The Hobbit (1977 TV Movie) User Reviews

As a Tolkien Fanatic...

[Odysseus-5 · 7/10 · 24 December 2001]

I must say that I actually remember this movie with fondness. I've read comments that slam the film for either technical faults or the fact that it has left out a number of things.

All these things are true, of course.

Though I thought the artwork itself was quite good, the animation could use some work. Certainly things were left out.

Come on people! Certainly the film is no ten, but it is a decent version, given the fact that to fit the book into a film at all some liberties will be taken. Especially when it seems apparent that the film is aimed at children.

If you can't unwind a bit and just sit back and watch the film without always pointing out every little omission or alteration, then this film will disappoint. But if you can, then give this film a chance.

Decent first attempt

[Baldach · 7/10 · 10 June 2002]

When I saw this movie around 1984 it sparked my interest in the Lord of the Rings series. I thought the drawing were outstanding (the thin lines on the characters shows the animators took the time to get details correct). The songs seemed a bit silly, but I thought the directors were trying to reflect the attidude of the book. Although fans of the book might say the movie had an oversimplifed plot, I thought the directors did an excellent job condensing a 200 page story into an adventuorous hour and half movie.

Good adaption, although compact

[thrix · 8/10 · 4 May 2004]

'The Hobbit' in its animated shape is what we have to go with until Peter Jackson finishes the LotR prequel (hey, it's bound to happen...), but it doesn't mean all one should do is wait for that occasion. Watch the Rankin-Bass classic!

Rankin-Bass are behind the huge 80's successes 'Thundercats', 'Silverhawks' etc and also shine here with their interpretation of Tolkien's masterpiece. 'The Hobbit' is in this shape more of a family/children's movie than the new Lord of the Rings movies, and its runtime of only 78 minutes makes it feel a little stressed through since the scenes aren't given much time each. But nevertheless, it features good animation, solid voicework and music that is FAR MORE fantasy-like than the more majestic approach in Peter Jackson's movies. See this movie with your children!

Only backdraft I have to say is the runtime. 8/10

A mixed bag

[jwwhiteh · 25 November 2003]

I saw the Rankin/Bass 'Hobbit' for the first time when I was about eight or nine years old. I was enchanted by the movie, and I credit it with motivating me to read 'The Hobbit' and later 'The Lord of the Rings', thereby transforming me into a lifelong Tolkien fan (albeit not as die-hard as some, I admit). This is probably the highest praise I can give it.

I re-viewed the movie recently. How does it stand up now that I am older and better-versed in Tolkien? So-so, I would say. Some comments/criticisms, in no particular order:

* The movie, I now realize, was seriously hampered by time constraints. The creators attempted to squeeze a very eventful novel's story into a two-hour TV movie, with commercials. The result is that everything seems very hurried, events are piled on top of each other with great speed and moments that ought to be savored get rushed. Also, the periodic fade-outs/fade-ins for commercials are distracting.

* A product of its time, the movie is wall-to-wall with songs, most with lyrics written by Tolkien, one written originally for the film, all sung to '70s folk ballad melodies. Tolkien's elves should not sound like hippie chipmunks.

* The '70s context also gives the movie a strongly pacifist message. All scenes of fighting are rendered, somewhat awkwardly, so as to avoid any actual blood or carnage (a mortally wounded character will be glimpsed in a freeze frame that will then spin into a blur, mirroring the character's disappearance from this life, I suppose). Speeches about the glory of war are presented so as to make the advocates look ridiculous. None of this is a bad, and is even refreshing, but it is the work of Rankin/Bass, not Tolkien.

* Some of the key players are perfect: Orson Bean as Bilbo, John Huston as Gandalf, Richard Boone as Smaug and Theodore as Gollum bring great life and character to the movie. The one-on-one scenes between Bilbo and each of the other three are easily the best part of 'The Hobbit'.

Overall, the movie is best suited for the audience for whom it was intended, children. Kids will probably like it, and might even want to explore Tolkien further.

well..

