[miketardis]

BEOWULF (2007)
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-fueled 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 pustular, 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.

[Darth Slater]

i will see this in 3-d this weekend, (once the snowstorm here in toronto stops)

by the way i noticed you short formed return of the joker as ROTJ and nothing should be short formed using the letters ROTJ **Except Return of the Jedi LOL

Just kidding

but you should "Never" touch the initials of the "holy trilogy"

**or as i call them
ANH, TESB, & ROTJ LOL

[miketardis]

That's funny, because I usually shortform EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE as "P.O.S."

Just kidding (kind of).

[Darth Slater]

lol piece of shit LOL

i found over the years, i have gotten a greater appreciation for POS

however JAR JAR is still annoying (i don't hate him as much, but he still sends a chill down my spine)

[powerdae]

wanna watch it on 3d too~~

[Darth Slater]

thats the ONLY way to see it, it's spooky

[charmer2005]

one movie i been wanting to see, judging by comments its best to see it 3d which kinda sucks cos in the part of scotland we dont get 3d cinema, just the basic cinema which i guess id have to settle for.

[metalyoda]

Saw it IMAX but frankly the gimmicky 3d glasses really didn't add anything but a headache after the movie. Graphically it was a beautiful movie, storywise it was alright. Bit spooky how realistic CG is getting these days...

[HoverDonkey]

This thread makes a refreshing change from 'this movie sucks', which is mainly what I've heard of it recently.

I have always strongly suspected that these people are expecting the wrong things from the movie. Your well formed opinions make me believe I may well be correct.

Anyway, the only true way of finding out is by watching it myself, so it looks like I'm gonna have to do just that!!

[sonic99]

Thought the film was ok but highly over rated