Beowulf Sucks, Zemeckis Sucks
 

I've seen some decent movies in my time; Romancing the Stone, Back to the Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and Forest Gump, al directed by Robert Zemechis. They were fun and entertaining, featuring great performances and fun premises. I was pretty sure that Zemeckis was a good director.

He's not. Or he's been replaced by a Bay clone. Either way, we're screwed.

Beowulf is bad. And when I say bad I don't mean like a Martin Lawerence movie... I mean like a scifi channel movie of the week. It manages to fail on ever level. Story? It's a loose adaptation that misses all of the themes from the original: kinship, good warrior vs. good king, the heroic code. Instead there's a cookie-cutter anti hero. Acting? The voice acting is stale and unrelatable, and somehow they managed to animate bad performances. Naked Jolie? Go rent Gia. Or Original Sin. Or Foxfire. Or Cyborg 2. Or Hackers. Here:
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/200...9_800x1001.jpg

I just saved you at least $10.

I'm giving it a generous 1.5/10

damn, i was looking forward to it

Sigh, me too.

*slides you a copy of Big Trouble in Little China*

Here ya go, brother. This will heal all.

Also: You can't mention Jolie's tits from Hackers, bro... they were like mosquito bites. Hell, my pecs are bigger than her tits were in that flick.

I can't even declare that to be a legit Angelina Jolie naked shot. It looks too much like the finest body Industrial Light & Magic could create.

The real question is.... did you see the 3-d version?

Man, that picture really highlights the jon voight in her.

All I had to see was the trailer on tv to know this. It looks ridiculous.

My whole problem with this hyper-realistic animation business is that, if you're going to go to all that trouble, why not just make a live action film? I've yet to see one of these things that could portray people convincingly enough to make it look like anything more than a badly acted tv movie.

Noooo - say it ain't so! I'm (still) going to see this tomorrow night at the local IMAX. Neil Gaiman co-wrote the story, and he's one of the best dark fantasy-ish writers out there, so I'm surprised you didn't like the story. Obviously a screenplay is wildly different from the original source material, so I'm expecting some plot changes.

I haven't seen it yet but it's actually certified fresh at www.rottentomatoes.com . Roger Ebert (the only movie critic I trust) gave it 3 out of 4 stars (3 stars is usually theater status).

I will admit that the previews make it look really bad.

Don't worry, Willravel is usually utterly wrong.

:)

Yeah, I think you're being unreasonably harsh here. I thought it was a reasonably good adaptation of the original source, with enough fresh material to make it interesting. I won't go into plot details (wouldn't want to spoil anything), but anybody who expects a 100% faithful recreation of the poem is doomed to disappointment. Still, it's a pretty good story and seems to fit quite well with Gaiman's other work.

I did think Wiglaf was a little old, though. Wasn't he supposed to be a teenager when Beowulf faced the dragon?

Because you can do things with animation that are difficult or impossible to accomplish in live action. Beowulf is a story about an epic hero who fights mythic beasts and demons. As there aren't any dragons or demons in the actors guild so far as I know, it's easier to portray them through animation.

Possibly one of only two people I know of who didn't like this movie at least to some degree. Then again, I seldom agree with your taste in movies... Most of the reviews and comments I've heard were positive.

Will check it out for myself this coming weekend.

If I was looking for Beowulf (the poem), I'd read Beowulf (the poem). I'll watch Beowulf (the movie) and expect Beowulf (the movie) from what I gather from the trailer.

But thanks for your thoughts on it nonetheless, willravel. I sometimes enjoy movies that have mixed reviews that near binary opposition.

Beowulf, the poem.

Contains both the Old English version and a translation.

Yay, public domain!

EDIT - Oops, realized just after I'd posted that I'd missed Baraka's 'if' and therefore thought he was searching for the poem. Still, I'll leave this here for anyone else who might want to read it.

So I saw this at the local IMAX, and thought it was quite enjoyable.

