Born of Hope

I was not expecting anything spectacular. How can you when it is only a fan-made independent film? But 'The Hunt for Gollum' was a lot better. Unlike the latter, 'Born of Hope' has an abysmally poor plot. While yes, the plot is at least in existence it does not really go anywhere, so you are not particularly interested in what is going to happen.

The acting was alright, even if it was hard to believe. The narrator was awful though. She ruined it for me.

The effects were good enough, and the costumes and the setting was commendable considering that the film was done on a shoe-string budget.

This is worth a watch, only if you're a fan of The Lord of the Rings. If not, you won't really enjoy it. Having said that, I am a fan and I was bored by it.

It is professional grade quality! Acting, editing, script, costumes, sets,music, make-up--it's all in the professional category. The only complaint I have is that I can't have the DVD in high def. It belongs very proudly on my shelf next to the LotR movies. It's clear that you all have futures in the moving making industry if you want them. You stayed close to the vision of Tolkien, and for that reason alone, I'm very grateful. That it is free to us is one of the greatest mathoms ever given, but I would gladly have paid to see this at the theater. Perhaps maybe one day.

Kate and crew...great work! You should be very proud. I'll be watching this often.

Overall Born of Hope is a good movie. It was character driven, accurate and enjoyable. You forget the budget is small once you get taken in by the tale. In no way is it a rip-off of of Jackson's trilogy because it is a historic story from the same land and people......Middle Earth; as well as written by the same visionary author.....J.R.R Tolkien. Since the film isn't plot driven it can seem as if it's not going to twist and climax; however, the story goes on for generations and this film is only an hour long......It does end well. I would like to see more films from the Tolkien books before I'm an old man and was quite pleased to find this one. Give it a try if you have some shred of imagination and don't get bogged down by a lack of shinny things.

I'd heard of this film but delayed getting round to watching it . Don't get me wrong I was totally blown away by Jackson's LOTR trilogy when they came out , especially when I wasn't expecting much more than rather average entertainment but we are talking about a film trilogy that came out ten years ago and in the mean time Jackson lost his magic touch . Let's be honest whatever the technical merits of THE HOBBIT it's a cynical marketing franchise that doesn't have to be a trilogy and when watching last year's release I was constantly reminded of how the plot was composed of characters walking along Middle Earth for ten minutes , getting captured , escaping , walking along Middle Earth for ten minutes , getting captured , escaping , walking along ... and you're left with the feeling you're merely watching out takes from the first trilogy and one wonders if this cynicism might actually damage the reputation of the original series . If Jackson can't capture the magic of the first trilogy then what hope for a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs ?

I'll give these enthusiastic amateurs great credit . This is a definite labour of love and from the outset the production team capture the look , the feel and most importantly of all the breath taking beauty of the series from 2001-2003 , so much so that I had to constantly remind myself this wasn't produced by New Line Cinema with Jackson at the helm such was the authenticity of the costumes , make ups and perhaps most of all the music which wasn't by Howard Shore . What I also liked was the distinct lack of CGI . Okay there is a scene with a CGI monster which isn't too impressive but at least the Orcs are extras in make up . Compare this with the constant use of it in THE HOBBIT where the audience have to endure umpteen set pieces of CGI sequences that look like they're taken from a not very good video game . Jackson might learn a lesson here that big massive spectacle doesn't equal good cinema especially if the sequence is created on computer software

I've got to be honest and say I've never read Tolkein apart from the first chapter of The Two Towers ( I think Jackson improved upon The Departure Of Boromir ) and really couldn't care less about continuity and the history of Middle Earth . Likewise I have no interest in how BORN OF HOPE fits in to the continuity of the Tolkein universe but the story is lacking somewhat and is a rather simplistic tale of how a village in Midddle Earth defends itself against Orc incursions . That said quest stories as seen in the original Ring trilogy aren't known for their multi-layered complex storytelling but THE HOBBIT hardly has a story requiring one three hour film never mind a three film trilogy . I also noticed the acting here is a little bit " off " compared to that seen in LOTR to be honest the acting of the original franchise was one of the best things about it and certainly Oscar worthy from the entire ensemble cast

In all this is a very impressive film made by people who care about their subject . It might be because I was expecting a sad bunch of anoraks seen in the infamous " lightening strike " youtube video that my low expectations for this amateur film exceeded what I expected by a long shot . It's certainly not perfect but you have to ask yourself if a bunch of non professional film makers can make something of this quality why is Peter Jackson and his colleagues with their multi million budgets aren't capable of making something much better ?

This is a film made truly for die-hard Tolkien fans. While meticulously consistent with the story lines established by the author, fans solely of the film will likely be rather bored with it. This exceptionally well-crafted, fan-made, micro-budgeted film, while it takes great pains to share visual continuity with Jackson's films (and does so remarkably well, despite the tiny budget) is long on dialogue and short on action, creating a tone which is more consistent with Tolkien's "histories" (ie, The Children of Hurin, Lost Tales) than to his novels (The LOTR Trilogy, The Hobbit). If you fall into the former category of fans, you'll undoubtedly be pleased by its overall faithfulness to Tolkienian lore, the excellent casting, above-average acting, true-to-Jackson costuming and surprising cinematography and scoring. But if your only experience of The Lord Of The Rings is the films and you're not a fantasy reader, you'll probably think the Orcs look lame and be really bored by it.