I'm intrigued by this Roger Ebert review of Beowulf. It sounds like it might be one of the crazier mainstream Hollywood movies to come along in a while:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...S/71115001/1023

"In the name of the mighty Odin, what this movie needs is an audience that knows how to laugh. Laugh, I tell you, laugh! Has the spirit of irony been lost in the land? By all the gods, if it were not for this blasted infirmity that the Fates have dealt me, you would have heard from me such thunderous roars as to shake the very Navy Pier itself down to its pillars in the clay.

...

I'm serious when I say the movie is funny. Some of the dialog sounds like Monty Python. No, most of the dialog does. "I didn't hear him coming," a wench tells a warrior. "You'll hear me," he promises. Grendel is ugly beyond all meaning. His battles are violent beyond all possibility. His mother (Jolie) is like a beauty queen in centerfold heaven. Her own final confrontation with Beowulf beggars description. To say the movie is over the top assumes you can see the top from here."

I like the idea of a Beowulf movie that's not afraid to be a little bit wacky, especially since the original text includes some fairly oddball elements.

I've heard some rave reviews of the 3-D IMAX version. Unfortunately, I don't think I live within realistic driving distance of any theater that's showing it. :(

BTW, I recommend the Seamus Heaney translation of Beowulf to anyone who hasn't read it. In places, it reads almost like a good comic book! (Yes, I said comic book and not "graphic novel.")

I caught the midnight showing of this and I must say, it's one of my favorite big budgeted films of the year!

The review is spot on. The movie is a bawdy, intentionally funny rollicking adventure, with touches of humanity throughout. It gave me what I wanted out of 300 but didn't get.

To me, POLAR EXPRESS is one of the creepiest kids films ever, but the animation is leaps and bounds above it. Plus the 3-D is probably the best I've ever seen.

My dilemma now is whether or not to take my 8 year old son. I'll be seeing it again, but I'm shocked that it got a PG-13 rating. Of course, he's my boy and can probably handle it.


marc

i can't enderstand anyone over the age of 12 wanting see this movie. it looks like a video game!

when i heard someone was making a movie based on the beowulf legend i was kind of interested, but then i saw the trailer and i lost any and all interest. It looks abslolutely terrible...

Well, it sure isn't being sold as a comedy.

And yes, when I saw the first TV ads, I couldn't tell if they were advertising a movie or a video game. If I had to guess, I would've guessed video game!

Wha's wrong with video games? Video games are fun.

I didn't laff that much.

I guess you had to be there...?

Sure; but a video game that never lets you play?

you can't take video games seriously, that's whats "wrong" with video games...when i heard there was a Beowulf movie coming, i though; "cool, lets see what somebody does with that!"

then you see it, and it looks like 2nd rate computer animation from a playstation 2 game, and any seriousness goes out the window...

I can't speak to the IMAX presentation, but I saw this today projected digitally in 3-D, on a (pointlessly) curved, multiplex-sized screen, and while the back and middle-ground imaging was rock-solid, anything meant to come 'off' the screen struggled to resolve itself properly, resulting in ghosting in both fields.

It was a little disappointing, though I'm inclined to blame it on the venue.

Having said that, I did see THE POLAR EXPRESS in IMAX 3-D, and while that was better, there was still doubling (and tripling) in the 'close-to-the-lens' moments - but not so pronounced as my experience today. BEOWULF felt 'constrained' in this presentation.

Or, rather, you don't take games seriously.

Not to be glib (or okay, a little), but "you can't take video games seriously, that's what's 'wrong' with video games" is how people used to talk about pop music and comics and all animation and indeed the cinema. People do, can, and probably should take video games seriously, as they are a valid form of storytelling and artistic expression. They may or may not particularly interest you, but there's nothing inherently worthless, silly or simplistic about the medium itself.