[gazzo-2 · 7/10 · 10 November 1999]

This was what introduced me to the Lord of the Rings, back in '77, when I was in 6th grade, it got the kids in my class to reading the trilogy and etc. Personally, I was all up for watching this, in the fall of '77, then the local TV station ran something else(MULLIGANS' STEW?!?) in its place. We were crushed in my family. I DID buy the record/sound track instead and listened to it to Death. Loved it-the voices and artwork both.

Didn't actually See this til '85...though had caught parts here and there...my thinking then and now is the same--Rankin-Bass did a fine job with it. Yes its done by Japanese animators, and No it isn't outta Allen Lee or whomever else' kind of drawing. But they stuck some interesting spins on what elves, dwarves, Wizards, Dragons and Hobbits look like, along with trolls and whatever, personally I found it to be interesting.

And how can you knock the voices-I mean-John Huston? Hans Conried, Cyril Ritchard, Theodore Bikel, Richard Boone, Don Messick, Orson Bean-and last but not least-Otto Preminger. Some legends here guys, esp. Otto and JHuston. I loved it! Rankin-Bass did make it more for kids, definately, and took some cuts here and there-Beorn and the Arkenstone bye-bye, for example, and no one is claiming the animation is up to, say, 'Aladdin' standards, but on its own, it works fine.

*** outta ****, pretty good, actually.

And Where is Leonard Maltin's review? somehow he missed this one...

Better than Jackson's overdone movie

[mhorg2018 · 7/10 · 9 June 2020]

This isn't perfect, but it is beautiful and fun to watch. Far better than Jackson's overblown and silly version. No, not perfect but way more loyal to the book than Jackson's. Worth seeing but may be too scary in parts for smaller children.

favorite childhood movie

[mcgreenergirl · 10/10 · 22 July 2005]

It seems that everyone who gives this movie a low rating comments on the same problems, poor animation, poor adaption from the book, etc. However it seems to me that they are forgetting three very important things: 1. This movie was made for TV, so it had a lower budget than it would have in Hollywood, 2. It was made in 1977, so it has a lower quality animation than we are now used to now, and 3. It is a children's movie, they had to make it child friendly.

I remember spending a whole summer of my childhood watching this movie over and over again, nearly wearing out the tape. I have since read the book and still love and own the movie. In fact, to this day every time the subject of LOTR comes up I start humming "the greatest adventure...".

It's not bad.

[whizkids · 7/10 · 21 June 2004]

It's certainly not what PJ could do with the Hobbit, but it certainly is nice. I think it captures the overall story pretty well. In fact, the only real complaint that I have is that sometimes the artistry lacked. OK, so they made everyone but Bard have fat or thin faces with either beaks, rocks, or boulders for noses. But other than that, it's quite enjoyable. Oh, and I was a little disappointed that they didn't have Beorn. But, I stopped crying after the first ten minutes when I realized they skipped him (ha ha).

There are some nice songs in it that kind of help the story along. The Riddles in the Dark part was pretty good too (although, I think they took the description in the Lord of the Rings of Gollum looking like a starved frog a little too far).

While it is a children's cartoon, adults can enjoy this too. If you happen to see it on the shelf of a store, pick it up. You might be surprised by what's in it.

A Masterpiece of Animation, Fantasy, and Wonder

[jrcarney52 · 10/10 · 10 January 2012]

This is a great film filled with adventure, excitement, wonder, and, believe it or not, action (it was 1977 and swordfights and stabbing giant spiders was still o.k. for wee folks).

I don't think I need to summarize the widely known plot of The Hobbit, which is very much hewed to by this film. That's perhaps one of the greatest characteristics of this film: its commitment to accurately relating the plot of the novel. I can't think of any glaring revision and only one omission (spoiler: the Beorn episode before Bilbo and the dwarfs enter Mirkwood is left out).

To begin, there's some strange quality about Rankin and Bass's animation style. It has an authenticity, a kind of realism, that other animation styles (say, for example, Disney's style in The Black Cauldron), completely lack. There's a strangeness to the way certain things are drawn. For example, the wood elves. Their legs are really long. They have green skin. Their features are inhuman: wide cheek-bones, flat brows. In juxtaposition to the humans that appear in this film, they look completely different; indeed, they look like a completely different species.

