RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Media Beowulf the Movie

A pair of reviews of the new computer animated film from Robert "Back to the Future" Zemeckis and Neil "Sandman" Gaiman

Listen! This movie is a letdown

• The story of Beowulf has it all: a compelling central character, high-stakes conflict, and big fights with gruesome monsters. The poem’s commemoration of courage, loyalty, and generosity are strong themes. The tension between its Christian faith and pagan influences present probing questions about human nature, social structure, and religious history.
  
  In key ways, then, Beowulf is made for the movies. In other ways, however, it falls short: There’s only the barest whiff of romantic intrigue, which most great thrillers manage to incorporate into their narratives. The movie tries to compensate by altering the story. I’m no purist when it comes to turning old tales into movies. If script writers must take a few liberties with a classic, as they move from one medium to another, then so be it.
  
  The casting of Angelina Jolie as Grendel’s mother has attracted more attention than any other aspect of the new movie. This owes much to her celebrity, but perhaps even more to its sheer boldness. Grendel’s mother, after all, is traditionally portrayed as a wicked swamp hag. In the film, however, she’s a golden-skinned femme fatale.
  
  I won’t include any spoilers here, so let’s just say that Grendel’s mother departs from the original in more ways than Beowulf can kill a sea monster. The same is true for other important characters. By the end of the movie, the script has made a complete hash of the story it’s based upon. Another non-spoiler example: The concept of Hrothgar as a self-absorbed, toga-wearing drunkard—as he is revealed to be in the first scene—is weird.
  
  Perhaps moviegoers who are less attuned to the poem will forgive these blemishes and enjoy the film on its own terms. The 3-D animation is eye candy. And the new storyline, for all of its wholesale invention, has its own logic.

BEOWULF is indeed a work of Legend!

• I saw this in a room with 5 others and couldn’t help cheering the old King on as he fought once again. There was a tad of EXCALIBUR magic to this film. It wasn’t Frazetta, it was like a Hildebrandt dream brought to motion – filled with sound and fury. A desperate, hopeless and painful leap from the age of magic, sorcery, demons and legend – as the world was stumbling forward to the age of enlightenment…. Here we had our last desperate mythological hero battling the last sired creature from the depths of our ID and I loved it.
  
  I have to give it to Zemeckis, Avary and Gaiman – they pulled it off. None of us that watched this screening thought we’d be cheering or trumpeting this.
  
  The 3D is spectacular, but is overtaken by the story itself. I ceased to be concerned with the dimensional beauty – and was taken by the story and the characters. And with a movie that’s spending over a million a minute – for the story to shine above all is something I think we could all wish for more often.
  
  On another note… in the history of Man versus Dragons – you’ve never ever seen anything even approaching how fucking awesome this scene is. It’s truly jaw-dropping and awe-inspiring.
  
  Alan Silvestri’s score is pitch perfect and all the work by all the digital artist continued to create a legendary place for our imaginations to play. And Doug Chiang? BRAV-fucking-O!!! Great Dragon!!!
  
  See this any way you can, but if you can see it in 3D… be it IMAX, REAL D or DOLBY 3D… get to it. I saw it in mere REAL D and it left my dick in the dirt.

I'm seeing this next weekend. I'm really looking forward to it.

The adverts they have been showing on tv do not make me wanna see it.
They just fucking annoy me.


I'll wait til its on tv to see if its actually as annoying as it seems or actually a decent film!

This looks like complete shit. I can't wait till it bombs.

This should also be in the movie discussion thread.

Which thread? You do realize there's at least two other threads for this, don't you?

Most of the reviews it's getting are "Holy shit, I hated this movie but then I watched it!" Most message board reviews probably end at "hated this movie" and don't bother with the second part.

Of course the fucking movie isn't going to be like the poem... They cover the three main points... let 'em adapt the rest. Jesus CHRIST.

TK knowa all about adapting things.
Like his stories of his sexual prowess.

Fox News:

• Angelina Jolie has finally gotten a hit movie.
  
  "Beowulf," the motion capture film directed by Robert Zemeckis, looks like it will have a $27 million weekend. On Friday night it took in over $9 million and handily grabbed the top dollar spot from "American Gangster."

I like Christoffer lambert role in the frist Beowulf movie.

I loved the movie. And, big suprise, I'll be picking up the soundtrack. The ending was a little weird, but it has motivated me to pull the old paperback copy on the shelf and reread the poem.

