Beowulf (11/16/2007)

[Yavin]

The new trailer for Beowulf is up here (http://www.filmwad.com/-i-beowulf-i-trailer--3459-p.html).

Looks good, but still seems a little "videogame-cutscene-ey" to me. I find it odd that they don't mention Crispin Glover as Grendel when they do the obligatory name drop at the end of the trailer, but maybe that's because he isn't as well-know by the general public.

[maingon]

I thought it looked excellent, I didnt realize it was a CG flick, Almost looks photorealistic, Half way through the trailer was when I noticed it was CG

[Drop]

I really want to see the IMAX 3D version of this.

[Steve Phillips]

The 3-D version will be widely available; it is being released in 3-D in both Real D (digital projection) and IMAX formats. 1000 3-D screens for sure and maybe more.

[Giles]

The 3-D version will be widely available; it is being released in 3-D in both Real D (digital projection) and IMAX formats. 1000 3-D screens for sure and maybe more.

well that's a first! To bad Warner Bros. wasn't aggressive or could have released DLP prints of the latest Harry Potter with it's 3D segment done outside of the IMAX experience.

[Jam Master Jay]

The Quicktime version of the trailer is up at http://www.apple.com/trailers now. Looks incredible!

[woofman]

Looks pretty good, but ya know, that's the third freakin' movie this year I've heard with that same music. 28 Weeks Later, Sunshine, and now this.

[Bandit03]

Finally saw the trailer and it looks incredible. Its amazing how real the CG looked. I loved the original Beowulf story, hopefully this movie stays true to the original, or atleast as true enough as a movie can be.

[scott1598]

i couldn't even tell it was motion capture CG at first. it's simply amazing what they can do. i won't see it, but the technical marvel that went into this must have been something else.

[GoldenJCJ]

Looks good, although I wish they wouldn't have made the characters look exactly like the actors. It looks like they altered Ray Winstone a bit (I actually think they made Beowulf look like Patrick Swayze) but Anthony Hopkins, John Malkovich, Robin Wright Penn, and especially Angelina Jolie all look exactly like the real people.

I'm worried that it's going to be too weird watching computer characters that look their real life counterparts.

[Giantrobo]

It seems like I've been hearing about this flick 4-ever. :lol:

[Suprmallet]

This is going to be awesome. Aside from the 3D, it was written by Neil Gaiman.

[MoviePage]

I think it looks terrible. It's like a video game preview.

Beowulf is one of my all-time favorites, read it many times, and I'm fully expecting them to screw it up. I hope to be pleasantly surprised, though.

[pinata242]

Here's the red-band trailer: http://www.gametrailers.com/player/24539.html

[bboisvert]

Beowulf is one of my all-time favorites, read it many times, and I'm fully expecting them to screw it up. I hope to be pleasantly surprised, though.

If you're expecting it to be accurate to the source, I would agree that they'll likely screw it up. If you're just looking for a quality film that uses the source for inspiration, you might have better luck.

Who knows, it may suck (Zemeckis is definitely hit-or-miss with me). But I'm open minded about the whole thing.

[MartinBlank]

This is going to be awesome. Aside from the 3D, it was written by Neil Gaiman.

I saw the trailer for this this weekend and I could have sworn it had the screenplay by Neil Gaiman and Roger Avery (Pulp Fiction/Rules of Attraction)....am I correct?

[Artman]

Why would they be releasing R-rated trailers if the theatrical is going to be PG-13?

[Drop]

I saw the trailer for this this weekend and I could have sworn it had the screenplay by Neil Gaiman and Roger Avery (Pulp Fiction/Rules of Attraction)....am I correct?

Yes, they seem to be a good pair. Avary did a wonderful adaptation of Rules of Attraction, and I know Ellis loves his Glamorama script. They are definitely not doing a direct Beowulf adaptation (would be too hard with all the "digressions"), but they are aware of that and are just trying to make a good film from the source material.

One thing I really liked that Gaiman said was that he hoped classes would watch the film and compare it to the story and have a debate on if the changes were for better or worse.

I'm excited, especially for the 3D version.

[Giles]

Why would they be releasing R-rated trailers if the theatrical is going to be PG-13?

because they are already planning on releasing that R-rated version down the line as a unrated DVD version.

having seen the trailer - I have come to conclusion, that even though every film character looks like their real human counterpart, Beowulf looks nothing like Ray Winstone.

[Artman]

because they are already planning on releasing that R-rated version down the line as a unrated DVD version.


Yeah, but they don't want us to get excited for the R-rated version and skip the PG-13 one do they? Cause that's what I'm feeling... screw theatrical I'll wait for DVD.

[Giles]

Yeah, but they don't want us to get excited for the R-rated version and skip the PG-13 one do they? Cause that's what I'm feeling... screw theatrical I'll wait for DVD.

but you'll miss it in 3D then!

[chris_sc77]

I think that visually the films looks like crap (I dont want to see a movie that looks like bridging scenes from a video game!) but i love both Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary so I might have to see this. Also I get the feeling this will bomb big time.

[fernsita]

Personally, I think the graphics look great. It is just another style and look that they are going for and I think it looks different. Plus I think it is gonna look amazing on the big screen, especially in 3D. And I do agree that Gaiman's involvement is a huge plus.

[chris_sc77]

Why not film this in live action though?
They could have made a film that visually looks great like lord of the rings but instead they go with creepy-looking cgi characters.

[Drop]

Why not film this in live action though?
They could have made a film that visually looks great like lord of the rings but instead they go with creepy-looking cgi characters.

Above all because it apparantly looks amazing in 3D. Everyone involved says seeing it in 2D on you computer monitor is disappointing, the only way it should be seen is 3D.

I think another good reason is to have a cohesive style. Instead of having those weird moments where CG mixes with live action (in which this film will have a ton and which not even LOTR was all that succesful) everything should flow together well, plus you get the actual performance of these actors.

I enjoyed this interview with Gaiman and Avary: http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=interviews&id=11232 . It answered a lot of my questions and allayed many of my doubts.

[fernsita]

Above all because it apparantly looks amazing in 3D. Everyone involved says seeing it in 2D on you computer monitor is disappointing, the only way it should be seen is 3D.

I think another good reason is to have a cohesive style. Instead of having those weird moments where CG mixes with live action (in which this film will have a ton and which not even LOTR was all that succesful) everything should flow together well, plus you get the actual performance of these actors.


Don't think I could have said it better myself. I have heard from people who got to see some of the 3D at Comic-Con that seeing it on the big screen like that is a whole other world compared to a trailer on your computer monitor.

And I do agree that I like the idea of a cohesive style. I have faith in Zemeckis that he can pull it off.

[fernsita]

hey -- new trailer up on apple.com...

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/beowulf/

it is the one called trailer #2

once again, more cool stuff shown. i cant wait for this one.

[canaryfarmer]

I think it looks awful, especially the rotting Gollum that's jumping around everywhere.

[Matthew Chmiel]

I think after the success of 300, they should just go with the R.

[lukewarmwater]

That new trailer looks horrible. The music isn't doing it any favors either.

I like the story of beowulf, gaiman, avery and winstone, and even experimental animation like a scanner darkly, but this movie looks really horrible. Looks like a 2 hour video game cinematic filled with stiff celebrity look-a-likes. I take it back, most video game cinematics look more exciting then this.

[Bandit03]

I agree that the music doesnt fit the movie, hopefully they dont use music like that in the final cut. Still looking forward to it though.

[fernsita]

I don't know guys. I think the graphics looks cool, the style they are going for is different an I think it will work. And the music gets me pretty pumped.

[fernsita]

Guys -- MSN UK just got another trailer. This one looks very different in a good way. The graphics look better and I like the music in this one. You gotta checks this one out:

http://video.uk.msn.com/v/en-gb/fv/fv.htm?http://video.uk.msn.com/v/en-gb/v.htm

[project86]

Very cool.