Well, the stigma creates the lack (IMO)... Because people think you can't have serious "high art" comic books or video games, then writers and artists with loftier aspirations will go to the other mediums. So people who want to write about about super heroes and design crazy, silly aliens, will go to comics and video games, while the next Dickens and Bergman will go to novels and film.
It's usually a safe bet that any comic book selected at random will be lacking substance not because you can't write quality, substantive comic books... just that most don't, because they're following audience expectations (if they did write the Autumn Sonata in comic book form, who would read it? a few; but not many) and avoiding the stigma (would you rather tell your new mother n-law that you're a novelist or that you write plots for video games?).
I couldn't blame James for not taking video games seriously (neither do I, frankly, in terms of drama or art)... not because it's impossible; just because, let's face it, it isn't done.

just to be clear, i take comics seriously (or at least the ones that are), as well as animated movies, and i do play video games...

i just think beowulf would have been better served as a "real" movie, or even a animated movie like A SCANNER DARKLY...

animating it like a video game means (again my opinion) that a bunch of people over 30 are not going to see this movie at a theater, if at all. especially a person waiting for a faithful, "adult" portrayal of this story...

I'll see BEOWULF, and I haven't played a videogame since, oh, Pac-Man. I hear the medium's changed since then. :) Tis true, however, that the TV spots do make the film very gamer-friendly, which hits the target audience where it lives. Good word-of-mouth will get duffers like me in, who were born post-3D but pre-Atari.

I started playing BEOWULF the game, and am finding it to be very rousing, with a robust narration and a good amount of fun fighting. Looks a lot like the movie, from what I've seen.

Seeing the movie today in digital 3d. Taking my son and nephew. I'm looking forward to it, even though i would've preferred a live action version of it. Still, I expect the 3d to be quite good, as the venue has just added another screen and is always on top of things, lest I "remind" them ;).

*some SPOILERS*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I had really high expectations based on Neil Gaiman's involvement. Not so much Roger Avary who displays consistent sense of ickiness without the consistent talent displayed by his former writing partner, Quentin Tarantino. Still, I like Avary's ambitions and SOME of his aesthetics are rather cool.

It was encouraging that the movie opens with a drunken, mead-fuelled feast. These feasts were certainly something that I enjoyed from reading some version of the poem in high school. Of course, I was still a little iffy seeing as I was trying to get used to the animation style.

Strangely, this first scene is the one where the animation is the least convincing. As beautifully detailed as everything is, there's an occasional phenomenon in BEOWULF where certain characters or objects don't seem to be coming into contact with one another when they should. I saw the film in 2D and I wonder if these are artifacts owing to the movie's intention as a 3D viewing experience.

Be that as it may, I notice that I immediately feel for Robin Wright Penn's queen. She represents the first and best example of the motion capture technology actually conveying a nice, human performance.

And then Grendel arrives...

....and I....was.....SOLD!!!!!

The approach to Grendel's design and behavior (thanks to a deliciously unhinged performance from Crispin Glover!) is what announces to me that this BEOWULF was going to hew a lot closer to Peter Jackson's LORD OF THE RINGS than to 300.

It has intelligence, minute attention to detail and a healthy sense of perversity.

Gaiman is a peer of Clive Barker and Avary is (I swear I've read this somewhere) a huge Barker fan. This occurs to me as I admire Grendel's design. He's the finest cinematic version of a Barkeresque character I've seen in a long, long time.

Sadly, he doesn't really get to do a whole lot (nor does his mother), but his limited screeen time really makes an impression. The nature of his deformity tells us a lot about his back story. In Barker's fiction, beautiful, supernatural madonnas can give birth to pustulent, monstrous children and still love them just the same. No doubt that Grendel emerged from the womb as a pitiful creature that only his mother could love.

But what of the damage to his face? Was he born like that or was it inflicted upon him by Hrothgar? And how long has Hrothgar been living with this damned thing up there?

Speaking of Hrothgar, it's intriguing to note the key differences between Grendel I and Grendel II. One gets the idea that the appearance and nature of the son says a lot about nature of the father. This is why Beowulf's son is a beautiful, mighty golden dragon who is also a beautiful golden man while Hrothgar's boy was, ya know, Gollum.