3d. Real, Imax-ey 3d, with the glasses. A little distracting at times, but mostly
very, very impressive. I think in the 'new age' of 3d they're going to eventually stop doing the 'obvious slow-mo-look-at-the-3d-guys!' stuff, and it won't be so annoying.

CGI - the kind where they 'overlay' real actors. Mostly very, very good. The queen chick very much reminded me of the Shrek princess at times, but at maybe twice the resolution.

Angelina Jolie - Pretty much naked, but CGI-ey. Basically looked like you dipped her in a layer of gold paint. Did the sexy thing pretty well, I thought. I'd tap it, anyway. Fake boobies and all.

Speaking of, I'm very much in the 'real is better' and 'size doesn't really matter' school of thought, but there's something just mesmerizing about a pair of enormous fake boobies...and they are used to great effect in this movie, since the Jolie part is basically about Lust.

The plot is very much changed, though some scenes remained from the book/poem. I actually just finished reading a translation of such to my son, so the plot was fresh in my mind. The writers (I'm a big Neil Gaiman fan, btw) certainly mixed it up, but, on the other hand, I think it was more of a complicated, well-woven story than the original, and it really worked. The one part that I thought was week story-wise was the backstory of the dragon in the end. I thought a little more exposition might have been warrented.

There was actually more naked man in this movie than naked Angelina. This is actually true to the original - in the first fight with Grendel, Beowulf decides to fight him in-the-buff, to 'even up the odds'. So lots of strategically-placed swords, spikey viking helmets, and candelabra. It got to the point where it was self-parody, which I think is probably one of the things that made people uncomfortable with the movie. That particular fight scene really failed to build up much drama with them doing the 'tee-hee, dude's penis is covered by strategically-placed sword!' thing.

I think if you expected the movie to be faithful to the original, or a standard hack-and-slash, or a gore-fest, or a exposition on the effects of lust (for power and/or Angelina Jolie's boobies), or a parody of one of the above genres, then you'd be disappointed. But, as all of the above, it kinda works.

By the way, the PG-13 rating is pure BS, as far as I'm concerned. This movie is really, really bloody and violent. I wouldn't take a kid less than 16, personally.

This I very much agree with. The plethora of last-second cutaways aside, it was still pretty graphic. I mean, Grendel bites a dude's head off. We may not actually see it, but that still counts as violence in my books (especially due to the following ten or so second shot of him chewing).

Bit of a tangent, but I saw a "Beowulf & Grendel" indie flick last year and found it rather enjoyable. I'd recommend it to beowulf (the idea of a movie based very loosely on the poem) fans. I'm also a big fan of the 13th Warrior/eaters of the dead.

However, in good faith, I can't recommend the Christopher Lambert Beowulf, even though I'm also a very big fan of Rhona Mitra. Finally, I state that I look forward to this incarnation, knowing full well what to expect and I imagine that I'll enjoy it.

13th Warrior was fantastic and I'd recommend it to anyone who likes the genre.

I like the genre, but that movie was a bore.

Sorry Will, I usually agree with you on movies but in this case you are so very very wrong. Really a Beowulf movie that is 100% accurate to the poem would absolutely suck. This movie was a lot of fun.

I actually prefer Beoulf & Grendel to the CGI Beowulf. It's a fantastic movie, complete with a pre-300 Gerard Butler as Beowulf, save for Sarah Polley and her out of place accent which drove me nuts throughout.

I can't stand 13th Warrior.

I will recommend the Lambert Beowulf on one condition. That you understand that it is a crappy, crappy movie. So bad that it's good.

I thought it was pretty enjoyable... nothing spectacular, but I enjoyed it.

the main downer was that towards the end and definitely after my eyes felt really fatigued, and that gradually turned into a full headache... The 3d was neat, but not enough that I have any desire to see another one in it.

OK, I haven't seen the film, so I'm talking mostly from previews and online clips. I'm dissappointed in the rendering/charictorization/look of the monster Grendel. Although the original text gives no real physical description of Grendel, I really expected something much different. Since reading it, I have always loved the name "Grendel" and have often thought about what he might look like.