[al_bundy]

reminds me of The 13th Warrior

[Giantrobo]

reminds me of The 13th Warrior

I'm not sure if you're joking but The 13th Warrior was loosely based on the same story.

I don't know what happened to me but I saw the trailer a few months back and I was mildy interested, but I saw the trailer again the other day in the theater and I got really excited about seeing this.

[al_bundy]

i was joking

saw the 13th Warrior years ago and didn't know it was based on Beowulf. I read part of the poem afterwards and suddenly a lot scenes were straight out of the movie

[fernsita]

Very cool.

yea, the new trailer has me even more pumped. almost time to see this in 3D!

[Giles]

if Regal Gallery Place downtown (DC) hasn't converted one of it's screens to DLP-3D I'm going to spew bullets from my mouth.

[fernsita]

if Regal Gallery Place downtown (DC) hasn't converted one of it's screens to DLP-3D I'm going to spew bullets from my mouth.


HAHA. That is one of my favorite theaters. Hopefully they will have it there in 3D. Although imagine if they got this at the Uptown?? That would be insane!
(sorry for the DC talk for those of you who don't live here.)

[Giles]

HAHA. That is one of my favorite theaters. Hopefully they will have it there in 3D. Although imagine if they got this at the Uptown?? That would be insane!
(sorry for the DC talk for those of you who don't live here.)

Uptown would be awesome, any and all films with wide aspect ratios of 2.35:1 or wider look incredible at the Uptwon. I'm always advocating AMC to upgrade to DLP - to feature DLP 3D would be icing on the cake. If Clearview can feature this at NYC's Ziegfeld which it does - DC's Uptown could also.

Given the fact the DC area has three IMAX screens, and if the pattern holds true, Udvar Hazy (the one IMAX that doesn't have 3D playback), will get saddled with 'Beowulf'. Stupid, stupid move on the Smithsonian's part not to install a 3D system over at Udvar Hazy.

[Giles]

looks like Beowulf will get shown in 3D at Regal Gallery Place - an email from Regal and a listing for 'Nightmare Before Christmas 3D' in today's City Paper verify's that Regal has installed a 3D DLP system intown.

:banana:

[Artman]

I knew it...

Beowulf - Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence including disturbing images, some sexual material and nudity.

[Giantrobo]

I'll say it again, that second trailer has me really excited to see this film. I'm sure the PG-13 won't be that big a deal. Just wait for any cuts to show up on the DVD.

[fernsita]

Yeah i'm not worried about the rating at all. Should still be really good. You can really squeeze a lot into pg-13 if you are creative. The way these trailers look I'm sure they can handle that.

[Deftones]

I like me some animated nudity. Probably just be dude ass, though. :(

[Giantrobo]

I like me some animated nudity. Probably just be dude ass, though. :(

:lol:

[Zen Peckinpah]

Well, my hopes that this is NOT the Beowulf I had to read in high school are out of this world. Hopefully this is the type of PG-13 we got out of the Burton Batman movies or Batman Begins or even Transformers. You know, the one that actually MEANS that some material may not be for children under 13. :D

[Bluelitespecial]

Well its not like this movie was supposed to be rated R like the last Die Hard movie, it looks really cool, and I can't wait to see the imax version.

[Giles]

Well its not like this movie was supposed to be rated R like the last Die Hard movie, it looks really cool, and I can't wait to see the imax version.

there's alot of different 'prints' this is being released in:

IMAX standard
IMAX 3D
35mm
DLP 3D

[starseed1981]

My most anticipated movie of the year. Zemeckis never lets down.

[chris_sc77]

Does anyone think this movie will make any money? I think it will be lucky to get $30 million. IF that Final Fantasy movie didnt make money I dont know how this will.

[Giles]

so how does the extra 3D fee actually work, does that amount go to the theatre or to the film box office intake, I would assume to the theatre to defray the cost of the REAL-D system - right?

[dadaluholla]

Does anyone think this movie will make any money? I think it will be lucky to get $30 million. IF that Final Fantasy movie didnt make money I dont know how this will.

Yes, it should make quite a bit of money. I wouldn't be surprised if it makes $30 million opening weekend alone.

[chanster]

I don't know, this movie has bomb written all over it. For anyone interested in Beowulf, I would suggest picking up the Seamus Heaney translation, which is excellent

http://www.amazon.com/Beowulf-New-Verse-Translation-Bilingual/dp/0393320979/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-3821096-4532626?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192652742&sr=8-1

[Artman]

Does anyone think this movie will make any money?

Depending on just how good the movie is, I'd expect 75mill or so... a decent take but still not enough to cover costs.

[fernsita]

My most anticipated movie of the year. Zemeckis never lets down.

I'm with you. Forget all the people talking about box office bomb...this wont be it. If it's anything like what it seems to look similar too its going to be amazing.

[Lara Means]

Anyone seeing this in 3D on thursday night?

[Drop]

Isn't this coming out next week, Lara? Or do you know something I don't?

I'll be there day one, but I doubt I'll do the midnight thing.

[Giles]

Anyone seeing this in 3D on thursday night?

is there a DC sneak?

[Holysmoker]

Why not film this in live action though?
They could have made a film that visually looks great like lord of the rings but instead they go with creepy-looking cgi characters.

+1

My wife wants to see it which means I will be seeing it. But these electronic puppet characters do nothing for me. I had the same gripe with Polar Express.

[Giles]

+1

My wife wants to see it which means I will be seeing it. But these electronic puppet characters do nothing for me. I had the same gripe with Polar Express.

they were rather emotionless weren't they?

[Drop]

+1

My wife wants to see it which means I will be seeing it. But these electronic puppet characters do nothing for me. I had the same gripe with Polar Express.

There are a lot of reasons why this isn't live action. The film isn't about being 100% realistic, it's meant to realistic like a painted portrait is realistic. Which fits because the story is myth, and there should be some detachment from real-life.

On top of the that, shooting this way gives the actors the utmost freedom in their performance, they don't have to worry about hitting a mark, or waiting for the crew to set up after each take, they just perform. Crispin Glover would not have been cast had it been live action because Zemeckis knows Glover is crazy on a set, but that's irrelevant here.

Furthermore, the film is apparantly incredible in 3D, and by being CG it allows for a much easier and smoother transition to that.

You'd also be interested to know Zemeckis took the Polar Express criticisms very seriously and they developed a new way to capture eye movements and other facial muscles that apparantly is worlds better.

By saying it should be live action misses a big point of what they're going for.

[Holysmoker]

I hear you, but I don't think its about actors freedom in performance. If anything, I think the manipulation of the digital image takes away any freedom they are expressing. In my opinion it would have more interesting to go the Sin City or 300 route.

[Drop]

I hear you, but I don't think its about actors freedom in performance. If anything, I think the manipulation of the digital image takes away any freedom they are expressing. In my opinion it would have more interesting to go the Sin City or 300 route.

I disagree. I've heard Crispin Glover say that his performance is 100% on the screen. He's very happy with how Grendel turned out. I'm not sure how it would take away freedom, considering the whole point of the tech is to capture the performance. They could manipulate the performance just has much if it was live action, except this way they can avoid inconsistencies.

The problem with going the Sin City route is this film would require a lot of FX work, and CG/Live-action intergration comes off poorly, even today. They avoid those issues by making everything CG. I'd rather have a consistency of style, more than anything else that takes me out a film.

Gaiman has described the 3D version as being inside of graphic novel. Avary was originally going to direct the film as a live action piece, but now states that this is the best way the film could've been made.