After an initial disconnect from the animation, I really fell for it in a way that I didn't expect to. The first scene on Beowful's ship seems to damn near cross over what 3D animation critics refer to as "the uncanny valley."

And unless I'm just too dazzled to know better, I'd say that the entire cast brought their A-game to this one.

One of the many reasons I love TITUS, is that it's the only opportunity I've had to see Sir Anthony step up and completely own a Shakespearean performance. He's allegedly known for doing that quite well and I cherish TITUS as the one opportunity I've had to see just how great an actor he really is.

I think it's safe to say that Hopkins approached this material as though it were Shakespeare. His performance is similarly defined and as nuanced as his Titus Andronicus was. Both are certainly flawed characters (with Andronicus being one of Shakespeare's least celebrated to say the least), but Hopkins really does a great job of finding and selling the man within these characters.

His Hrothgar is pitiable in a similar way to Grendel, but the movie never makes that connections overt. It's a brave "event movie" which depends on the audience to understand certain things for themselves.

Oh, and Angie Jolie does a lot with very little. There's a weird vibe in the audience when she comes on screen. I feel like there's this need among the masses to ridicule her as though she were Ben Affleck or J-Lo, ya know? I could just sort of feel that need to laugh at her around me (not an urge that I share), but it was put to rest once she was doing her thing.

With all due respect to the former Bennifer, I like to believe that Angelina Jolie has enough gravity and talent that she can step in front of a doubting audience and completely assert herself.

I'm going to guess that her bare stiletto heeled feet was Roger Avary's idea. Call it a hunch. Not that I'm complaining, mind you.

In fact, the only thing sort of holding this movie back for me were the obvious concessions for a PG-13. Now, don't get me wrong. I love this movie and I do honestly feel that Zemeckis managed to deliver an R-rated movie within the confines of a PG-13. The intensity and visceral violence are all there, but knowing that it was conceived as an R and then reworked to get a PG-13 makes it occasionally feel like that first edition of BATMAN BEYOND: RETURN OF THE JOKER.

Like RotJ, you can occasionally tell that you're watching a neutered version of it.

But that only takes away from BEOWULF just a little.

If Zemeckis is gearing up for a late career of this stuff, I'd love for him to do "The Odyssey" next.

===========================

Addendum:

I'd like to address some of the "sight unseen" criticism I've seen in this thread.

This IS an adult approach to the material. The pedigree of Gaiman and Avary should have promised that. It's a credit to Zemeckis that he left their bawdy approach as intact as he did.

I guess you could argue that this film is like a video game except for the fact that it has a carefully scripted narrative with a beginning, middle and an end. And it's not interactive. And it will always be the same movie regardless of how many times you watch it. Only your perspective will change.

The idea that this movie is a video game rather than a "real movie" or that the animation is on par with Playstation 2 or that a film like this one can not be "adult" is just silly. On the other hand, there are those who have a problem with the way that anime looks and would never even consider that it would be anything more than SPEED RACER or DRAGONBALL Z and so those people never realize just how mature anime can be.

After all, this movie WAS done like A SCANNER DARKLY! The actors are there in all their glory. They've just been painted over by visual artists who are unbelievably good at what they do.

When you first see Beowulf and his crew on the rain soaked ship, you may find yourself hating the movie more than you did based on the adverts.

Would that be because the animation is so artificial? No, it's because the animation will probably start looking more realistic than you'd like. Unless you're sitting there with a huge chip on your shoulder, determined to hate every second of the animation, you'll start to suspend your disbelief in spite of yourself.

And, yes, the medium still has a way to go, but the advancesments evident in BEOWULF are incontrovertible evidence that this type of animation will one day be indistinguishable from "reality."

But, ya know, what is reality anyway>?
:ph43r:

For whatever it's worth, Neil Gaiman just posted that this review by Ty Burr is his "favourite review so far today -- in terms of feeling that it reviews the film we wrote" and it describes it as "an hour of violent, subversive near-parody followed by a meditation on the seductions of power, all wrapped up in a thrillingly vulgar blood-and-thunder 3-D comic book."

