User reviews

In the original epic poem, why does Beowulf come back from defeating Grendel's mother carrying Grendel's head? It's an interesting question that has fired literary critics imaginations for a while, and when Robert Zemeckis set out to make his big screen adaptation of the poem, he went beyond merely adapting the text itself. Instead, he took those questions that critics had considered and ran with them dramatically.

So, what we end up having isn't so much an adaptation of Beowulf, but an adaptation of a master's thesis on Beowulf.

The movie received mixed to positive reviews when it came out. A lot of the negativity seemed connected to the movie's visual style. Expanding what he had done on The Polar Express, Zemeckis used motion capture and computer animation to get realistic-ish looking characters. The problem is that the characters exact right in the middle of the Uncanny Valley. They are too real to treat as cartoons, but not real enough to convince the mind that they are real, so there's a natural barrier that's created because the brain knows it's not real despite a somewhat realistic looking appearance. I was more okay with the look of the film upon its initial release, but less so now.

I understand, though, why Zemeckis was enamored with the technique. The freedom as a filmmaker to build the environments he wanted and place the camera wherever he wanted must have been quite enticing. The problem was the effort at getting photo-realistic effects, which end up falling short. A more cartoonish look might have been less jarring for the audience.

Moving on, though, the movie's approach to the material, as implied, is really smart. It's not just a monster movie, but an exploration of bravery, heroism, and the costs of power. It takes a different approach than the original poem, but that's fine by me. The seduction of power, and the literal seduction of Grendel's mother, is an interesting approach to take, and I think it works really well. Beowulf must sell his soul to achieve power, but when the bill comes due he doesn't lay down like Hrothgar did. He fights. He reclaims his honor and sense of bravery by having a spectacle infused fight with a dragon. It's a sop to modern movie convention, but it's still fun on its own while refusing to undermine the basic point of the story.

Performances, which you mainly need to judge by voices since the faces do have a plastic-like feel that they movie can't escape, are very good. I can see why Zemeckis wanted to cast Ray Winstone as Beowulf because he carries a gravelly voice that matches the vision of the character perfectly, but Winstone is, at the same time, not a body builder with 8 pack abs. Brendan Gleeson is wonderful as Wiglaf, the sad advisor, Anthony Hopkins is wise, sad, and guilt-ridden as Hrothgar, and Angelina Jolie is pure seduction as Grendel's mother. Special nod to Crispin Glover as Grendel, speaking Old English and evoking quite a bit of emotion as a monstrous creature with inside out ears.

I have read Beowulf a couple of times. It's great northern European mythology, and mandatory reading when you are young in my opinion (Along with Norse, Greek and Roman Mythology as well). And though the movie wants to re-write some of the epic, you will need to separate the Hollywood version from the beautiful measure of the original works. Being a work of CGI, you will also have to allow for the flaws of pure CGI work. Very stylized and beautifully colored, it is an epic adventure that elevated Zemeckis' previous work "The Polar Express" to a new level. Polar was beautifully modeled after Chris Van Allsburg illustrations for his book, but Zemeckis' adaptation to the story went a little over the top when it became a musical. Even though most of Beowulf's story line is answered here, it did make me pause and wonder:

Why didn't Robert Zemeckis just direct this thing in real life instead of virtual?

With the capabilities of dropping in CGI into real life action, this telling of the story could have had so much more of an impact if the expressions were more poignant. Look what he did with "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"? Zemeckis is fully capable of it. Also, to add to this, when you have CGI characters like Jacksons Gollum and King Kong to compare notes with, the modeling here just isn't up to snuff. I felt the entire movie came off like a gigantic "cut-scene" to a video game than a full featured animated project. I can only give this a little better than a good, hence the exclamation. I do this sadly. You really should see this in a theater, bigger than life. The dragon is excellent, the ugly v/s the beautiful is wild, the sequencing is uneven, though at the end it takes you on a great ride. Oh, and for you people that want to go see Angela Jolie nekkid? IT'S CGI!!! I've seen harder stuff on Fox networks! Seeing my wife and I saw this as a matinée, the crowd was on the sparse side and there was literally no kids present. I couldn't get a solid feeling from the audience though most people as they left seemed genuinely happy with their experience. I'm sure it was PG13'd because of the sequences with Angela, otherwise it would be a solid PG. I wouldn't suggest this for a kid under 8.