The voice acting, too, is wonderful. John Huston as the voice of Gandalf is absolutely amazing. His smoky, intense voice relates a sense of wisdom and knowledge of other worlds. There's a kind of tone to his expression, a steadiness that makes it seem as if he is reciting his dialog or expressing an incantation as opposed to merely speaking. Usually this would probably be chalked up to bad voice acting, hewing too closely to "reading the script" as opposed to "acting the script". But, for Gandalf, it truly works.

Other memorable voices are Brother Theodore's voice for Gollum. Brother Theodore shows up in a lot of Rankin and Bass's productions. His strained, high accented voice, sounds exotic and otherworldly. And his screaming of, "Baggins! We hates it! Forever!" kind of creeped me out as a kid. I remember him as the assistant, Ruhk, to Mommy Fortuna in Rankin and Bass's famous adaptation of Peter S. Beagle, The Last Unicorn.

The music is worth mentioning. It has a very "1970s folk musicy" feel to it that I love. Many of the songs are adaptations of songs written by Tolkien (lyrics only, of course); and to this day, when I'm reading through The Hobbit, I read the lyrics with those melodies in mind.

A more subtle characteristic endears me to this film: its color palette. I don't know if it's just my old VHS, but there is a subdued quality to the film's color palette. The range of colors is softer, more natural, than, say, the intense variety of a Disney film, even an early one like Snow White. I'm not going to try and explain why, but I prefer this subdued color palette. It truly creates a wonderful effect. An important character in The Hobbit is the wildland itself; and when the large natural vistas are portrayed—forests, river valleys, the desolation of Smaug—their coloring and the fine detail of their rendering makes them feel authentic.

The best compliment I can make of this film is that my wife and I, both adults, fall asleep to this film whenever we've had a stressful day. It's an enduring source of comfort, a true "safety-blanket" of a movie, that, through some strange alchemy of the right style of animation, the right voice actors, and the right music, truly stirs in me a sense of wonder.

Not the book, but it's great

[sfc · 7/10 · 28 October 1999]

While this is definitely not a good representation of the book, it does stand well on it's own. There is no reason a movie based on a book should be the same as the book. Compare Stanley Kubrick's The Shining with the screenplay Stephen King came up with. Kubrick's is better by far for a movie. Anyway, I like the animation and loved the music. This movie turned me on to Tolkien and so I hold it in high regard. It's definitely a must see.

Before Jackson, this was all we had.

[FiendishDramaturgy · 5/10 · 12 January 2005]

This cheeky animation and its brothers, the Lord of the Rings and Return of the King, were all we Tolkien fans had before Jackson's breathtaking trilogy. While the Hobbit was cheaply animated, colored, conceived, contrived, condensed, and bastardized, it was also a step above nothing.

The story itself, while squeezed into a shoebox when it needed a traveling trunk, was about as inclusive as an animated feature *could* be considering its length. While not entirely faithful to the original work, it gets full marks for trying. It is still an enjoyable visit into the world of Tolkien, and a fantastical introduction to the Hobbits.

Personally, I cannot wait until Peter Jackson gets his mind back to Hobbiton and the Shire. I also fervently hope they do not allow any other director to get their grimy mitts on the Hobbit, and they wait patiently as we fans must.

As far as this movie goes, it will tide you over until Jackson does it better. At least it will introduce younger children to Tolkien without the horror of flying severed heads, man-eating winged demon wyverns, and cannibalism. ;)

It rates a 6.5/10 on the "B" scale.

That's about a 4.8/10 on the "A" scale, from...

the Fiend :.

Rankin-Bass's best ever production...

[ms-34 · 9/10 · 30 January 2005]

They pulled out all the stops on this one. A glorious ensemble of voices including the legendary John Huston and Otto Preminger gave life to Tolkien's creation while the outstanding folk and fantasy score illuminates the story.

You'll see why Frodo was supposed to be an actor in his 50's for the LOTR trilogy (though Peter Jackson's opus was well cast anyway in every position).