[Brack]

If it's good, it's good. If it sucks, it sucks. I never get the CGI argument. Unless it looks god awful, CGI can look hokey as long as the story is good. and Polar Express didn't, especially in IMAX 3D, look strange to me. It's animation, not live-action. Just because it has a realistic look doesn't necessarily mean it should look like live-action.

However, based on the commercials and trailer for Beowulf it looks like they are trying for live-action.

[clemente]

I hear you, but I don't think its about actors freedom in performance. If anything, I think the manipulation of the digital image takes away any freedom they are expressing. In my opinion it would have more interesting to go the Sin City or 300 route.

I don't understand how the Sin City/300/Sky Captain route is any different?

In both scenarios you essentially have actors playing against nothing but their imagination with all the external stuff filled in afterwards. Its not like they just wanted someone Ray Winstone's size to go through the motions - they wanted Ray Winstone to act and they got that.

[chris_sc77]

I don't understand how the Sin City/300/Sky Captain route is any different?

In both scenarios you essentially have actors playing against nothing but their imagination with all the external stuff filled in afterwards. Its not like they just wanted someone Ray Winstone's size to go through the motions - they wanted Ray Winstone to act and they got that.
In Sin City/300/Sky Captain the actors looked real...IN Beowolf they don't...They look like something on a video game.

[Brack]

they just look hairy to me:

http://fasterthantheworld.com/teen-wolf.jpg

[Giantrobo]

In my opinion it would have more interesting to go the Sin City or 300 route.


...and people would be bitching about that too.

[Drop]

In Sin City/300/Sky Captain the actors looked real...IN Beowolf they don't...They look like something on a video game.

Exactly, they're not supposed to look like actual humans.

[slop101]

I don't know man. It could be a good movie, but from an artistic point of view, I just don't like the look of it. It looks really drab and lifeless, and though the CG is supposed to be cutting edge, both Final Fantasy movies (along with the cutscenes from the last few games) still look more impressive than this does.

[JaxComet]

I found it funny that when he says "I am Beowulf!".....It sounds exactly like "This is Sparta!" :)

[ScandalUMD]

I found it funny that when he says "I am Beowulf!".....It sounds exactly like "This is Sparta!" :)

Yeah. They are really marketing this as being like "300," which I think is a horrible marketing decision. I wasn't really paying attention to this project until I saw the trailer, and I thought it looked horrible. I've got somewhat higher expectations now that I hear Zemeckis is directing, but the marketing really does this film no favors.

[Drop]

I don't know man. It could be a good movie, but from an artistic point of view, I just don't like the look of it. It looks really drab and lifeless, and though the CG is supposed to be cutting edge, both Final Fantasy movies (along with the cutscenes from the last few games) still look more impressive than this does.

I disagree. I think it looks significantly better than any Final Fantasy CG creation. The animation is, of course, leagues better. I'll take Gaiman's word that it does indeed feel like being in graphic novel, until I can form my opinion by seeing the whole thing in 3D.

Here's a little pic of the sensors on the face and suit: http://media.movieweb.com/news/11.2005/angelinabew.jpg

[Brack]

It can't be any more silly than "300."

[Brack]

I think he means "live-action" real.

[slop101]

I think that's the disconnect for me. The characters fall into that "Uncanny Valley" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley), and are a little too close to being real without being real to look anything but creepy. If they went just a little bit the other direction, maybe they'd look like they had some life in them, but right now, they just look like mannequins - it's mostly in their dead eyes.

Also, what I feel is it's drab look, isn't a knock against it's technical achievements, which I'm sure are second to none, but a subjective reaction to it's art-design which just looks boring to me - almost like their using cheap props and sets for a Sci-Fi Channel original, only in expensive CG...

[cungar]

Beowulf isn't supposed to look like a real person? Neither is the Anthony Hopkins character?

Why is that?

He certainly doesn't look like Ray Winstone. You'd have to add about 75 pounds.

[Giles]

He certainly doesn't look like Ray Winstone. You'd have to add about 75 pounds.


:lol: how true...

[Brack]

The first time I saw the trailer, I had no idea they were motion captured.

[Daytripper]

The first time I saw the trailer, I had no idea they were motion captured.

I didn't either. Except Robin Wright Penn didn't look....right. The more clips I see of her, she looks cross eyed.

[Lara Means]

I think Beowulf looks better than this.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news9/aki.jpg
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news9/gray.jpg

[slop101]

I think the Beowulf characters have deader eyes.

But the characters weren't even my point - I think the settings and the overall art-design in the FF movies look more impressive than those of Beowulf's, especially considering that Beowulf is so much more advanced.

[Seantn]

That's the thing with these CGI characters in these types of movies - They can't give them true life in the eyes, and that is what makes them almost like humans, but it makes it seem...off. It's like they're trying to be human, but they haven't quite got it down.

[chris_sc77]

Those pics confirm that Final Fantasy looked a lot better than Beowolf.

[Drop]

Those pics confirm that Final Fantasy looked a lot better than Beowolf.

It's not even close to me, Beowulf looks miles better. The art direction alone is miles better, and technically speaking it's even further apart. And I don't see the dead eyes thing at all. We've seen like 30 seconds of eyes in the film, how can you judge that? Seriously the dead eyes argument really isn't even a valid complaint yet, unless you've seen the film. Even actual living humans in a photograph can have dead eyes.

Uncanny Valley is utter crap to me. It's just a trendy idea that people seem to hold as absolute truth. I've never felt it. If that was the case then people would've been using that same idea but directed at portraits a few hundred years ago, afterall they're close but not perfect approximations of humans.

I've said it before but I'll say it again they're not trying to replicate humans 100%, it's meant to be stylized just like a painting. I think it works for the film because it is a myth, you know myths aren't real, but you imagine them and see them in your mind as real. There should be a disconnect from reality, it excentuates the mythic quality.

But, I guess, when it comes down to it's just opinion, and you can't really say a person is wrong.

Here are some of my favorite stills:
I think Hopkins eyes look great here, notice the texture of the skin and the hair.
http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd249/blackashford/Beowulf2.jpg
I think this looks like a painting, very stylized
http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd249/blackashford/Beowulf3.jpg
The colors here are what works so well, also the hair, and the eyes do not look dead, they may be the most striking part.
http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd249/blackashford/Beowulf1.jpg

[canaryfarmer]

They look pretty glazed over to me.

[abrg923]

Agreed. FF looks tons better.

[slop101]

Yeah, it's probably just a subjective thing, but I ain't feelin' it - especially in the pictures posted above. It just looks really drab and lifeless to me, both the characters and their surroundings. It also looks like there's a fog-filter or something, which makes everything look dull and washed out, which I'm sure is a stylistic choice, just not one I think looks good.

[Brack]

It's not so much the eyes that look dead, but the detail around the eyes that's dead.

The guy's eyes in the Final Fantasy pic looks good, while the girl's does really. The Beowulf pics don't really show that aspect except for Anthony Hopskins, which looks good, while the last pic with the woman does not look too good.

[Giles]

maybe we should actually judge the movie once we've seen the final product - seems like folk here are "judging a book by it's cover" - 'Final Fantasy' had such a muddled mess of a plot - here, I would hope it has a better story structure than FF.

[Seantn]

seems like folk here are "judging a book by it's cover"

Welcome to the online.

[BravesMG]

The IMAX preview I saw for this looked almost unbelievably good. The first shot of the burning cross was so good, I was stunned when they transitioned into the animation and I realized the cross was animated as well.

I'm just sad that they turned the whole thing into a 3D IMAX experience. The 3d inevitably doesn't look as good and gives me a blinding headache about 20 minutes in.

[Giles]

The IMAX preview I saw for this looked almost unbelievably good. The first shot of the burning cross was so good, I was stunned when they transitioned into the animation and I realized the cross was animated as well.

