, but it's not a very smooth one. there's still a sizable narrative gap - Bakshi's film ends at Helm's Deep - and their styles don't always quite mesh. so you'd have to force it.and to be honest, the unfinished story is but one of it's weaknesses. Bakshi presents the hobbits as clownish buffoons, for instance, and it's pace is all over the place.  also, there are a number of perplexing mispronunciations. one can understand, say, pronouncing Celeborn as "Seleborn" rather than "Keleborn," since the producers might not be aware of the in-universe grammatical system Tolkien established. (hell, even Rankin and Bass said "Mine-as Tirith" and "Sirith Ungol," even though it's "Minn-as Tirith" and "Kirith Ungol.") but why, for instance, drop the S from Saruman, resulting in "Aruman?"so that film isn't really worth the bother, to put it mildly.sorry if i seem to stray, to cheat by reviewing several productions at once, but these are things that needed to be said. to get back to the bottom line, Rankin/Bass' treatments of The Hobbit and Return Of The King are pretty good, sometimes even delightful, provided you approach them as cartoons rather than big budget cinematic epics.

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 







  
  
    Very Good Adaptation
  

*by C***B on Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on May 25, 2023*

While it makes a few very odd choices, such as the Elvenking looking like a goblin, most of the spider sequence, and Gollum’s design, I really enjoyed this film. Generally speaking, I found it hewed closer to the spirit of the book than the more recent trilogy did (Although there were certainly other things that they did better), and was a very faithful telling of a classic novel. It is interesting to see how Tolkien’s world was imagined before the Jackson films, and this is certainly an interesting and delightful take. As with Tolkien’s books, music is found throughout, and in many cases, his own lines are used, either directly, or for inspiration, in creating the songs of this film. I listen to the warg-song on its own sometimes, it is so good. “Misty Mountains” is also very good. The animation is very visually appealing, outside of the spiders and wood-elves. The Shire, Smaug, and the Company all look especially good. Gandalf’s voice actor, while not McKellen, fits the role very well. The film is very unwilling to show violence, which is good for young viewers, but in a story with battles, I personally don’t find spinning-effects a suitable replacement for sword-strikes. I was not a fan of Gollum’s voice actor, but making him essentially a frog-thing, larger than Bilbo, rather than  a withered and worn creature that had once been a hobbit himself, really ruined the riddles scene for me. Overall, this movie has some major flaws, but it is a very fun viewing experience, and I would strongly recommend anyone who likes the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings see it at least once.

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 







  
  
    Legendary
  

*by A***M on Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on May 17, 2023*

This film stands head and shoulders above the rest as THE best film adaptation of Tolkien, maybe even of any high fantasy. The animation is artful, unique, stylish, and brilliant. The soundtrack is amazing. The voice casting is on point. This movie truly transports you to another time and place.

---

## Why Shop on Desertcart?

- 🛒 **Trusted by 1.3+ Million Shoppers** — Serving international shoppers since 2016
- 🌍 **Shop Globally** — Access 737+ million products across 21 categories
- 💰 **No Hidden Fees** — All customs, duties, and taxes included in the price
- 🔄 **15-Day Free Returns** — Hassle-free returns (30 days for PRO members)
- 🔒 **Secure Payments** — Trusted payment options with buyer protection
- ⭐ **TrustPilot Rated 4.5/5** — Based on 8,000+ happy customer reviews

**Shop now:** [https://www.desertcart.com.au/products/3922740-ppi-entertainment-bolinker-the-hobbit-vhs-vhs-tape-1977-orson](https://www.desertcart.com.au/products/3922740-ppi-entertainment-bolinker-the-hobbit-vhs-vhs-tape-1977-orson)

---

*Product available on Desertcart Australia*
*Store origin: AU*
*Last updated: 2026-02-21*