Zemeckis: Oh, so Beowulf is kinda like a violent version of The Polar Express.

Yes, yes... a film is quite obviously about the journey, not the destination.

Well I was disappointed in this, it did look good watching it in IMAX 3D, but I will not bother watching it again when it gets shown on TV. Shame I was looking forward to this, but to me it actually looked like a crap PC game with how they have done the animation. Still hope a few more films come out in 3D. I'd give this film 3/10 without 3D, but 7/10 in 3D.

Is this movie even salvageable by http://www.mutantreviewers.com/rmst3kb.jpg'ing the shit out of it? And call me crazy but didn't Gerald Butler, yes the Phantom of the Opera and King Leonidas, just star in a Beowulf movie!

The discourse regarding who said what when and why aside, this movie was really, really bad.

Baraka_Guru: don't get me wrong, I generally agree with your assessment of what's wrong with a lot of movies today, and I certainly don't think this Beowulf movie is anything deserving of awards, but I'm not sure how Hollywood's tendency to place spectacle over story has anything to do with how generally one-dimensional the original Beowulf story is. Beowulf is interesting as a poetic relic from the past, but it doesn't honestly hold up that well against either newer hero stories or even older hero stories. As Val_1 pointed out, many of the Greek characters were complex and interesting. Beowulf is...Beowulf. He's an awesome hero who, in the poem, does nothing other than be awesome. Then he dies, while being awesome and old. The movie, while not excellent, certainly made the story far more interesting and meaningful than the poem. That says nothing of whether or not the script was written well, or whether the choice to use CGI was a good one.

I don't think this is the place to discuss this in length, but do you realize that you have suggested here that Zemeckis' Beowulf deserves to replace the original? More meaningful? I haven't seen the movie yet, so maybe it is why I find this hard to believe. I think you'd have a hard time convincing most people who understand both film and literature that this film is better at capturing a strong sense of lyric, dark comedy, and tragedy. Sure, we can say the Greeks had a much stronger grasp of these things, but is Zemeckis really that good? To be that good, he'd have to be a commanding translator of Old English and a filmmaker who is capable of drawing attention to these elements without distracting his audience with 3-D flash.

We need to ask this of Zemeckis:

• Was he sensitive to certain elements of the original text when coming up with the script, such as its alliterative qualities?
• Did he enrich the themes, or did he drop some or downplay them?
• Did he make the characters come alive, or are they wooden despite their shiny look?
• Does he handle hero mythology properly, or is this simply an action film?

For the film to be more meaningful than the original, it would need to pass these questions and more. As I mentioned, Beowulf can't really be compared to Greek drama, nor should it be. It is a hero myth. Mythological epics aren't the same as drama, as understood by the Greeks. This is how the poem is viewed. Zemeckis' film is probably more interesting by virtue of its visuals and action, but I seriously doubt it would surpass the interest from a literary or artistic standpoint.

The meaning you mention might be subjective, which is fine, but when we approach literature (and film, even), it is often of benefit to step outside of our own experiences and understanding of the world and view something as though we have come across it in a living state after having stepped through a time machine.

We might view Beowulf as one-dimensional, but the same can be said of many mythologies. The limitations of the oral tradition plays a part in this, but the structure and inner workings of myth play bigger roles. Think of the function of myth: it tells simple stories of where we came from and how things had come to be. These are stories that are meant to be instructive and highly memorable (i.e. memorized). Let's not forget the source when we are looking at its reinterpretations, no matter how good or bad.

I suppose I really need to see the film before I have a clear idea of what we're talking about, but you get the idea.

Why would you say that? Where would be a more appropriate place?

I think you may be stuck on the word "meaningful". I think it may have been a poor choice of descriptor, because I don't think that SecretMethod70 is implying in the least that the original Beowulf should be erased from existence.


I have to totally disagree with you on this. Look at one f the oldest epic poems in history, The Epic of Gilgamesh. It has all kinds of depth and drama.

Could you possibly list some of the overlooked character and theme elements, not prose or lyrical elements, that make this a great, untouchable story.

My concern is that this thread will move from the OP into a discussion of the function of literature as it contrasts to film, the problem of historical context, and the challenges of interpreting art within the postmodern mind.

I may have overreacted to SecretMethod70, but I interpreted the words as: the movie is better than the poem on the level of meaning and impact.

Will established this in the OP: kinship, good warrior vs. good king, and the heroic code vs. others.