It takes a while for your eyes to get used to the uncanny animation, but once you overcome the ordeal, Beowulf turns into an outrageously entertaining ride. The performances are solid, the visuals are unique, the score is uplifting, and it has great action sequences. It's really good fun for adults of all ages.

Normally I loathe CGI, but here, it's necessary. And it works - well.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: As I understand it, the story was originally just a poem, but it was filled out nicely.

Warrior stories are endless, but this has a plot twist I've not seen or read before, and it's pivotal for the story.

I could have done without Jolie and the copious amount of lust, but men like their stories of war and women. Oy ...

ACTING: This includes the "acting" of Anthony Hopkins, a brilliant British actor who I've followed since his earlier years.

Otherwise I thought the characters were decent, though their development is not the emphasis.

ENTERTAINMENT: Moderate to high value, but as always, it depends on your tastes

TEMPO: Quite good, though it must have crazed blood and carnage to satiate the lusts of men

CINEMATOGRAPHY: For a CGI film I was very impressed. What's intriguing is how difficult it is to "draw" the human mouth while speaking.

There are so many muscles in the face, jaw, and tongue so those subtleties are lost, but an excellent attempt.

MUSIC / SOUND: A beautiful song "Hero comes home" but otherwise far too much "epic" music

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Zemeckis has a very impressive resume, and this reinforces his ability to handle a wide variety of genre.

I've seen many of his films, and nearly all have left strong impressions.

Writers: While I thought this story was reasonably well done, the combined works of the two screenplay writers is flat or filled with TV waste.

Is it a good film? Yes

Should you watch this once? Yes

Rating: 7.5.

It seems we have a new cinematic fad coming into fashion... the genre of mythological action. It began with '300' (a film I really enjoyed), and the first that stands to benefit from 300's success is Beowulf. Beowulf is the newest film from Robert Zemeckis. Zemeckis implements many of the same visual themes of his last project, the heart warming Polar Express, with varied success.

Beowulf tells the story of the kingdom of King Hrothgar (a delightfully campy Anthony Hopkins)which is currently being terrorized by a monster named Grendel (Crispin Glover). Help comes in the form of mighty Beowulf (Ray Winstone), who arrives with an army of 14 men and his right hand man, Wiglaf (Brendan Gleeson). It his his job to slay the monster. However, he must also deal with Grendel's mother (Angelina Jolie). Beowulf is opposed by Unferth (John Malkovich), and has also been paying close attention to the king's wife, Wealthow (Robin Wright Penn).

Perhaps the most surprising element of the film is its sly, wink and a nod, sense of humor. This can be viewed two ways. The first view is one of enjoyment and laughter. However, it is hard to comply when we are asked to feel or identify with these characters after so many scenes presenting them as mere caricatures.

As expected, Beowulf is visually stunning. I'd argue it is the one category where this film bests 'Polar Express'. The 3-D photography is shockingly good. It is a film I wouldn't want to imagine in the traditional two dimension format. I strongly advise anyone who is going to see this to view the film in 3-D. Without it, the film would be borderline un enjoyable. The highlight is by far the final battle scene,which just begs you to forget the film's past misdeeds. Close, but no dice.

Beowulf (2007) is in my DVD collection and is also available on Netflix. The storyline is about Beowulf who arrives in a town plagued by a curse where a deity and her son ravage the land. When Beowulf fights the son and confronts the deity tough choices will be made that will determine his future and direction. This movie is directed by Robert Zemeckis (Forrest Gump) and contains the voices of Anthony Hopkins (Silence of the Lambs), Angelina Jolie (Tomb Raider), Ray Winstone (The Departed), Crispin Glover (Willard), Robin Wright (The Princess Bride) and John Malkovich (In the Line of Fire). The storyline for this is very good and contains some fantastic twists and turns. The animation is out of this world and looks very much like the actors used for the voices. The cast is very well selected and fit the characters and storyline to perfection. The action scenes are absolutely amazing, especially the depiction of the creatures and sorcery. The kill scenes and gore is also remarkable. The full circle of the storyline is excellent as is the absolute final scene. This is a bit underrated and is definitely a must see that I would score a 8.5/10.

Beowulf is not the old school poem. It's a story retold like mythical tales that have different revisions. A wolf becomes a bear, a bear becomes a troll, a troll becomes a dragon, etc. It's like another take on an old story, and told from the lips of a different story teller; this is all completely fine. The story is about Beowulf's quest to kill the creature Grendel and his story after that event.