I'm just sad that they turned the whole thing into a 3D IMAX experience. The 3d inevitably doesn't look as good and gives me a blinding headache about 20 minutes in.

newsflash - it was always intended as a 3D Imax experience and 3D DLP release.

[Steve Phillips]

You shouldn't be getting a headache if the projection is correct.

One tip for 3-D newbees: avoid the front rows and extreme sides. The best place is dead center and towards the back. I'll probably check out both IMAX and Digital 3-D versions, but I confess I usually prefer the Digital presentations if for no other reason that the auditoriums are much deeper. With the IMAX theaters in my area, if you aren't in the back row, you're too close, 3-D or not.

[Dr. DVD]

I will definitely see this, but I don't think it will be a hit. It's a dark fantasy movie with animation that too many people think looks like a video game. While it has PG-13, it also has to deal with lots of family fare over the Thanksgiving Holiday, and I think stuff like Fred Claus and Enchanted will draw more interest.
Interesting shot of Mrs. Jolie-Pitt with her yellow butt patch. ;)

[animatedude]

how long is the movie btw?

[NitroJMS]

Since this thing cost $150, why wasn't it just done 300/Sin City/Sky Captain style and have actors blended with digital sets? It would certainly look more natural than what the trailers have shown.

[chris_sc77]

Since this thing cost $150, why wasn't it just done 300/Sin City/Sky Captain style and have actors blended with digital sets? It would certainly look more natural than what the trailers have shown.


Be sure to put million after that $150. It cost $150 million to make. it only looks like it cost $150(.00).
i did just get the screenplay book for this and started reading it. Seems to be well-written at least.

[GoldenJCJ]

My Comcast OnDemand has a few clips in HD that I watched last night. After seeing those I must say I'm pretty impressed! The actors look pretty lifelike (even their eyes) and the visual environment looks so real that you would think it was filmed in real life if you didn't know better. Those little 2 minute clips did exactly what they were supposed to do - get me pumped for the movie.

[FinkPish]

This review gives me some hope for this film not being another Polar Express: http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=reviews&id=12521

[dcprules]

how long is the movie btw?

I believe it's 115 minutes.

[DeputyDave]

My son and I will be there this weekend. I've been avoiding theaters lately, mostly due to the bad behavior of other patrons, but this looks like a "must see in Imax" event.

We just watched 13th Warrior to get extra pumped up for this (13th Warrior is based on Michael Crichton's version of the Beowolf legend).

[BJacks]

Really enjoyed this. The non-R rating certainly doesn't hurt the film's violence or sexuality meters. I wouldn't say it's as fun as 300, but there are some spectacular scenes, especially the initial appearance of Grendel and the later dragon sequence. Characters mostly looked lifelike, although the women seemed more videogame-ish than the men. The 3-D is throughout the entire film and works well for the most part, although I had some issues getting them to work over my glasses (any fast-moving objects appeared blurry to me...a couple times I was close to getting dizzy). Still, that said, the 3-D worked a helluva lot better than it did for Superman Returns. Overall, I'd give it an A-.

[Giles]

Really enjoyed this. The non-R rating certainly doesn't hurt the film's violence or sexuality meters. I wouldn't say it's as fun as 300, but there are some spectacular scenes, especially the initial appearance of Grendel and the later dragon sequence. Characters mostly looked lifelike, although the women seemed more videogame-ish than the men. The 3-D is throughout the entire film and works well for the most part, although I had some issues getting them to work over my glasses (any fast-moving objects appeared blurry to me...a couple times I was close to getting dizzy). Still, that said, the 3-D worked a helluva lot better than it did for Superman Returns. Overall, I'd give it an A-.


question: did you see this in IMAX 3D or DLP 3D? The former for me gives me alot of motion sickness, depending on how chaotic the editing is.

[starman9000]

I wouldn't say it's as fun as 300,

I liked 300 ok, but thought it was too long and a little boring, how is the pacing on this one?

[BravesMG]

You shouldn't be getting a headache if the projection is correct.

One tip for 3-D newbees: avoid the front rows and extreme sides. The best place is dead center and towards the back. I'll probably check out both IMAX and Digital 3-D versions, but I confess I usually prefer the Digital presentations if for no other reason that the auditoriums are much deeper. With the IMAX theaters in my area, if you aren't in the back row, you're too close, 3-D or not.I should have clarified that it's my eyesight that gives me such a headache, not the 3D itself. IMAX is the best 3D I've ever seen, but the way my eyes focus improperly just can't handle a full 2 hour movie. I'd love to see this on IMAX, but I think I'll have to see it on the local DLP screen before I give that a shot.

[Snowmaker]

IMAX or Digital 3-D. Which would be preferred?

I'm thinking Digital to get the full widescreen movie.

[Giles]

another DLP vote, why would you want to go to see an IMAX movie with those annoying black bars above and below the image ;)

btw IMAX does retain the full original aspect ratio of the film.

I think soundwise though IMAX has a wider dynamic range and remixed to better effect.

[Back2Basics]

I read the Beowulf shortstory a few months ago. I wasnt very impressed with it. Though i want to see this movie

[Giles]

I might have to also see this in standard 35mm since it's playing on the huge Uptown theatre screen. For the record there are no IMAX screenings here in the District.

[Steve Phillips]

Don't give in to the flatness, Giles!

[mdc3000]

Um, Imax 3D or digital 3D? IMAX no question. Going tomorrow at noon, can't wait.

[Giles]

Don't give in to the flatness, Giles!


must... resist...

[eedoon]

For those of you who want to see the movie, the first two act of the movie is very slow, but the third act is hell went loose - it was awesome. Only a handful of people can direct an action sequence like that and Zemeckis is one of them.

Also:

I have a hard time believing that Beowulf can't stab the dragon's heart with his sword when a moment later he can rip the dragon's heart out with his bare hand.

[Snowmaker]

btw IMAX does retain the full original aspect ratio of the film.

Oh, it does?

I just remember going to see Attack of the Clones in IMAX and it was basically Fool Screen.

[Steve Phillips]

I just noticed there are 14 screens playing this in 3-D in Las Vegas. Wow, the Real D installation teams are really working overtime.

[Giles]

Oh, it does?

I just remember going to see Attack of the Clones in IMAX and it was basically Fool Screen.


Clones was also edited down because of the then necessity to condense a film onto one platter for the IMAX engagement.

[Dr. DVD]

I see this movie as being good, but not fairing well with stuff like Enchanted playing to more or less the same demographic. It's a shame as I think Zemeckis is really doing a lot for the movie industry with innovations such as this one.

[BJacks]

question: did you see this in IMAX 3D or DLP 3D? The former for me gives me alot of motion sickness, depending on how chaotic the editing is.I saw it in DLP 3-D. I saw "Superman Returns" in IMAX and the 3-D wouldn't work at all for me; either it was so blurry that I couldn't see it at all, or it would make me so dizzy that I had to take off the 3-d glasses. As mentioned, I didn't have a ton of problems with Beowulf; just with the fast-motion sequences. Although that said, others are raving at how much the 3-D came out at the audience and I don't feel like I experienced a lot of that, so potentially I missed out on some of that. I guess I need to buy contacts to wear for 3-d showings.

[BJacks]

I have a hard time believing that Beowulf can't stab the dragon's heart with his sword when a moment later he can rip the dragon's heart out with his bare hand. Yeah, that was a tad off. Cutting his own tendon (or whatever part of his arm that he severed) doesn't seem like it'd add that many inches to his reach.

[RichC2]

I see this movie as being good, but not fairing well with stuff like Enchanted playing to more or less the same demographic. It's a shame as I think Zemeckis is really doing a lot for the movie industry with innovations such as this one.

A "princess" movie geared toward families and pre-teen girls versus a gory, violent action-oriented CG flick.