This will whet your appetite until "Hobbit" is a full-length feature in theatres (fingers crossed) and no doubt, Mr. Jackson and his screenwriters will pull visuals and more from this timeless adaptation.

The only shame of it is annually, Rankin-Bass's Christmas offerings are still aired while The Hobbit and its sister production of Return Of The King (starring Roddy McDowell as Samwise The Brave!) aren't.

Catch that feature too as it picks up where the Ralph Bakshi stab at The Fellowship Of The Rings/Two Towers left off. -Matt Sherman

enjoyable basic animation of the classic Tolkien novel

[awlauter · 7/10 · 21 January 2002]

The screen version of the Hobbit is enjoyable and in my opinion, especially so for younger children as it is not difficult to follow. That being said, I also enjoyed the film and thought it remained pretty faithful to the book. I thought the voice of Bilbo Baggins, the protagonist was well-done and righfully naive to the adventures of the world. Also enjoyed Gandalf's cahracter

Weakest of a mediocre lot

[ryenjenn · 4/10 · 28 February 2005]

What's with the goblins in these Rankin-Bass Tolkien 'toons anyway? Their mouths are twice the size of the rest of their bodies put together. Trolls: same thing. And the singing! AAAaaarrrggghhh! Enough with the hippie-dippy folksy peace-pipe stuff already! This is definitely the weakest of the animated Tolkien films of the late '70s. The only real good points are the introduction ("For over misty mountains cold, to dungeons deep and caverns old") and Smaug. This looked a lot better when I was in Kindergarten, cutting my teeth on these (the Return of the King made by the same company and Ralph Bakshi's "Lord of the Rings") and my older brother's dungeons and dragons games. Today, it just seems dated, even for it's day. It belongs in the hippie era, plain and simple. Perhaps Peter Jackson will lead a quest to rescue this treasure from the clutches of fish headed goblins and tiresome folk tunes. Rating: 4

True to the Spirit

[mercuryix · 30 December 2001]

It is heart-warming to see that people are still contributing reviews for this film over 20 years since it first aired on t.v. in 1978. People considering renting it should remember that it was made for television, so don't look for Fantasia-quality animation; however, compared to other animation films I have seen it still looks great, and obviously a labor of love. The stills from certain scenes were so good they printed them as posters, which I kept in my room for a long time. Many characters were dropped out of necessity for television-viewing (it could have easily been as long as the first Ring movie), but the spirit of the book is intact; there is no unecessary carnage or bloodshed, the story is about courage, not violence, and the voice-work is unparalleled. Orson Bean was the perfect choice for Bilbo. If you rent it, watch it with the spirit of a 13 year-old, not the expectations and cynicism of an adult. If you have a 13 year-old who reads, get him a copy of the Hobbit. The film and book are head-and-shoulders above what is presently offered to children on television or in print.

In the context of a television production, eight out of ten stars for me.

loved it as a kid, still love it now

[locarazon · 7/10 · 16 June 2001]

Great adaptation of The Hobbit for children . The voices are outstanding and there are a lot of fun songs that reflect Tolkein's poetry beautifully. I learned them all when I was a kid. The story is chopped up a bit but the character shine through.

Pretty good movie!

[Cacodemon · 7/10 · 6 February 2002]

This movie was fairly good. When I watched it after reading the book, I noticed there are a lot of goofs and parts left out! For example, Beorn isn't in it, and there is a BIG change in the story when they are imprisoned by the elves. However, if you have not read the book, you will most likely enjoy this movie much more. I especially liked the backgrounds. They looked very neat. I would like to see another Hobbit movie... cartoon, film, I don't care! But this is really a little too outdated and has many bloopers in it (look at the animation, you'll see!) All in all, I gave it a 7/10.

Great for small children.

[Dmon4u · 9/10 · 4 December 2002]

First - it's a wonderful introduction to full scale Fantasy, for anyone. But, for small children it's truly a gift. This is the Gateway for reading that most parents would die for. Children that watch this cry for more because it's usually the first thing in their lives that is not so dumbed down that they realize they've been had.

