sebbystone1 This fan film starring British actor Adrian Webster as Aragorn is a prequel to the Lord of the Rings. With some well choreographed action, a strong soundtrack and overall powerful presentation, The Hunt for Gollum is a solid film worth your time. The main issue is that it never really picks up. Until the final battle, the story is very much just walking (an issue with some of the Hobbit movies) and some of the acting, besides Adrian Webster's Aragorn, isn't great. Overall, this film is everything that a Lord of the Rings tie in of its type could be, although some poor acting and story pulls it down slightly. Not to deny that the action and cinematography is very strong, but not a masterpiece.

wanderinglinton This is a short film which is not designed to stand on its own, referencing direct and indirect (appendices) parts of the Lord of the Rings books by JRRT, and very deliberately mimicking the style of the Peter Jackson's Tolkien works.It is telling a small part of a very large story which heretofore has not and likely would not be told (on screen), so a bunch of talented people have come together for an extraordinarily modest budget and created something very special.The plot-line is relatively thin - but it is not supposed to hold its own in this aspect - but rather be viewed as an adjunct to the story as already told by others.Some have complained that the principal actors do not have the gravitas of Viggo Mortenson or Ian McKellen .. lol - really? For 3000 quid - all up (reportedly) What are you really expecting? .. given the budget that they were working to - they have done a pretty remarkable job.I read a review that suggested that it ran counter to the PJ versions since they had shown the Mordorites torturing Smeagol/Gollum, but here it shows Gandalf and the elves "torturing" him. Tolkien makes it clear that Gollum was tortured in Mordor revealing the name Baggins and Shire - he says nothing about what Gandalf or the elves did to find out what Sauron had found out. It does not seem at odds in any way with the story as told by JRRT.I think the people involved in this endeavor have done an exceptional job on a very limited budget and should be rightly proud of what they have achieved.Another common voice though I hear through these reviews is - if these guys can do this on a shoestring - why can't Hollywood do better with less. To those people I say - have a look through the IMDb resumes of some of the people involved in this. You will see names like Harry Potter (more than once), The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Exodus: Gods and Kings.. etc.. Although these people might have worked for free on this title - they also have to make a living. It is one thing to do one project out of love - a whole other thing to have to pay a mortgage and put kids through school.If you want a complete, independent story shot in a unique fashion - this is not it. If you're prepared to give up 40 minutes to watch some talented people add some more to the tapestry of JRRT's works in the style of Peter Jackson - done on a shoestring budget and done pretty *darn* (apparently I'm not allowed to use my normal expression) well - then this is well worth your time. Kudos to the people involved.

the_hitman-614-405126 I believe in America the meaning of the English phrase 'pound for pound' translates. It basically means how good something is for how much it is, the term was coined for boxers, whom may have not been the biggest, may have been 'pound for pound' better than their adversaries. I think this is what you have here. The two main criticisms for this film is the Directing style, and lack of plot. In response to this, there are two points: firstly it is my belief that the film was intended to be in the time of the lord of the rings, and was made to show a chunk of the books that was left out. This chunk out of the many left out was more than likely chosen as it was cheap to do, and fairly simple. One cannot argue that there is no plot, because frankly, the plot is in the films as a whole, this is a very very small section of them, and you cannot judge it in isolation.Secondly, the directing style? This is obvious, It was shot the same way to avoid people attempting to choose which method is better, and because frankly, the Lord of the Rings did not have a huge budget itself for the size of the operation and Peter Jackson has some shiny Golden Figurines in his Cabinet to the contrary of what some peoples opinions are.I think this is a very very good film for what it is, its made considerably better than most television shows, the acting is good, the feel is very Lord of the Rings, and I think Tolkien himself would be proud the way that amateurs are giving life to his work very accurate to his writings.And for the less learned, the film had a budget of £3000, which is just under $5000.