Yes, completely the same demo.

[sye46]

I see this movie as being good, but not fairing well with stuff like Enchanted playing to more or less the same demographic. It's a shame as I think Zemeckis is really doing a lot for the movie industry with innovations such as this one.

I don't understand how Beowulf and Enchanted are marketed toward the same deomgraphic. The trailer for Beowulf is more geared towards the older audience that enjoys 300 or LOTR. Its dark, sexual, and violent.

Enchanted is a Disney comedy geared towards families and teenage girls. I don't see how they can even be remotely similar in terms of the demographic that they are marketing the movie towards.

Anyway, back on topic. I prepurchased 9 tickets to IMAX tomorrow. I'm so pumped for it. I can't wait to see Angelina dripped in gold......

[pinata242]

I prepurchased 9 tickets to IMAX tomorrow. I'm so pumped for it. I can't wait to see Angelina dripped in gold......
Wow, I guess you really don't want anyone sitting by you.

XXX
XOX
XXX

[Sarah8]

This movie is gonna be soooo sweeeeeet in IMAX.

[abintra]

I saw it in DLP 3-D. I saw "Superman Returns" in IMAX and the 3-D wouldn't work at all for me; either it was so blurry that I couldn't see it at all, or it would make me so dizzy that I had to take off the 3-d glasses. As mentioned, I didn't have a ton of problems with Beowulf; just with the fast-motion sequences. Although that said, others are raving at how much the 3-D came out at the audience and I don't feel like I experienced a lot of that, so potentially I missed out on some of that. I guess I need to buy contacts to wear for 3-d showings.

Guess it must be an eyeglasses thing as I saw this in Real3D, also wear glasses, and barely noticed any 3D effects at all also. I was absolutely blown away watching The Polar Express in IMAX 3D a couple of years ago, before glasses, so I'm not sure if Real3D is just dramatically inferior or just doesn't work well for those people wearing eyeglasses.

I spent the whole movie just wishing it was 35mm as, not only was the 3D aspects virtually non-existent, but felt it degraded the typical image quality with brightness hot spots and blurring.

As for the movie, I think the 300/LotR comparisons are apt. If one enjoys those films then they likely will this also. Personally, I thought it was much ado about nothing as I didn't care about what was happening in the slightest. Not unwatchable or actively disliked but nothing I cared for either.

If I had it to do again though, I would wait to see it in IMAX 3D to see if that made any difference or just see a 35mm print instead as I wasn't impressed with Real3D at all.

[Steve Phillips]

It makes me wonder what's going on with your theater, because Real D looks amazing, bright, clear and full of depth to me. I've seen CHICKEN LITTLE, MONSTER HOUSE, MEET THE ROBINSONS and NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS and they were all excellent, as bright and clear as any 2-D presentation. It's the best polarized 3-D I've seen outside of the World 3-D Expos, and I've seen over 70 3-D features theatrically. Whether or not you wear prescription glasses shouldn't affect the 3-D.

If you are seeing hotspots, the theater is doing something very wrong.

Is it possible you saw one of the Dolby 3D presentations using a white instead of silver screen? I haven't seen that system yet.

In my experience IMAX is great, but only as good as the auditoriums, which vary in suitability a lot. Some are so small that if you are closer than the back row, you are too close.

My favorite Real D screen in my area is in a large auditorium, and the image looks great and I vastly prefer to see 3-D films there over the IMAX venues.

Were you sitting up front? That's the WORST place to sit in a 3-D movie as the effect is far less pronounced there. Sit dead center and towards the rear if at all possible for the best stereoscopic experience.

Bottom line though, a certain percentage of the population has issues with depth perception.

[Dr. DVD]

I don't understand how Beowulf and Enchanted are marketed toward the same deomgraphic. The trailer for Beowulf is more geared towards the older audience that enjoys 300 or LOTR. Its dark, sexual, and violent.

Enchanted is a Disney comedy geared towards families and teenage girls. I don't see how they can even be remotely similar in terms of the demographic that they are marketing the movie towards.

Anyway, back on topic. I prepurchased 9 tickets to IMAX tomorrow. I'm so pumped for it. I can't wait to see Angelina dripped in gold......


Yes, but between the two, I see more people picking Enchanted in the long run, especially next weekend. A lot of people in my area, save for geeks, only seem to know Beowulf as something they were forced to read in high school. I would love to see both fantasy movies go on to make lots of money, but I think in the end there's only room for one.

[abintra]

It makes me wonder what's going on with your theater, because Real D looks amazing, bright, clear and full of depth to me. I've seen CHICKEN LITTLE, MONSTER HOUSE, MEET THE ROBINSONS and NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS and they were all excellent, as bright and clear as any 2-D presentation. It's the best polarized 3-D I've seen outside of the World 3-D Expos, and I've seen over 70 3-D features theatrically. Whether or not you wear prescription glasses shouldn't affect the 3-D.

If you are seeing hotspots, the theater is doing something very wrong.

Is it possible you saw one of the Dolby 3D presentations using a white instead of silver screen? I haven't seen that system yet.

In my experience IMAX is great, but only as good as the auditoriums, which vary in suitability a lot. Some are so small that if you are closer than the back row, you are too close.

My favorite Real D screen in my area is in a large auditorium, and the image looks great and I vastly prefer to see 3-D films there over the IMAX venues.

Were you sitting up front? That's the WORST place to sit in a 3-D movie as the effect is far less pronounced there. Sit dead center and towards the rear if at all possible for the best stereoscopic experience.

Bottom line though, a certain percentage of the population has issues with depth perception.

It definitely isn't the theater as it was literally a brand new state of the art theater. I was seated about 2/3 from the front in the middle.

I'm really thinking it is an eyeglasses issue (rather than anything with depth perception which would affect one when not wearing glasses also and I was stunned with The Polar Express in IMAX 3D without glasses two years back) where the 3D glasses need to be flush against ones face and the added distance of having eyeglasses and then the 3D glasses over them causes the 3D effects not to work ideally.

If that is the case, and nothing else comes to mind if others were that impressed with Beowolf in Real3D, then, personally, I think they need to figure out another 3D glasses design as I wouldn't be all that impressed for future 3D films if they all end up like this one (and I would pay to see The Polar Express in IMAX 3D again just for the effects).

[Steve Phillips]

A brand new theater can still screw up projection, and I can assure you the lenses of the 3-D viewers being a half inch further from your eyes will have no impact on the stereoscopic effect.

More likely you are responding to the stereo base differences; IMAX tends to place the action almost entirely in theater space while Real D projects so far take the more traditional 3-D route of observing the stereo window, where the action is mostly behind the level of the screen with occasional objects brought into theater space.
Real D projects so far have indeed been fairly conservative so as not to cause eyestrain in audiences, but the word is BEOWULF has more depth than some of the previous entries.

Whether IMAX or Digtal, see it in 3-D! I'll of course have to check out BOTH...

[FunkDaddy J]

Whether IMAX or Digtal, see it in 3-D! I'll of course have to check out BOTH...

I'm seeing it in digital this weekend, but I'm very interested to hear a comparison, so be sure to check back here with a review. In my experience, IMAX 3D is just too, I don't know, agressively in-your-face for my taste... :)

[Setzer]

Those pics confirm that Final Fantasy looked a lot better than Beowolf.

I'm going to go see this film despite my opinions of the CG in this film. Final Fantasy came out 6 years ago and still looks way better than Beowolf does.

[chris_sc77]

^Same here. I think the film looks like shit. Sorry, but it does. And i also have to agree with Roger Ebert's take on 3D. 3D doesn't do any thing for me.
However, I've read the first 40 pages of the script and I can say it looks to be a very well written film. So, i will be seeing the film this weekend and try to give the animation a chance.