Second - for all those that love a quality story, this is the Grand-daddy of them all for modern times. Sure the story is told from a more artistic viewpoint than the Book is, but that just adds to the enjoyment. * read the Book.

Third - Since the current (wonderful) movies are coming out, this provides a foundation that makes them even more enjoyable.

Finally - Even in this animated version, one can tell why J.R.R. Tolkien is celebrated as one of the finest writers of the 20th century. These books provided the foundation of nearly all quality Fantasy/Sc-Fi books and movies for the last 75 years and will continue to inspire writers and moviemakers for a long long time to come.

Pretty good, but remember that it's intended for family viewing

[corkskrue · 7/10 · 28 December 2006]

Like I said, the film is obviously focused on family viewing, leaning more towards kids, so remember that if you plan on watching it. As per keeping with the book, the movie does fairly, and it does a great job of setting up the viewer for "The Lord of The Rings."

Really, I haven only one major complaint about this film: the music. Every few minutes, a minstrel will play a few lines of song, serving as the movie's narrator until Bilbo takes over near the end. Not that I have anything against minstrels (they're very lovely people), but the music and cheesy vocals really do not flow with the film. Honestly, the movie would probably be twice as good without them.

Other than that, it's pretty good and worthy of renting (or buying cheap). Enjoy!

Reading these reviews made me misty eyed.

[weirdok · 9/10 · 21 July 2018]

I remember not too long ago, when Tolkien fans would trash this cartoon saying it was silly, stupid and such. I felt weird because, I loved this cartoon to death! If you ask me. it was a much better adaptation than the mega budget recent production.

The part that always glued me to the set and still gives me chills to hear today, is when Bard takes up the black arrow. Nuff said. This was one of the book's greatest moments and has never since been portrayed in film as successfully as in this film.

Beat me with a stick if you like, but I love the songs too.

The voice acting was incredible. I don't think people even have the capability today to enjoy the excellent characterizations and talent displayed in this wonderful little film. It's like going back to watch Lon Chaney portraying the "Phantom of the Opera" and really grasping what a fantastic silent actor he really was.

Yet, you can! Give it a try. This is definitely like finding your old childhood teddy bear still quite huggable. :D

Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole...

[sharky_55 · 7/10 · 15 October 2015]

Being weaned on Peter Jackson's Middle Earth makes this little TV movie seem to pale in comparison, especially when comparing the budgets. After the initial trilogy Jackson went for another by spacing out the children's novel into 3 feature length stories and therefore suffered for it. But of course you cannot back away after making the excellent LOTR and do a condensed version like this. This takes the whimsical and childlike wonder in the original novel and creates a charming Hobbit, perhaps a little lean in some parts.

Still, the Hobbit trilogy had Howard Shore, and the biggest misstep seems to be the soundtrack which jumps genres and never really establishes itself. Glenn Yarbrough's songs are pleasant enough but you want mystical and ethereal cues for elves, not something that is reminiscent of a country road song, or a folk ballad. At times the orchestration is rather thin, overusing fanfares and percussion for little substance. And the Misty Mountains song cannot compare to the 2012 rendition, turning it into a short and lacklustre chant with no real melody.

The animation is nice for its time. This was animated by Topcraft, which later became the bare bones of Studio Ghibli, just right before producing Nausicaa. The watercolour backgrounds are impressive and immersive, never clashing with the figures. The character designs cannot reach the details of a live action big budget attempt, but they are unique in their own cartoonish ways. Smaug is especially menacing with the floodlight beams that emit from his eyes and the hurricanes that his wings conjure. The wide eyed Bilbo Baggins with his overly large pupils seem to say with every look: "Oh how I wish I was at home in my nice hole by the fire, with the kettle just beginning to sing!" But he is brave when he needs to sneak into a treasure trove, witty when confronting Gollum in a battle of riddles, and reasonable when talking of war. Speaking of Gollum, he is slimy as he can be; it is not quite Andy Serkis, but he makes you shiver in disgust the same way.

