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.
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.