It doesn't sound particularly interesting but when you add in the fact that Beowulf can kill monsters with nothing but his pinky and thumb it starts sounding a lot better. If you are a big fan of medieval swords and shields tales you're going to love Beowulf. If you are big fan of blood, violence, and sexual themes, you're going to love Beowulf. The special effects and sound of Beowulf are top notch and the best technology has to offer these days.

Every breaking bone, every ripple in every face, and every flexing muscle look as good as CGI probably ever will at this time. Sound effects, from the clang of swords, arrows firing, water, wind, the ocean, every thing sounds great and is a treat to hear. I saw the Unrated version so I can't speak for the PG-13 one but Beowulf is a very sexually charged movie, I will tell you that. It is not for children and when I say children I mean any one under 16 years of age.

This movie should have been R rated from what I've seen. I can't imagine they took much out of the movie because the director's cut is only a fraction longer than the theatrical version. Now with the negative parts of this movie. The movie can be very paced to the point of silence. Some parts feel long and drawn out, I never got this feeling but I can see how some may not like this. I myself was too focused on soaking up all the lovely high-techery CGI.

The point is don't go into this movie expecting THE Beowulf and you'll be all right. If you think that the retelling of a story should be 100% accurate with the poem it's based on, don't even rent this. You will not be happy. If you are looking for a great epic, and an all around entertaining film, watch this. It suffers from crappy ending syndrome but is well worth the price of admission, that is if you watch it for what it is; Beowulf the film, not the poem.

I didn't expect a lot from 'Beowulf', for lots of reasons, most of which were to do with the casting: incorrigibly cockney Ray Winstone as a warrior from what's now southern Sweden; wacky John Malkovich as a cynical counselor; loony Crispin Glover as a flesh-rending monster, and weirdest of all, Angelina Jolie as the monster's mother...thaet waes wundorlic castyng, as the poet might have put it. Then there was the way they did the whole thing in CGI, running the risk of making it all look a bit rubbery. Finally, Robert Zemeckis is the director and my great respect for him plummeted through the floor and into the crawlspace after he presided over the insufferable 'Forrest Gump'.

Nevertheless, this is a lot better than I thought it would be. I missed the 3D incarnation as we were watching the DVD rather than the cinema release, but after a while you stop looking at the CGI and start enjoying it. This is a 'Beowulf' where the story, although different from the poem, is actually very far from shabby.

Without giving too much away, the main difference from the poem is that in the poem, there is no connection between the monster Grendel and his mother on one hand, and the dragon in the latter half of the poem on the other hand. In the film, a connection exists. Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary do a professional job of tying it all together in a satisfying Hollywood way, without betraying the basic darkness and sadness of the story; it's not like Beowulf rides off into the sunset with Wiglaf at the end. Crispin Glover is genuinely scary as the tormented and raw-boned Grendel, whose main problem is that he just can't stand the sound of people having fun, although since most of this fun consists of hairy men singing lewd songs you can see his point. Angelina Jolie's animated self spends all her on screen time walking around without any clothes on, something that apparently gave Jolie a blush when she saw a cut of the movie. (One of the more eerie things about this film is that the cartoon Angelina Jolie looks marginally more realistic than the actress herself.)

Despite an accent that's more Stockwell than Geatland, Ray Winstone does a fine, sombre job as the hero, although my wife thought that the animated Winstone looked more like Sean Bean. Brendan Gleeson does a splendid job in the niche he's carved for himself of Hairy Sidekick. The acting honours, or at least the animation honours, go to Robin Wright Penn (or whoever worked on her character) as the pale and melancholy queen; she has moments of subtle hesitation and sadness that struck me as a triumph of CGI acting.

There is much excellent smiting, some of it unfortunately toned down a little in order to keep a PG-13 rating - so we don't actually get to see Grendel biting men's heads off, just people's reactions to him doing so. Most importantly, the story is not a travesty of the original. It's thoughtful and interesting, as you'd expect from a writer of Gaiman's quality (if not from the author of 'Killing Zoe') and contains some striking meditations on the power of legend and reputation. Plus, there's a really huge kick-ass dragon. 'Beowulf' is a strange and unexpected treat.