This version looks too much like a big, human zombie. Not that zombies aren't scary, but I just thought he'd be... you know... different?

I remember an animated film called Grendel, Grendel, Grendel with Peter Ustinov doing the voice of Grendel.

It was back in 1981 so my memory of isn't super current. I just remember thinking it was pretty cool.

Why don't I like it?
Spoiler:
"Grendel is naked, so I'll fight naked!" is so far beyond stupid.

"I AM BEOWULF" will become a drinking game if it hasn't already.

Grendel isn't scary at all. In fact, he's worthy of pity and even empathy. His sympathetic character basically makes Beowulf the antagonist right off the bat, and prevents the audience from identifying with Beowulf.

Spoiler: The whole fighting Grendel naked thing is lifted directly from the source. In the original poem Beowulf reasoned that Grendel, as a beast, would not use any weapons or armour. So to make it a fair fight, he decided not to use any either.

So whether you think it's stupid or not, you really can't blame Zemeckis for that.

The biggest risk taken in terms of story and deviating from the source material was Spoiler: Grendel's mother. In the original poem, she was just a demon that Beowulf killed; he was really more the epic hero type. Having her as a sort of temptress was an... interesting interpretation, to say the least..

Of course it was lifted from the source. Jeez. What I'm saying is listen to the dialogue.

Note to self: Ask Bobby if he has a copy of Grendels Gone Wild.

Spoiler: I think that is much more Neil Gaiman's handiwork rather than Zemeckis. Gaiman seems to like to paint his charachters in shades of grey, especially his "heroes". What I got out of it was that killing monsters does not a hero make, and that Beowolf was only truly a hero when he took responsibility for his actions and sacrificed himself.

Spoiler: I've not read the original story. So, is there no Hrothgar is Grendal's dad story line or Mordred/Arther type storyline? Is the nutshell synopsis: "Grendel kills villagers. Beowolf kills Grendal. Grendals demon-mom gets pissed. Beowolf kills demon-mom. The End"?

For those not inclined to read the original:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf

It's been 30+ years since my original experience with the epic, so I hit the Wiki right before heading over to the Imax.

The movie tells a story using the established characters, and the initial plot and setting. From there, it's a total sellout to Hollywood and technology.

First off, the animation was kinda creepy. The scenery was awesome and the rodents and the wolves looked great. The humans, however, came off worse that a tribe of David Caruso clones: stone-faced characters that can't display emotion, with cold, glassy, staring eyes. I've seen video games with better renditions of human characters.

Grendell is a disappointment, both as a character and as a supposed vision of terror. He's protrayed more as a petulant child than evil force of nature. His appearance was as much dictated by the screenwriter's bastardization of the story line as by any truly nightmarish monster. (if this were a review on the psychology of the movie, I'd compare the appearances of Grendell and the dragon and what that says of the character of their respective parentage)

I forgive the storytellers from ignoring the funeral of Scyld Scefing, the action, after all, really begins in the great hall of Hrothgar. Once Boewulf enters Grendell's mother's lair, though, all relationship to the original manuscript is lost. From there on, the movie becomes just another adventure cartoon, spiced up with the forged nakedness of Angelina Jolie. They try to make some sort of morality play out of it, to the detriment of the moral message of the original tale.

On the plus side, the 3-D rendering was tremendous, although I could have done without the obligatory, unneccessary, "in-your-face" bits thrown in to highlight the 3-D-ness of the movie. And the movie, as a whole, was rather entertaining, if you don't expect the actual story of Beowulf. The action scenes, especially the fight with the dragon, are really well crafted, and could not have been achieved as well with live actors.

At Imax, in 3-D, I don't mind having spent the money. Don't bother on the smaller, 2-d screen.

Very well put, grumpster.

In IMAX 3D, it is fucking amazing.

But yea, if I saw if it werent for the amazingness of the 3D, it would've sucked.

