Indy.com
Today:
Beowulf
Posted: Nov 15, 2007 in Movies
Tags:
Just as comic books and graphic novels are being taken more seriously in literary circles these days, filmgoers are realizing that animation isn't only for children. And with director Robert Zemeckis' "Beowulf," adults have no choice but to leave the youngsters at home.
Based loosely on the epic English poem about a warrior who battled hideous monsters, Zemeckis' "Beowulf" is fraught with terrifying images, bloodshed and enough sexual references and nudity to push the limits of its PG-13 rating. And hooray for that. "Beowulf" is a truly adult cartoon, and it holds up nicely in terms of spectacle and entertainment value.
The film is making its way into theaters as traditional 2-D, digital 3-D and IMAX 3-D versions. Everyone with the option should go the 3-D route, primarily because the spectacle of the 3-D environments diminishes the flaws of "Beowulf."
Diminished or not, the problems are worth discussing: The dialogue is weaker than one would hope for. More importantly, there is something off with the animation.
In many ways, "Beowulf" is gorgeously rendered, and the mythical creatures and larger-than-life monsters are stunning. But the human beings don't seem human.
In fairness to Zemeckis and company, it's worth noting that it is relatively easy to look beyond the problems and enjoy the film for its wonders.
The performances are quite strong, even though they're obscured beneath digital animation. Ray Winstone is a powerful and lithe Beowulf, and his outing is shored by fine performances from Anthony Hopkins, John Malkovich and Robin Wright Penn.
By Forrest Hartman / Reno Gazette-Journal
I give this one three stars out of four. The critic in me recognizes that this movie is profoundly silly, but my inner 15-year-old found it wicked cool. (Yes, my inner teen really talks that way. Sue him.)
I saw it in the 3-D version, and I was a little distracted by the way Zemeckis et al. keep throwing things at the camera to make it seem like spears, thorns, etc. are flying right at you. That gets old pretty fast.
The motion-capture animation brings you almost photo-realistic surfaces, but the movement is still a little artificial. It's a bit too smooth; the characters' facial muscles seem stiff, like Botox recipients.
Absolutely loved Grendel. He was terrifying yet pitiful. His mother, played by Angelina Jolie, was slightly laughable and yet you can see why she was able to entice mortal men. The fact that she's nekkid the entire time helps.
Speaking of which, this is the hardest PG-13 rating I've ever seen. It really should have been an R. Lotsa violence and blood and nudity and sexuality.
It follows the plot of the epic poem much more closely than I would have guessed, but adds some deeper layers of meaning, especially in the latter third.
Put it this way: If you loved "300," you'll go nuts for "Beowulf." If you found that movie stupid, you'll feel the same about this one.
If I've learned anything at all it is that I can no longer predict what the public will or will not like.
Christopher's review hit it right on the head. Particularly on two points... the inner 15-year-old comment and the Botox comment. There were times when the animation was incredibly fantastic in the rendering of close-up shots of the main characters. Yet in what seemed to be to me (the non-animator) no-brainer sequences, Botox injected is the perfect description.
I also saw the 3-D version, last night at the IMAX. For this movie it is the only way to fly (no pun intended). Though having things thrown at me got little in the form of a response, scenes that panned away and through trees actually had me ducking once (I REALLY hope no one noticed).
If you don't have an inner 15-year-old, don't go to this movie... but go to a shrink and awaken that 15-year-old. If you are lucky enough to be aware of your inner 15-year-old, Beowulf is a must-see. (Christopher, hope you didn't mind my use of your descriptions. They really are spot-on).
I would like to add that the story line of Beowulf the movie, did not really follow the story line of the original tale. I will give it that the first part of the movie was for the most part accurate, but as for the second and last part, there was hardly any accuracy at all.
I do agree that if you have never read the tale of Beowulf, than this movie will be great for you if you like to awaken your inner 15 year old. Although I did like 300, I did not like this re-tale of Beowulf, only because I am familiar with the original. So my opinion to the people that enjoyed the original Beowulf, you don't want to ruin your vision of the epic hero.
The 'original' Beowulf is a b------ized version that a monk wrote in Latin in the fifth century. To take the tale away from its Christianized text was the right thing to do, to show it in a more brutal context that retained some elements of the epic poem but also had a less clear moral context makes the piece far more relatable and visceral. Not for traditionalists but for most who were force fed the original in high school this is a chance to revel in the popcorn visuals and be far more entertained. The entrance of Grendel is spectacular and Hopkins performance stands out amidst a stellar cast! Malkovich, Robin Right Penn, Hopkins, Jolie, and Ray Winstone make what could have been a mild animated romp into something a great deal better. I enjoyed it, though there is only one way to ensure you do, See it in the IMAX or at least in digital 3D.
Granted, it's been a million years since I read Beowulf in school. But according to observers more learned than I, the basic bones of the plot is pretty close to the poem. Beowulf arrives on shore, kills Grendel, then Grendel's mom, cut to 50 years later, he's now king and he battles a dragon. Main differences are in the how's and why's, but the what's are pretty much the same. In the poem he fights the dragon purely for treasure, but in the movie there's a much deeper conflict. And Angelina Jolie lives on her nakedness.
The more I think about this movie, the more I like it...