funkyfry This 39 minute fan film was put together by a bunch of very dedicated people. They seem to be people who are bigger fans of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films than they are of J.R.R. Tolkien's brilliant book "The Lord of the Rings", but that would hardly qualify them as unique. What they've done here with a reported $5,000 budget is pretty astounding. I wouldn't say that it's equal to Jackson's film, but pound for pound and dollar for dollar it's a very impressive achievement in fan films. Most fan films just easily shrug off the lower production values and turn the movie into a farce. This film takes itself seriously, which in some aspects weakens the film but in most cases strengthens it and lends it a credibility rarely seen in amateur fan film.The story roughly corresponds to the events taking place between "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" which are described in the Appendices to "LotR" and in the "Council of Elrond" chapter of the second book of "LotR", concerning the hunt and capture of Gollum by Aragorn. Concerned that Gollum may reveal the identity of Bilbo Baggins to the enemy, Gandalf the Grey charges Aragorn with hunting the creature down so that he can discover what he knows and what knowledge he has shared. The hunt takes him through the forests on the western edge of Mirkwood and involves several battles with the goblins charged with bringing Gollum back to Mordor.The casting for this film is very uneven, as you would likely guess since few of them would have been paid. The most important lead role of Aragorn is fortunately very well carried off by Adrian Webster. In some ways I prefer his Aragorn to Viggo Mortensen's more deliberately world-weary version. But his is the only really exceptional performance. Patrick O'Connor can't lend Gandalf any trace of Ian McKellan's majesty, Rita Ramnani's Arwen is the same cold fish as portrayed by barely-actress Liv Tyler (and seems to have even less reason to be in the movie), and the voicework by two actors for Gollum never rises above the level of basic imitation.Saddest of all, the way the film was directed is basically a transcription of Jackson's already repetitive style. Culling imitative music from sound libraries, the music department's main achievement is to betray the unoriginality of the original score itself. The battle scenes seem obligatory and are the area where the effects are at their least, well, effective. You can clearly see that the masks for the orcs in the second battle are recycled from the first.However, in a few areas the film is actually superior to Jackson's version of the later tales. That considering the budget is something to wonder at in and of itself. The main aspect that's improved is the locations. I like the fact that they filmed this in England, in the Epping Forest near Essex which very nearly matches what must have been Tolkien's own imagination of Middle Earth. There are a couple very nice scenes that build Gollum's threat in a way that Jackson never managed to do in the absence of "Hobbit" as a foundation stone, including one where Gollum snatches a fish from a farmer's window that's full of dire implications. For those fans of Jackson's "LotR" who have no familiarity at this point with "Hobbit", this fan film will serve to supply some more background on his nature and character. And since he's the most fascinating character by far that Tolkien ever created, this is also an accomplishment worthy of note in and of itself.The film cannot stand on its own, but it is a very nice treat for fans of Tolkien and fans of Jackson's films that are starved while waiting for the Hobbit film version. Considering that it was made available to one and all for free, there are hardly any grounds to complain. But being a bit of a purist, I can of course do so at great length and to the boredom of one and most. I think basically the big problem with this film is that it stayed true to Jackson instead of Tolkien. Jackson had to elide a lot of information from "Hobbit" and from the Appendices in order to make his version comprehensive. These film-makers felt the need to remain true to Jackson's version, in which these events are truly superfluous. In Tolkien, the whole reason that Gandalf wants to speak to Gollum (and in fact tortures him to obtain information) is because he's still trying to figure out if the ring found by Bilbo is the "One Ring" of Sauron. He needs to know how Gollum came to possess the Ring because it would help to confirm or deny the Ring's true identity. In this film however, he already knows that Frodo has the One Ring in the Shire, so tracking down Gollum is a pointless task except for the idea of preventing him from speaking to the enemy, which has apparently already happened since Gandalf waited so long. It makes Gandalf look like a right fool, as opposed to Tolkien's wise man who made the occasional error. If Gandalf had known that Frodo had the One Ring for certain, he would never have allowed the Ring to remain in the Shire for so long or for Frodo to be exposed to such danger. However, due to Jackson and his co-writers' need to elide certain details of Gandalf's activities around this time respective to Gollum and the Ring, these film-makers have followed his lead and provided us with missing pieces of a puzzle that had already been pasted hastily together without them.