[Brack]

Speaking of Ebert, in his review, he doesn't even critique the movie one bit, except for calling it "a one-dimensional story."

[RichC2]

Saw this in RealD locally - I thought it looked phenomenal, the increase in depth is phenomenal. The animation is by and large the best I've seen, easily dwarfing Advent Children (The original FF:The Spirits Within failed to impress me upon initial release due to the horribly stiff animation). There are scenes from time to time that looked a little off, but by and large (the "gold" characters), it was just visually phenomenal. I found the very-aware 3d bits to be distracting (stuff being thrown at the screen), but once the movie got past all that, the use of 3D was very well done.

The story itself isn't exactly the most thrilling, but the movie plays it well. It doesn't take itself too seriously and is fairly heavy on the innuendo (and based on the story, it played it right.) It almost plays out like a singular, long sex joke, and imho, it was the best way to tell this tale. Additionally, I was surprised by how much gore was in it.

Overall, I really enjoyed it.

[Lara Means]

Well, I just came back from the movie. The 9:15 showing had about 20 people in the theater. Zero line for the midnight show. The story is paper thin. Thats not surprising since they dragged a short poem to 2 hours. Beowulf loves to scream and take off his shirt.... a lot. The 3D was pretty neat. That's all I can say about this movie. Its worth watching once in 3D. I'd wait for DVD if you plan to see it in 2D.

[abintra]

I can assure you the lenses of the 3-D viewers being a half inch further from your eyes will have no impact on the stereoscopic effect.

Thank you kindly for the info Steve. Nice to hear it definitely wasn't a glasses issue as I would have wondered about that as well as that being a curiosity for any future Real3D films. Guess it was just solely a personal underwhelming opinion of its image quality.

Saw another film at the same theater tonight and was extremely impressed with its detail, clarity, depth etc. in comparison. I would have expected that something like Beowolf would offer that same image quality with any 3D aspects being a plus but didn't feel it even compared to this film on the image quality alone. Perhaps I'll peak in on a 2D Beowolf showing the next time I go to the movies to see how that looks to me compared to the 3D version.

[Matthew Chmiel]

I saw a digital 3D presentation of the flick at a 10:45 showing. If it wasn't for the 15 people I dragged along with me, there were only about ten other people in the theater. Can we say ghost town?

I am going to be honest, I think if the film was trimmed to a running time of around 90 minutes, it would've been smooth sailing and a better experience. I would've trimmed a lot of material with Robin Wright Penn, Allison Lohman, and (sad to say it) John Malkovich. Lots of character fodder that ends up going absolutely nowhere in terms of what the story needs to accomplish.

The visuals are stunning and the 3D is short of breathtaking. I would recommend just seeing it in theaters for the 3D aspect alone as it is that good. The action is top notch and I wish there was more of it.

If I would see it again? Probably not. Especially since the 2D would take a lot away after seeing it in 3D.

[JJE-187]

I actually liked it. It was kinda epic like and the runtime didn't seem that long to me. I admit that all the Male Nudity and the "Austin Powers" fight scene was a bit much.

[Matthew Chmiel]

I actually liked it. It was kinda epic like and the runtime didn't seem that long to me. I admit that all the Male Nudity and the "Austin Powers" fight scene was a bit much.
There's a major difference between being epic and having story lines and characters that go nowhere. I really would've loved to seen Malkovich's character more developed, because it's fucking John Malkovich. All they really had him do nothing except be a dick for a couple of minutes. Lohman's character was pure fodder, nothing else -- all of her scenes could've been trashed and it would've made no difference on the story.

I think it's good in it's current state. I think it could be better with material trimmed to make the film faster and tighter.

I wonder if the full frontal male nudity is going to be "apparent" in the unrated version of the film.

Oh, by the way, how the fuck did this film get a PG-13 anyway?

[RichC2]

Oh, by the way, how the fuck did this film get a PG-13 anyway?

Zemeckis is friends with Spielberg... Spielberg always seems to have his way with the ratings board.

[BJacks]

A brand new theater can still screw up projection, and I can assure you the lenses of the 3-D viewers being a half inch further from your eyes will have no impact on the stereoscopic effect.Is there any linkage to back this up, or can you elaborate in greater detail as to why eyeglasses will have no impact? Maybe it's the type of prescription? I saw it in a NYC critics screening, so the presentation would have been perfect. And I can state categorically that I had issues seeing the 3-D presentation of this film, just as I had issues seeing the 3-D presentation of "Superman Returns" on IMAX. Other people wearing glasses that I spoke to saw "Beowulf" fine, while others had minimal effects. I seemed to have a more heavily impacted experience.

[Steve Phillips]

Don't believe even a quarter of what you read on the internet regarding 3-D, as a lot of people simply cut and paste the same mis-information. Seemingly credible reporters continue to perpetuate, for example, myths like 3-D movies in the 1950's used red and blue glasses, WHICH IS NOT TRUE. That said, why should you listen to little old me?

I've extensively studied the stereoscopic cinema since 1976; seen over 70 3-D features theatrically; shot thousands of 3-D stills with a variety of stereo cameras, made my own 3-D movies on Super 8, VHS and Mini-DV; and have 3-D home video set ups using DVD, PCs and Head Mounted VR displays.

Since I didn't see the movies with your eyes using your prescription glasses, I can't tell you what you did or didn't experience. I'm simply saying that there is absolutely no evidence that having the lenses of 3-D glasses a quarter of an inch away from your eyes vs a half inch will make any difference.

Bottom line, people's eyes are different. Depth perception is not the same for all people, just as some people have different color vision. Some people's eyes are set closer together than others, and that can have a huge impact on their depth perception. Age is another factor. Maybe your eye glasses perscription is too strong. Who really knows?

Me, I have issues with IMAX 3D at times giving me eyestrain, while more traditional 3-D projection (polarized 3-D on film) and Real D is easier for me to take. Others prefer IMAX's totally in theater space approach.

[BJacks]

Thanks for the info. I guess I'm just cursed to a non-3D existence, although I would like to see Beuwulf with contacts (which i don't own yet) just to see what happens.

[MartinBlank]

I only have one good eye, and with that, very little depth perception. :(

When I use to watch old-skool 3D (red lense/blue lense) I was only able to see blue. Does this new technology work the same?

[Steve Phillips]

You do have to have two good eyes to see 3-D properly, regardless of the process. Digital 3D and IMAX 3D use the virtually the same polarized clear gray lenses which have been used for most other 3-D movies in the past, but the projection method is greatly improved.

Forget about red/blue anaglyph (most widely used for comic books, only very rarely for film, sometimes on TV) it is not suitable for movies at all.

It's all about IMAX and Digital going forward.

[mdc3000]

I saw it in IMAX 3D and thought it looked amazing. Great 3D, coolest animation I've ever seen... however I thought the movie was boring as hell. There were a lot of good scenes and some dynamite action but EVERYTHING gets dragged out far too long... I just wanted to get up and yell 'ENOUGH ALREADY' a few times, not to mention the painful 'Austin Powers'ness of the nude fight scene... they should have just gone balls out and it wouldn't have been laughable, it would have been intense (I realize the rating would have been bumped to an R, but I thought it didn't quite work for me the way it was).

Way more gore than I had anticipated and there are some gangbuster scenes...it just needed to be a lot shorter because I didn't care for half of the characters in this thing, so all the 'dramatic' scenes bring it to a screeching halt.... A letdown but worth seeing if it's in 3D near you. 3/5

[mzupeman2]

Yeah, the nude scene was laughable but there were people in my theater laughing the whole way through this. Morons. I really enjoyed this flick overall. And yeah, I had seen this in 3D as well. Absolutely stunning.