This version is perhaps a little short at 77 minutes, and the Hobbit trilogy at a combined 474 minutes, much too long. Here some details are cut; Beorn and his nightime stroll is missing, which is disappointing. Climatic battles are also barely featured: the escape from the giant spiders is over with a dizzying spin, and Bilbo is knocked out just before the Battle of the Five Armies. It all ends a little suddenly, but it does set up the Lord of the Rings and that 1978 animation which is a little more mature and in- depth. But for an accompaniment to a fantasy novel that should be one every child's reading list, this is quite good.

Worst cartoon ever?

[Fat Dragon · 1/10 · 23 March 2003]

Absolutely everything about this movie is awful. The drawings and animation are terrible. Absolutely terrible. Dull colors, empty backgrounds and generally really poor work. Adding to that is the terrible character designs. The goblins look like toads, Smaug looks like an oversized bat-creature and all the main characters look wrinkled and ugly with strangely shaped eyes, noses etc.

The music is terrible 70s stuff, including some awful folk music they insist on playing all the time. The plot isn't nearly as good as the book, dialogue is so-so and the voice acting is just bad... In short, this movie is an insult to Tolkien's work and an insult to the viewers' good taste. Avoid at all cost!

More Than Just a Book-to-Movie

[Weasel84 · 10/10 · 24 July 1999]

Many Tolkien fans who have written reviews say that this movie has done bad things to the book. They say it oversimplifies it, that it takes out parts that shouldn't've been taken out, that it turns it from a novel for mature readers into a movie for 'kids'. I've read the book, and been watching this movie for many years. I have to disagree that this is a movie just for children-- when I was younger and watched this movie, I did not realize the philosophical lessons present from beginning to end. Bilbo begins his day just like any other day-- he washes his dishes, cleans his hobbit hole, and leaves it to go outside and smoke his pipe. Then, from the suddeness of destiny, his life is changed. He's taken from his quiet home in the Shire, to begin his Greatest Adventure. An adventure that changes him from shy, unsure, afraid, and reluctant, into a confident, wiser, and better man. "The Chances, the Changes, are all yours to make. The mold of your life is in your hands to break." This happens to all of us in our lives. We leave our happy, unknowing-of-danger homes, and are taken through hard times, until finally, we take those steps into the cave, and we face our fears. "...but to take those last steps. That would be the bravest of all things. Whatever happens afterwards is nothing."

The songs are beautiful, with tunes that will have you humming at work. The song 'The Greatest Adventure', if you listened to carefully, can tell you much about what you will have to do in your own hard times. This is a beautiful, wonderful movie. Not just the animation and the music, but the lesson it can teach.

"So, Mr. Bilbo Baggins... Do you turn back?"

Maybe less than half the book, but still good

[musichead-2 · 7/10 · 12 September 2006]

My mother was the one who bought this for me when I was younger, but the tape was crappy and the hobbit on the cover sort of frightened me for some odd reason. When I watched it all it did was confuse me because I'd never read the book and I didn't really comprehend what hobbits and Gollum were (old ladies?). It wasn't my favorite movie as a kid. Years later I found my younger sister watching it and, having read the book by then, sat down to watch it.

It's not perfect, it's lacking about half the story, and the characters can be too comical to look at, but the strange thing is, I liked it! The music was pretty good and what little story there is follows along with the book very well. Those who've read the book will scoff and turn their noses up at the very idea of an animated version, but it's really not as bad as they might think. It was created for kids, so don't expect much. If you ever get the time you should check it out just for fun. It's really not all that bad!

A truly vile rendition.

[emmellpowell · 2/10 · 7 November 2009]

When I was a little girl, my father would read chapters of The Hobbit to my sister and I, and subsequently Lord of the Rings. His work shifts changed, and soon he had no time to finish the series. So my mother, feeling sorry for us, bought the VHS of this monstrosity.

Words cannot describe the horror.

While largely true to the book, the voice acting is poor, the songs are badly sung, and the animation is dreadful enough to be considered traumatising.

This is NOT worth watching. Wait for Peter Jackson and del Toro to finish, and if that's too hard, then READ THE BOOK AGAIN.