In Denmark, A.D. 507, the realm of King Hrothgar (Anthony Hopkins) is threatened by the tormented demon Grendel (Crispin Glover) that attacks the locals in their celebrations. The Danish king offers a reward for the death of the creature, attracting to Herot the brave Geet warrior Beowulf (Ray Winstone) that seeks for glory. After a fierce battle, Beowulf defeats the demon and after receiving an old relic as reward, he finds his men slaughtered in the party saloon of the castle. King Hrothgar advises that the Grendel's mother (Angelina Jolie) was the responsible for the bloodshed and Beowulf chases her in the lake where she lives. The creature takes the form of a seductive woman and seduces Beowulf with a promise of becoming an invincible and wealthy king if he makes love to her and gives his golden relic to her. Years later, King Beowulf feels the aftermath of his sin.

"Beowulf" is a dark tale in an age in the beginning of the Christianity and a unique experience with the entire movie made of computer-generated image (CGI). There is no live action, but the stylization of the characters and images is amazing. In accordance with the director Robert Zemeckis, this resource allowed to make this movie with lower costs, using unusual movements of camera. There are silly moments, like for example Beowulf fighting completely naked against Grendel, or the ambiguous character of Unferth, but in the end this movie is entertaining. I only imagine how frustrating might be for actors and actresses performing in blue screen without interaction or set. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Lenda de Beowulf" ("The Legend of Beowulf")

The first risk about this version of "Beowulf" is to see it as one of Zemeckis eccentricities. A technique used for a sort of childish game without limits. The second view discovers the purpose of the game - to propose the right essence of poem. The fluidity and dramatism of plot. The bitter flavor of confrontations. And the seed of the victory. Impressive, shocking in few scenes, it is a precise exploration of a world who becomes less familiar. Because, behind shadows and animation, violence and nudity, the message of "Beowulf" becomes more clear. And usefull. And, maybe, this is the most important thing in its case.

Given the power of the cast and the budget, you perhaps hope for a movie which is stunningly entertaining and in some way expands your consciousness, if only for a brief 90 minutes or so. Unfortunately you get neither, just an action movie with a rather twisted and unhistorical plot. The acting does not shine through the CGI very well. Maybe it's because I am in my 50s and did not grow up with CGI, but I keep feeling like I am watching a cartoon, which is to say the least distracting.

I can certainly understand that in such spectacles as the monster fight, CGI offers at least an approximation of realism. But in scenes where human interaction predominates, CGI falls far short of communicating human expression and emotion and leaves me cold.

There is a lot of discussion of the historical "accuracy" of this movie. I did a little research, and it seems that there are major gaps in the major historical document (literally, much is missing or has crumbled away), and how it should be interpreted. Given this, it seems peculiar to pan the latest rendition of a reality that causes great controversy, even among academics. I do agree that Beowulf is portrayed in a very unflattering and unfavorable light by the movie.

In the obvious comparison CGI movie, the 300, the producers emphasized the myth. In Beowulf, they denigrated it. Neither, by itself, is reason to reject the movie itself. But 300 sold itself as a CGI production, and exceeded expectations. Beowulf sold itself as an exceptional human drama and fell flat on its face, saved but hardly exalted by its action scenes.

The movie's OK, I think; won't go into details. The thing I wondered most about is the research done about the Danish country...or lack of same. It seems that those who did the research may have visited Denmark's neighbours Norway or Sweden and decided that that's how all Scandinavian countries look like. However, Denmark - my home country - looks nothing like what is depicted in this movie. Never has. The geography of Denmark is that of a rather flat country. We have hills, yes, but not mountains, and certainly not cliffs. Beowulf lands his ship on a beach with large cliffs in the background. Not one single place in Denmark looks like this. The same thing goes for the place of the king's hall. No place like that in Denmark. Just an interesting thought from a Danish fellah...

.....and I'm not sure about the 6-10...perhaps it's for the 3-D, which is really quite a spectacular achievement...being able to essentially move your head around in an environment and look this way and that, choosing to focus on what you will.....

But, the computer animation is nothing more than an all-inclusive production design, which is fine- all films have to have a unifying production design. But to paint over real actors, when they are already being used seems a terrible waste, when the technology still can't render the human form believable. They're coming closer, but the actor's main tool, his face and mouth, still have yet to be fully realized.