[Dr. DVD]

Saw it. If you don't see this in digital 3D, you will miss 75% the effect of this stunning piece of visual work. Loved the fact that they decided not to pander to the audience, even if it lead to a lot of people laughing at scenes that I thought were well done. The nude stuff seemed awkward, especially with the immature audience of today right behind me. Overall a vast improvement over the kiddy-fare of Polar Express. I say see it, but only in either 3D or IMAX 3D.

Also, while well done, I don't see this movie getting good word of mouth from Joe Six pack.

[dhmac]

I'm in Atlanta and have the option of seeing this here in either "Real D" (DLP) or "IMAX 3D" - which one is preferred? And what are the advantages and disadvantages of each form of 3D?

[RichC2]

IMAX 3D works better for some, Real D works better for others, it's a crap shoot.

That said, I think this movie was actually played in jest in many scenes so the "immature" laughing wasn't necessarily out of place, I think Zemeckis was going for it in numerous scenes.

[Eric F]

In my case there's an Imax 3D theater showing it right across the street from the theater showing it in Real 3D. The regular theater charges more for 3D movies so I guess I might as well see it at the IMAX theater.

[Dr. DVD]

FWIW, there were quite a few people in my theater for the 3D showing, but they weren't into it that much. I don't think this movie will fail because it sucks (which it really doesn't, at least IMO) as much as people just couldn't care less. If it doesn't open big that doesn't mean people skipped it because it sucked, as they haven't had time to read many reviews yet, as they just didn't give a shit about it in the first place.

[chris_sc77]

^It made almost $10 million yesterday somehow. SO, it probably should have a $25 million weekend. Thats pretty good for a movie like this.

[Drop]

I saw it IMAX 3D yesterday and absolutely loved it. Visually, of course, I thought it was great, gorgeous. I felt only a few moments of the dead eyes, most othertimes I could feel the soul. The eyes were very detailed and had the right amount of shine and translucency and having the actors actual eye movements greatly helped. The dead eyes may come down to the lighting they chose or possibly manipulation of the performace. The close-ups were stunning, I wish they held some shots a little longer, but I'll just pause the DVD.

I found the changes to the poem intriguing. They shed a point of view on the poem that worked very well. The connections all made sense and I love that Beowulf is an embellisher. Still he was a great hero, and did the right thing in the end.

Above all, I think the characters is what made me love the film so much. Beowulf's depth was touching to an extent, but the way people reacted to him, Wiglaf for instance really made me feel for him. Wealtheow was so sympathetic, I didn't expect that and Penn is mostly the reason I felt that way. Unferth was a great foil for Beowulf and humoursly performed. Hrothgar was so mad in a irresistable way. I wish we spent more time with Grendel, Glover was great but it was hard to really judge him, hopefully on subsequent viewings I'll appreciate him more. Jolie as Grendel's Mother was surprsing, a great performace. Sexy too. Wiglaf was the most likeable character, I'd like to believe he wasn't tempted.

Any complaints come down to a bit too much sex humour, but I will not complain about that wench's whoppers jiggling about. I also felt the story and characters could've been fleshed out a little more. There was a good number of quiet scenes, but more could've only helped.

Still have a lot more thoughts, but I want to see it again and think on it more.

[chris_sc77]

I found it to be a decently fun time. Some of it did look pretty good but some of it looked absolutely horrible (Grendel was an embarrassment visually IMO).
Overall 3.25 out of 5.

[Hulkabrgr]

Just got back from seeing this in real 3D, and it was great. I am curious as to how the almost nudity plays while watching it on a regular screen. The Grendel fight was near hysterical at times with the well placed 3D swords blocking the nudity. It was like watching an Animated Austin Powers film at times during the fight.

[Drop]

I really loved that first part of the film. The humour played well enough, and it was all intentional. I liked Grendel's look for the most part, but he should've been beefier. The model looked very detailed to me and I loved the slimey look of it. You could really see Glover's performance too, which no way in hell would be possible if that was prosthetics.

Neil Gaiman really likes this review because he feels it reviews the film he and Roger Avary wrote: http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2007/11/16/behold_beowulf/

[Patman]

While I enjoyed the immense undertaking of the CGI effort to create this film, I felt the story wasn't all that interesting in the 3rd act, in fact, I would say that it pretty much limps to the finish, even though there is a good action sequence at the end, it didn't much resonate with me, leaving me with a "eh" reaction to the film on the whole. I can't say the characters were developed all that well, which contributed to my non-empathetic response to the overall film.

The Austin Power-ish nude sequence was played too cute in a sequence that could have been much more powerful and ferocious, the viewer is asked to spend a little too much attention on what "clever" things would pop up to hide Beowulf's nakedness.

The dead eyes from The Polar Express is almost a thing of the past in this film, although I did see the RealD 3-D presentation, the dead eyes crop up here and there, like for John Malkovich's character (in one early sequence, I thought he was a blind man because that's how his eyes reacted) and also Anthony Hopkins' character (the eyes slip into a quasi-buffoonish look to them, like they weren't quite anchored to anything in the scene). The 2-D presentation is easier to take in all the details as the 3-D tends to obscure the fine rendering of each frame and things look a little blurry for the 3-D effect to take effect. I wouldn't advise skipping the 3-D presentation because it's pretty nifty, but it causes the film to have a slightly darker tone to it, while the 2-D version is a smidge brighter and provides more details to the CGI rendering.

I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.

[chris_sc77]

While I enjoyed the immense undertaking of the CGI effort to create this film, I felt the story wasn't all that interesting in the 3rd act, in fact, I would say that it pretty much limps to the finish, even though there is a good action sequence at the end, it didn't much resonate with me, leaving me with a "eh" reaction to the film on the whole. I can't say the characters were developed all that well, which contributed to my non-empathetic response to the overall film.



The final draft of the screenplay actually begins with the scene that opens the 3rd act. I was expecting the film to open this way but i guess they decided to go another direction in the final cut of the film. It would be interesting to see the film this way. I think it might have worked better with the bookend approach but i don't know, it reads pretty good that way but i guess it could be different once its on screen.

[Joe Molotov]

Saw it, wasn't impressed. The story just limps along in between the two major action scenes, which weren't all that great either. The naked fight scene got more laughs than anything else, which the random objects popping up all over the place to cover Beowulf's shame. The movie seems like it wants to say something about the fallibility of heroes and kings, but the characters are all too paper-thin to say much of anything. They're more cartoonish than the movie itself. Shrek and Princess Fiona are more real than Beowulf and Queen Whats-her-name, and Angelina Jolie just coos her way through all her scenes.

[rennervision]

So I take it that Robert Zemeckis has patched up any differences he may have had with Crispin Glover?

[devilshalo]

While it was mildly entertaining... what I got out of this is that I'd love to play this as a video game like Shadow of the Colossus.

[minguy]

The Austin Power-ish nude sequence was played too cute in a sequence that could have been much more powerful and ferocious, the viewer is asked to spend a little too much attention on what "clever" things would pop up to hide Beowulf's nakedness.

Gotta agree about the lack of intensity. If they wanted to be serious about it, they needed to go the Eastern Promises route. Otherwise, why bother?

The Grendel scenes are pretty gruesome but it seemed to me like some of the bloodier parts were edited down from the R-rated trailer released online a while back. Anyone else catch this? If true, perhaps there will be an unrated cut in the future.

Beowulf yelling out his name at the end of the sea monsters sequence was very anti-climactic. Little things like this really drain the inherent power of such visceral scenes. Really people, it's not necessary to over-do it.

A question:
Does the mermaid-like creature who grabs Beowulf at the end of the swim race have any relevance to the plot other than the flashback? I understand it hints at Beowulf's character flaw and weakness but is that pretty much it?


Edited to add that I really enjoyed the 3-D IMAX experience (not so with Harry Potter or Superman Returns) and will probably see it again in one of the other formats.