Hopkins was good but I hated the film. So much talent (Tovoli, Goldenthal, etc.) wasted on Julie Taymor's "original" vision.

in terms of visuals, BEOWULF looks hairy ass ugly.

Wow. Personally, I consider TITUS one of the three finest screen Shakespeare adaptations (the others of course being Polanski's MACBETH and Richard Loncraine/Ian McKellan's RICHARD III) - stunning design, great cast, compellingly brutal storytelling. Tovoli's visual compositions rank alongside SUSPIRIA: absolutely gorgeous...

Just out of curiosity, Eric, where exactly did you feel Julie Taymor failed?

I'm with Steve on loving Titus, though possibly not for precisely the same reasons. I think the visuals are stupendous and Harry Lennix's performance as Aaron was masterful, but I appreciate the rest more as camp than as a serious story.

Like a lot of my favourites, TITUS certainly veers towards self-parody (deliriously so) but I think it's just too grim to be considered as true camp.

(Well, maybe the final revenge scene. Maybe.)

I saw this today on an IMAX screen in 3-D and was absolutely blown away. I am one of the group who thought it looked like a video game based on the trailers. But the amount of detail on that huge screen is just incredible.

I agree with Tom about the depiction of Grendel. The level of (gross) detail on him is great. I like that Glover's lines were all delivered in Old English. Plus, I also got a heavy Uncle Frank from HELLRAISER vibe off him. And speaking of horror films, anyone have SUSPIRIA pop into their head with the inside shot of Beowulf's dagger plunging towards the dragon's beating heart?

We liked it, too. It's dour (which is likely sitting on the boxoffice*) but appropriately so, and it looked stunning in 3D. I went with my parents, who hadn't seen 3D since the HOUSE OF WAX revival in 1982, and they were knocked out by it, bobbing and weaving their heads the whole time. I'm not sure how or even if it would come across in 2D but it's worth a look, and it surpassed my (admittedly modest) expectations. Tom Kessler's post pretty much hit it on the head.

*On the other hand, nothing really seemed to be moving at the b.o., except for ENCHANTED. Usually the post T-day Friday is packed at NJ multiplexes. Is "turkey coma" subduing the boxoffice?

Some were wondering how this movie could possibly have gotten away with a PG-13 rating. Well, there's apparently more coming via the (inevitable?) unrated DVD, which runs about two minutes longer and no doubt adds some blood to the killings and maybe some anatomical correctness to Angelina Jolie. From the Ontario Film and Video Review site:

BEOWULF: THE DIRECTORS CUT
Date Classified: Dec 05, 2007

Film Number: 2000070593

Distributor / Submitter / Exhibitor: PARAMOUNT PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT CANADA INC.

Running Time (min): 115

Format: DVD

Language: ENGLISH

Classification: 18A

Content Advisories:
- BRUTAL VIOLENCE
- GORY SCENES
- DISTURBING CONTENT

Detailed Observations: - Detailed gory/grotesque images
- Use of expletives
- Slurs
- Sexual references
- Nudity in a non-sexual context
- Frequent upsetting or disturbing scenes
- Fondling
- sexual innuendo
- Frequent and/or prolonged portrayals of graphic violence
- Limited instances of brief, visually explicit portrayals of violence

My girlfriend and I saw this in Imax 3D here in Melbourne, and enjoyed it immensely. I think it's powerfully done, entertaining, subversive (for whatever that's really worth) and has some real quality and depth. That said, the most noteworthy sequence for me was the extended climax, which in the Imax 3D presentation was a jaw-dropper. I haven't seen POLAR EXPRESS and don't really want to, but I liked BEOWULF quite a bit. I'm sure it'll be a different viewing experience on DVD, but I'm looking forward to grabbing the disc.

I prefer my Beowulfs with Christopher Lambert.

Ugh. Lambert is the bane of every video store worker in the world.


marc