I came in here to say a number of things that have already been said. I agree with Grumpy's assessment of the movie almost word for word. The only difference is that I can understand why they would have modified the relationship between Grendel's mother and Beowulf, whether I liked it or not.

I also agree with Will on a number of points. They made Beowulf a very difficult character to sympathize with. Instead of being a hero out of legend he comes off as a braggart, at one point lying about his conquests to make himself seem more heroic. It wasn't until the second half of the movie that you (well, me really) were able to associate with Beowulf as a character.

Oh, and if you are going to go see it, go and see it in 3D. I think I'd watch grass grow in 3D and still come away thinking it was an awesome experience.

Even though I've been warned, I still must see this for myself. Oddly, I kind of liked hearing that Beowulf was not made sympathetic. Too many heroes are these days. The Greeks really understood heroes. Their heroes were often flawed people that performed extraordinary feats.

Well I just seen this movie last night in 3D... first off the 3D was pretty kick ass, as it was my first movie seen in 3D. Second, I pretty much had no background on this movie, never heard of a book or poem about him. I am just a guy who happened to see a 20 sec. clip on tv and thought... "what the hell... looks interesting enough.." So with this limited knowlegde, I had a pretty neutral expectation for it. And after seeing it? It exceeded my expectations. I thought it was a decent film with an interesting enough story to it that kept my attention. Ohh and seeing the seductive, naked/gold covered Angelina Jolie isn't such a bad thing either. I was surprised at its PG-13 rating...wasn't expecting all it had in it with that rating. (not complaining though) So I give it 7 out of 10 naked/ gold covered stars...;)

Spoiler: Yeah, the whole bit about Grendel's mother being a temptress/succubus or whatever term you want to use was pretty much fabricated whole cloth. The original poem has Beowulf facing off with her in a cavern under a lake; Hrunting, the sword supplied to him by Unferth is unable to harm her, so he takes up a sword in her lair and beheads her with that. From there we're back on familiar ground; Beowulf finds Grendel's body and takes his head as proof of victory.

The dragon in the original poem was not related to Grendel or his mother in any way, shape or form. Beowulf returns to Geatland after defeating Grendel and his mother and becomes king there, rather than staying in Denmark as portrayed in the film.

I'm sorry, but the plot to the original story sounds pretty damn boring. I'm not talking about the prose or the imagery, I'm talking about the basic storyline. It's about as one-dimensional as it gets. How could anyone, except maybe Jesus Christ, actually "identify" with a perfect superhuman who buys it in the third act? I mean do the nay sayers really think that "Beowulf kills Grendel, Beowulf kills Mrs. Grendel, Beowulf gets killed in an unrelated Dragon incident" would have made a good film?

Exactly why I found the movie quite enjoyable and didn't mind the changes. And the 3d certainly didn't hurt :)

I haven't seen the film (yet!), but this is a gross oversimplification of the function of plot. There is a reason why literature-to-film translations tend to fail in general, and we can look to Aristotle for answers in his Poetics. In it, he lists a hierarchy of elements that can make or break a dramatic work. In order of significance, they are:

1. Mythos (Plot or Fable)
2. Ethos (Character)
3. Dianoia (Thought or Themes)
4. Lexis (Diction)
5. Opsis (Spectacle)
6. Melos (Melody)

Mythos is in bold because Aristotle places this as the first importance by far. Everything else is subordinate. Where films tend to fail literary source material is when they prioritize spectacle (e.g. CG 3-D special effects) and drop the ball on any combination of plot, character, themes, and/or diction. This happens a lot, especially in an age of supercomputers and computer-generated visuals, not to mention a public that values eye-candy over much else. (A perfect example of this is Cameron's Titanic.)

To reduce "Beowulf"'s plot to ultimate ends such as "this dies, that dies, he dies" overlooks other plot elements that are essentially tied to character and themes. If the movie fails, it isn't because of the original material's plot; it is because of the filmmakers' tolerances for artistic compromise.