Wordiezett So much average

Blucher One of the worst movies I've ever seen

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

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.

Theo Robertson This is a short film written and directed by Chris Bouchard that cost £3,000 to produce which begs the question how does the average Hollywood cost thousands upon thousands of times thus ? Okay it's an amateur film with a run time of 38 minutes but even so if it was three times longer this would mean it would cost £9,000 . There's shockingly good about a bunch of amateurs getting together to make something so impressive or the other school of thought is it's absolutely disgraceful that Hollywood productions are so expensive in comparison and seems to illustrate how over paid a great number of people are over at the LA dream factory . The technical merits of THE HUNT FOR GOLLUM are every bit as impressive as those seen in the Jackson movies Of course there's a serious fly in the ointment and that is if you're having a film with Aragorn and Gandalf , even if it's a fan made non profit film for the internet then it's going to be a major disappointment if you can't get Viggo Mortensen or Ian McKellen in the roles . Aragorn and Gandalf aren't James Bond or the Doctor from DOCTOR WHO and no offence to Adrian Webster or Patrick O'Connor but they're not in the same league and you're fully conscious that Aragorn is played by an entirely different actor from the Jackson movies . Likewise there seems to be a contrived element that the audience don't get to see Gollum fully until the end of the film since he spends much of the story bundled inside a sack and one suspects his one full appearance at the end is courtesy of a clip from Wingnut Films Not to be too scathing and cynical THE HUNT FOR GOLLUM shows what can be achieved on an absolute shoestring budget and the entire look of the film totally convinces it was shot on location in Middle Earth . I'll repeat it again - what have Hollywood producers been spending their money on if a small fan made film like this that puts Hollywood to shame ?

rgcustomer Here's a film worth skipping, even though it is a short. But nevertheless, the team shouldn't give up on future works.Technically, the film is a wonder, particularly given the tiny budget. The actors look the part, the costuming and makeup and props are impeccable, the cinematography and whatnot is good, and the music is acceptable.However, there are two major flaws in this film.First, the story has no heart. It's plodding and dull. There's no emotion to it. You don't care who gets Gollum. You don't care whether Gollum can put anyone in danger. You don't care who knows where the Ring is.Second, the film is clearly designed in the style of Jackson's trilogy, versus an independent vision, and yet the plot (even one scene that appears as if lifted intact from the Jackson films) is directly at odds with those films. In Jackson's films, Gollum is tortured in Mordor, and his words "Baggins! Shire!" are what lead the Ringwraiths there. In this film, that never happens. Instead, Elves and Gandalf are apparently the ones who torture Gollum. Despite this, Ringwraiths already seem to have a fairly good idea where the ring is anyway. It doesn't make a lot of sense.One minor flaw: the use of the sack is too obviously a way to avoid expensive animation.I'd like to see what this team could do with a good script, and tighter editing.

Joe Bob Jones The hunt for Smeagol was always a glaring yet essential missing piece in the LOTR film trilogy. It has now been lovingly made, for next to NOTHING, by fans! The long and arduous search which Aragorn undertook to find, capture, and deliver the creature Gollum ("He stank") was the a plot factor to initiate the flight of Frodo from the Shire in the first place. Understandably only narrated in the film, The Hunt For Gollum fills the gap which book nerds crave. This was made out of passion, by fans, for a reported few thousand dollars. The Hunt For Gollum is fabulous, riveting, and minus one or two quick scenes, perhaps for budgetary reasons, drops like a bag over your head and you are caught before you know it. For any Tolkien geek like myself, this film should be watched and enjoyed for its amazing dedication, adherence to story, acting (which is really quite good), tension, and beautiful production value. The Hunt For Gollum surpasses most of the dreck squirming its way out of Hollywood. Indeed, I sat on the edge of my seat after having seen this three times. Anyone who seriously criticizes out of some sort of misdirected spite should just go wait in the car and spare us all, because this was beautifully done out of devotion, and as such, wins the geek prize of the century. It's too short to really delve into with much depth, and if you don't know the story, well, watch this lovely film. You know that you've watched the extended editions and special features more times than you should ever reveal to a woman or a first date. This piece of joy is perfectly short and sweet, and worthy of the highest praise.