PDA

View Full Version : Beowulf


TrekSucksHard
11-15-2007, 06:04 AM
The saga of Beowulf is one of the oldest (if not the oldest) written works in the English language and is a timeless tale much in the tradition of epic heroes like Hercules or Achilles. Anyone who went to high school in America (and I can assume in England as well) would have surely been required to read about Beowulf, King Hrothgar, the monster Grendel and Heorot hall.

Since the Polar Express it seems apparent that Robert Zemeckis has fallen in love with motion capture on his actors to create a film using previously unheard of camera angles and computer imagery in order to both lower production costs and enhance the action sequences without costly live-action effects.

Since pretty much everyone knows the story of Beowulf and his battle with the monster Grendel there really is no need to discuss the plot if you know the story- it pretty much is predictable in that sense (although there is a bit of back story added to it which gives the film an Oedipal like tragedy and gives Grendel a motivation to kill). While Zemeckis' previous movie the Polar Express pioneered the motion capture effects, Zemeckis seems to have finally found the proper medium for it- instead of a children's book he uses an old English poem (the screenplay was written by Neil Gaman and Roger Avary- for the Sandman comic books and Resevoir Dogs respectively) full of blood and battle which finally utilizes the technique to full effect.

The battle sequences reminded me of a combination of LOTR and 300 and they are excitingly done- the first appearance of Grendel (even though I was expecting it) came as quite a bit of a shock and was intense and suspenseful. Although the movie starts to run out of steam towards the end, there is enough spellbinding sequences to make audiences say, "how did they do that?"

And I have to add that the actors who participated in it came off quite well, there was a bit of John Malkovich in the weasel like Unferth, and you could recognize Angelina Jolie as Grendel's mom and Anthony Hopkins as King Hrothgar. But probably the most changed actor using the motion capture technique is Beowulf himself- since the actor who plays him, Ray Winston, is as old and fat as you get, he seemed to have been recreated using computer enhancement to have a body like Brad Pitt in TROY. If this trend continues then I guess actors won't even need to work out anymore to maintain a body tone- they could just use computer enhancement to change their body type and get rid of any baldness or wrinkles in their faces and be young forever. Could this be the future for actors?

All in all, I would rate this an 8 out of 10. The action sequences are terrific but the predictable story drags it down a few notches. I am quite interested in future movies that set this sort of standard in regards to special effects since it opens a whole wealth of possibilities.

Strider
11-16-2007, 05:52 AM
Question: Did you see this in 3D?

TrekSucksHard
11-16-2007, 06:47 AM
Question: Did you see this in 3D?

Nope- the movie theatres in the country I am residing in (they seem to show some movies ahead of the North American premieres while totally delaying others- Eastern Promises is yet to show here) doesn't have that kind of sophistication- but even with just 2-D the action sequences were impressive.

Strider
11-16-2007, 09:31 AM
Sweet! That means they will probably be that much cooler in 3D. We have a digital theater here that has started doing a few 3D showings, but only the Disney stuff so far (Meet the Robinsons, Nightmare Before Christmas). They are screening Beowulf in 3D, and I hope I have time this weekend to go see it.

Strider
11-19-2007, 05:52 AM
That was a damn entertaining movie! Seeing it in 3D makes it that much more epic in feel, especially when fighting with large creatures. :wink:

However, the story and the look of the film is good enough to work without the 3D gimmick. Polar Express? Never heard of it. :wink:

Penfold
11-23-2007, 09:46 PM
I would highly recommend this movie in 3-D. I don't know about 2-D, but 3-D was definitely cool. The human faces were kind of distracting (and the reason I gave it an 8), but most of the movie was pretty great. Crispin Glover was a great Grendel.

KingVoyeur
11-24-2007, 08:43 AM
I was lucky enough to see this is 3D and I have to say that was pretty damn cool. I was expecting it to just be the 3D where things pop out of the screen towards you (which did happen once or twice), but the way this 3D gave a flat movie screen so much depth it was like looking through a window was fantastic.

As for the story, it wasn't quite as good as I expected, especially from a writer like Neil Gaiman, but it wasn't bad at all. They really only used the major points of the Beowulf legend (King Hrothgar, Grendel, Grendel's mother and the dragon), then crafted a story that drastically changed some events, character motivations and relationships. I can understand why they did that, to connect the events later in the film to events from earlier, but in doing so they took away Beowulf's epic status and reduced him to a more tragic hero who makes a mistake and has to rectify it in his later years.

That's not to say I didn't enjoy the movie, I thought it was pretty good. For younger audiences who've never read the story (and that's probably a large number of them), the story is a great larger-than-life introduction into a classic story of heroism. The CGI was great, there were even some places (notably a few of the shots of Angelina Jolie) where you couldn't even tell it was animation. I was on the fence between giving it a 7 or an 8, and I gave it an 8 (though I really would've like to have been able to give it a 7.5, and I probably would've given it a 7 if I hadn't seen it in 3D). I'd recommend it if you've got a few hours to kill on a weekend.

livewiremaxx
11-28-2007, 05:53 PM
I saw this in 2 D - while I havent followed the history of, and other movies on this ... I wasnt all that impressed. My roomate who was totally gun ho for this as well felt the same. It was an ok movie, better than some that have been done in the past but not great.

mckracken
12-03-2007, 11:21 AM
I gave it a seven, the action was spot on perfect however the CGI characters... especially the men, reminded me of the burley bartender in Shrek (the female/male transvestite) if they were going for realism, then somebody missed the mark, if they were going for stylized characters, why didnt they choose to stylize Angelina Jolie too? was it intentional that the male faces looked well... grotesque? with their puffy eyes and swollen faces?
Honestly in these movies, you can say that Crispin glover delivered a good perfomance or that Anthony Hopkins did a great job but really... I was so taken by this movie that I had forgotten which actor played which part (except Anthony Hopkins...he's easy) Angelina Jolie is hard to miss although I dont get excited by virtual cgi characters no matter how stunning they are, its kinda like gettting all hot and bothered from Laura Croft in Tomb Raider... nope I dont care... she's not real....she's just fantasy CGI.

and yes I did see this in 3d, why is it that nobody is reporting that they charge an extra $2 for the 3d showing? we paid $24 for two tickets.

colmatrix
12-03-2007, 01:34 PM
One of my favorite scenes is the mouse being caught by the hawk/eagle and the following minute or so. Bone-chilling stuff.