Motion capture gets the broad strokes of body movement, giving the body a sense of mass on-screen, which is why this technique looks so much better than the digital avatar that stands in for Toby McGuire in the Spiderman films. Spidy has no sense of mass when it isn't McGuire. But all the actors in Beowulf do not have realistically expressive faces, and consequently the film falls apart. Given that the plot is thin gruel, not worthy of a two-hour plus film, Zemeckis would have been better off to use the techniques employed in "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" and let the real actors play around in a digital environment. The photorealism would be intact, and the actors would be allowed to bring all their chops to bear.

To be sure, motion capture is fine when the actors are covered in digital make-up a la Gollum, and I'm sure Ray Winstone appreciates the fitness programme that he did not have to embark on to get himself ripped for this role, but that's it! So what's the point? Filmgoers have been willingly suspending their disbelief for the sake of buying the fantasy since the original King Kong, and Fritz Lang's Metropolis. Ray Harryhausen was delivering the goods way before digital technology came about.

This film works only as a technological exercise. Someday they will be able to replicate an actor's facial features exactly, mimicking the skin and muscle contractions that make the human face such a magnificent tool for the performer. But until then, why not use the real thing? And none of this substitutes for telling a good story. Beowulf is a sad commentary on American films that make technique king over substance. That's why Andy Warhol isn't Rembrandt.

When going into the theatre to see this I in two minds - it was my first 3D movie and I had heard good things, however I wasn't particularly taken by the concept or the trailers. I was unsure what to expect, however I ended up leaving the cinema extremely satisfied with the film, and tellingly, unable to stop discussing it long after the ride home.

Visually it is an absolute treat, Zemeckis uses 3D superbly, some of the camera angles and sequences are as great an art as the photo-realistic animation. Occasionally the odd shot appears where the impression is that it was set up solely to emphasise the 3D (e.g. starting at the end of a branch and panning out) and whilst this doesn't add to the film it is actually a pleasant reminder of the novelty of 3D.

There are only two areas that let Beowulf down aesthetically: the eyes and the mouth. The eyes were static throughout and it is the little details that make the difference when trying to make something as uber-realistic as this, such as the fact that the pupils didn't react to light. As for the lips - they're just not quite there yet - sometimes the speech didn't seem to be quite right.

The characters are expertly introduced and developed, most notably Anthony Hopkins character, Hrothgar and the tension between his wife. Grendell and his mother are wonderfully creepy and seductive, and bizarrely enough almost encourage sympathy.

For me the most disappointing part of the film was actually Ray Winstone as the titular character - he was fantastic when talking in a low growl, however the film really suffers when he shouts in full cockney accent. "I will kill your monstah!". I half expected Grendell's head to be smashed between a car and it's door. John Malkovitch is a saving grace with his none-more-sinister voice and interesting faith sub-plot.

The rating for this film has been hotly discussed and in my opinion I do not think it is suitable for children under the age of 12. Grendell would have truly terrified me as a child. The violence, as well as bawdiness, does not make it a family film for young children although having said that the lewd references do provide good humour and balances out the movie.

So, overall, this was worthy of an 8. Breathtaking animation, incredible action (especially the finale featuring an excellent dragon) and a generally brilliant cast. Beowulf throws down the gauntlet to film-makers to show what can be done with 3D and is an indication of the potential. It's not all the way there yet, but it's a damn good start.

First of all 3D is not a gimmick - without it this type of movie goes straight to XBox without a cinematic release. While Beowulf is just another Lord of the Rings wannabe, neither true to the source material nor actually a film - this is what the next few years hold.

Overall the movie is great entertainment. There is a neat enough plot, the effects are fairly spectacular. And it probably hangs together a bit better than 300. It doesn't have the finesse of Sin City - and 3D cannot cover the usual Hollywood film weaknesses. But at no point does it let up.

We now have the three directions that all other blockbusters will go. CGI as realisation (Lord of the Rings, Transformers), CGI as style maker (Sin City, 300) and CGI as everything (Beowulf, Final Fantasy). There doesn't seem to be room for using CGI in just a few scenes anymore. No room for anything else.

Set in a magical era veiled by the mists of time, replete with heroes and monsters, adventure and valor, gold and glory, one exceptional man emerges to save an ancient Danish kingdom from annihilation by an ungodly creature.

After destroying the overpowering demon Grendel, Beowulf (Ray Winstone) incurs the undying wrath of the beast's ruthlessly seductive mother (Angelina Jolie), who will use any means possible to ensure revenge. The ensuing epic battle resonates throughout the ages, immortalizing the name of Beowulf. A great movie telling the tale of a classic fable. Beowulf 10/10