I'll most likely see the movie. Reading the poem was required in high school.
It was pretty intense. I liked it.

Great movie. Not really like the poem, but then again, I never expected it to be.

I've just seen this movie. It was really, really good. Though if you ask me, a little more live action and a little less animation would have been really good.

But all in all, a really good movie worth the price for the cinema

I decided to not watch it, and wait for it on rental or TV. In a trailer an old Beowulf shouts like an idiot "I! AM! BEOWULF!". In "300", seeing Leonidas shouting "This is Sparta!" was ridiculous, but at least it was expected. But Beowulf should be a more wise and calm guy, IMHO. Not even Conan (played by Arnold) gaped like this.

These kind of "epic" fantasy movies are getting tiresome.

how much angelina boobie is there?

In the trailer? Not mucho. A second long clip in which she walks out of the pool in her cave. She seems to have a tail.

She's naked, but the parts are all...streamlined, for lack of a better word.

And she's has heels. Not that I object, but she does have heels.

hm. so boobies, no nipples?

Pretty much. Same with the mermaid in the beginning.

though sans the heels, i'd suspect.

its like a great philosopher once asked, if boobs do not show any nipple, are they really showing boobs at all?

http://www.google.com

See her really naked without paying ten bucks for a crappy movie.

So, rex, when did you watch it?

the trailers sucked and made the movie look like it was trying to be 300. Its also directed by the guy who directed forrest gump and it stars angelina jolie.

I don't need to waste my money to know it was bad.

Sure, MOTA, suuuuurrrre...

I'll show you the numbers for its opening weekend. That will prove me right.

That was a sarcastic post for all you tards out there that don't understand humor.

Oh, I was worried. For a second I thought you were a shitheaded idiot who thinks he can judge a movie without having seen it. Phew!

In rex's defense, if the previews and reviews lead him (or anyone else) to think a movie looks like crap, it's his right to say that and to choose not to see the movie on that basis.

There's a difference between thinking it looks bad and "knowing" it's bad. You can choose not to see a movie based on the trailers, but that also means you can't judge what you haven't seen. Whine about the trailers or the casting if you like, but once you start whining about the movie itself you're a certified idiot. There's a name for passing judgement on things you don't know about: stupidity.

You make a good point, Mxy. I guess I forgot for a second whom I was writing about and foolishly assumed that rex meant "the film looks like crap" not "I know for a fact that it is crap without seeing it." My bad.

say hello to our newest member, "Im Not Mister Mxyzptlk"

sincerely,
the internet

i, for one, have always found it comforting that this particular webtranet forum is stockpiled with experts in any number of entertainment and/or scientific fields. these aren't assumptions, they're facts. made of diamonds.

About damn time you recognize our brilliance.

True.

Also true.

I just saw this in digital 3D.

First off the 3D was above average. I expected the same eye straining effect I've experienced before. This time i wasn't the case. At first (and with most of the trailers, also in 3D), they went for the eye popping stunts but as you worked your way into the story, they calmed down and settled for the more subtle depth effects.

All in all, not too shabby.

As for the film, I'd have preferred if they'd employed completely live action instead of that creepy Polar Express faux CGI/Live action. It's creeeeeeepy, no matter how much they think they've improved on it. For this kind of story, you don't need animation anymore. It seems like a poor substitute for something that was this good.

The story indeed was engrossing and never dull. As far as the nudity, you did see the outline of the nipple and a good side boobie shot. But it was essentially Angelina dressed in CGI anyways and dripping what looked like chocolate fudge so I couldn't say it was in any way titillating any more than say, watching a nude Greek statue is titillating.

I'd definitely pay to see it (and I did since I needed to pay in order to get the 3D glasses) as well as buy the DVD when it comes out.

If I'd make a movie out of Beowulf, I'd base my script on translations of the poem (by Tolkien or Seamus), prose versions (Tolkien and Robert Nye) and John Gardner's 'Grendel'. After reading Tolkien's essays on Beowulf and Robert Nye's novel, I think Beowulf should be portrayed as a wise, noble and resourceful warrior, not just any shouting meathead (which is what the trailers makes me think the new movie-Beowulf is).

BTW, after watching 'Troy' on TV I wish Hollywood won't take on the 'Aeneid' before they're able to write scripts again, rather than covering bland stories with special effects.