"The Hunt for Gollum" is a 35-minute (without credits) short film from 6 years ago. It was written and directed by Chris Bouchard and many people think this is the best "Lord of the Rings" film made by fans of the franchise. I can see why. I have to say it did not look too different from the real films for the most part. Good settings, nice makeup, all in all a solid job. I myself am not the greatest fan of fantasy films à la "Lord of the Rings", so bias is probably the reason why I did not enjoy this as much as I hoped I would. However, if you like or even love the Tolkien franchise, you can give this one a watch, unless you have a problem with the famous characters played by other (obviously fairly unknown) actors than in the movies. Then this one is certainly not worth your time, even if the actors did a fine job for the most part and I wonder if they maybe could also have played in the movies. Or if Bouchard could have directed these.

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.

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.

Most of the time I would avoid something like "The Hunt for Gollum" but, I have to say, this was quite enjoyable and well done. The cinematography is very reminiscent of that found in Jackson's adaptation of the Trilogy. This is both a strength and a weakness; Jackson had a tendency to let a moody shot of some forsaken moor, or a sweeping vista of snow-capped mountains pad-out the running time of his film, and I feel the same thing happens here. On the other hand, with a minuscule budget, and much less experience or support, Frazer, Phillips, Ritchie and Stie manage to create similar shots that are not simply copies.The problem for me -- and I had the same problem with Jackson's work -- is that these shots don't make-up for the lack characterization. If I hadn't seen the Lord of the Rings, or read it, would I have much idea who Strider is? Gandalf appears without much explanation, although his disappearance is, at least, explained. Things are a bit better with Gollum, although it is hard to relate to a voice from inside a sack. (I appreciate the reasons why this was done, but could it have been handled differently?) I think the actors in this could have handled more characterization -- their efforts are really quite above that found in most student and amateur films.The voice-over is, simply, a bad idea, because it is such a non-cinematographic solution. If you are *showing* a story, then why assume it is necessary to *tell* the audience what it is seeing? If exposition is necessary (And I usually dispute that it is) then it is better to create a short dialog exchange, rather than the disembodied voice. Now, the creators of this film are merely echoing something that Hollywood has been doing far too much of late but, since this film is early in their careers, in needs to be said. Don't do it again!I gave this film 7/10 stars, which is what I would rate Jackson's as well. With an amount that probably would not have covered the catering for a week on the Lord of the Rings, they have created a work that is similarly enjoyable and similarly breathtaking. All in all, well done.