[MBoyd]

It dragged for me, and I really found it a bore. I guess I don't really care for realistically animated CGI films. If this is what Justice League will be, I am scared.

[rennervision]

A question:
Does the mermaid-like creature who grabs Beowulf at the end of the swim race have any relevance to the plot other than the flashback? I understand it hints at Beowulf's character flaw and weakness but is that pretty much it?



That's pretty much it. You'll also notice when he tells the story, he says he killed the creature, but he obviously didn't. So we now know he's willing to lie about his accomplishments to hide this weakness. Ironic since John Malkovich's character accused him of lying and later recanted with an apology.

[Giles]

It dragged for me, and I really found it a bore. I guess I don't really care for realistically animated CGI films. If this is what Justice League will be, I am scared.

dragged? I fell asleep on it around three times.... the pacing was terrible - the only cool scene was the dragon scene and the scene where Beowulf was fighting in the buff was just ridiculous - where I have seen this before oh yeah, last month in Eastern Promises... ;)

[Giantrobo]

I just saw it and I really enjoyed the film. The movie slowed a bit in the middle but it didn't bother me because I honestly didn't go in for just wall to wall action. I've always been a fan of the story and this version more than satisfied. I saw it in 3D and it looked great.

[rennervision]

Yeah, I was completely engrossed in the story and was never bored for even a second. :shrug:

[TallGuyMe]

Let me preface this by saying I have yet to actually SEE Beowulf... but, from the commericals, it doesn't look like much of an upgrade animation-wise from that Final Fantasy movie that came out and subsequently bombed, what, SIX years ago??? I'd have thought that technology would have improved leaps and bounds since 2001.

[sye46]

Let me preface this by saying I have yet to actually SEE Beowulf... but, from the commericals, it doesn't look like much of an upgrade animation-wise from that Final Fantasy movie that came out and subsequently bombed, what, SIX years ago??? I'd have thought that technology would have improved leaps and bounds since 2001.

there is a big difference between FF and Beowulf. FF used complete CGI. Everything was rendered through computer animation. Beowulf used Motion Capture. They had real actors do the acting and then rendered it to computer animation. In essence, they were making a hybrid real live action and computer animation movie.

Also, Beowulf looks better IMO.

[dadaluholla]

The character's eyes were the WORST part of the animation. It was like a bunch of blind people. Had they been able to get that right, I would have been pleased with the overall look, but it was way too distracting.

Overall, it just wan't a very interesting movie.

[RichC2]

Let me preface this by saying I have yet to actually SEE Beowulf... but, from the commericals, it doesn't look like much of an upgrade animation-wise from that Final Fantasy movie that came out and subsequently bombed, what, SIX years ago??? I'd have thought that technology would have improved leaps and bounds since 2001.

The animation is far more fluid than that of Final Fantasy, and the visual design of the character was far more impressive. Huge improvement over it.

I actually don't get all the praise FF:TSW gets for its animation, I watched it upon release and wasn't particularly impressed, and saw it again a few months back -- aside from being a boring movie, the visuals just weren't very good (characters moved like marionettes).

[Joe Molotov]

the scene where Beowulf was fighting in the buff was just ridiculous - where I have seen this before oh yeah, last month in Eastern Promises... ;)

And at least in Eastern Promises Cronenberg had the cojones to actually show some...uh, cojones. -eek-

[Steve Phillips]

I enjoyed this a lot, but much more so the second time.

During the first showing I attended, the 3-D was "inside-out", or "psuedo-stereo" which makes the backgrounds and foregrounds appear to switch places. The only way to see the 3-D properly was to turn the glasses upside down! I quickly notified the manager of the problem and explained that the polarizing filter must be installed wrong, and that they had better get it fixed quickly. Guess when it got fixed? HALFWAY THROUGH THE MOVIE! The entire audience was wearing their glasses upside down for the first half of the movie, and then had to switch them when they finally corrected the mistake. I should say, it was opening day at this multi-plex, but man, what a fiasco. I shudder to think what happened before I got there to explain this to them, as they were running it in 3-D on 7 screens all day. I really hope hundreds of people didn't watch the movie and wonder why the 3-D sucked! This occured at the new Rave Motion Pictures in Las Vegas.

I went to another theater the next day (Red Rock Station) and thankfully it was presented correctly and flawlessly. Truly amazing 3-D, at least the second time.

I have to say, in over 70 polarized 3-D screenings, I have never seen the 3-D presented backwards or inside out before.

[sk8r1189]

I'm sorry, but Angelina was so perfect when watching that one scene where she was completely naked. I know, I know, it was just CGI, but it looked so real for a second there!

[Patman]

I'm sorry, but Angelina was so perfect when watching that one scene where she was completely naked. I know, I know, it was just CGI, but it looked so real for a second there!

But they left out the tattoos...

[sk8r1189]

But they left out the tattoos...

Meh, with half the gold shit on her conveniently covering up certain areas who knows.

[meshershark]

I found it funny that when he says "I am Beowulf!".....It sounds exactly like "This is Sparta!" :)

Yes, I found that very cheesy. I don't find copycats cool, especially when they copy something like a hero yelling an iconic phrase, in the exact same manner. The gall is compounded by the fact that the original yeller also played Beowulf in a live-action version a few years back.

[fumanstan]

Just saw this this morning and thought it was pretty bad. The story was told in a terrible manner, Beowulf screaming his name felt silly, the characters looked creepy from the motion capture, and the nude fight scene felt entirely out of place and far too slapstick, whether intended or not.

I'm pretty dissapointed. The only thing that I thought was pretty slick was the dragon and the effects.

[Seantn]

Yes, I found that very cheesy. I don't find copycats cool, especially when they copy something like a hero yelling an iconic phrase, in the exact same manner. The gall is compounded by the fact that the original yeller also played Beowulf in a live-action version a few years back.

I'm pretty sure it was unintentional. 300 came out earlier this year, and Beowulf was filmed way before that.

[kenbuzz]

This review gives me some hope for this film not being another Polar Express: http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=reviews&id=12521

On the other hand: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Nov14/0,4670,FilmReviewBeowulf,00.html
Review: `Beowulf' Sexes Up Epic Poem
By CHRISTY LEMIRE, AP Movie Critic

The name “Beowulf” alone surely will inspire painful memories of high-school English class and pangs of dread.

Never fear. This 3-D animated “Beowulf” is more like “300,” only with more violence, if that’s possible. And nudity — lots and lots of nudity.

Director Robert Zemeckis, using the same performance-capture technology he introduced with 2004’s “The Polar Express,” takes on the epic Old English poem by sexing it up. It’s the cinematic equivalent of slipping pureed spinach into your kids’ brownies.

Adapted by Neil Gaiman (the “Sandman” comics) and Roger Avary (who co-wrote “Pulp Fiction”), the film follows the mythic Viking hero who emerges from the sea to rid a Danish kingdom of the bloody, raging, pus-covered monster Grendel (played with pathos and twisted physicality by Crispin Glover). Only then can there be much merrymaking and mead-drinking and wench-bedding.

The 3-D effects are extremely cool — and “Beowulf” is also being shown in IMAX 3-D, if your brain can stand the sensory overload. The way stuff comes at you (swords, spurts of blood) and seems to come out of nowhere from behind you (buildings, ocean waves), along with Zemeckis’ use of reflections and realistic perspectives, makes you feel as if you’re fully immersed in this ancient world. But then the characters look distractingly fake and stiff, as if they’re made of wax — that’s an element of the technology that hasn’t improved much since “Polar Express,” unfortunately.

The storied Beowulf is played with a growl and a roar and very little clothing by Ray Winstone, though the character on screen strangely looks nothing like Winstone, the slightly tubby yet powerful British actor best known for his work in “The Departed” and “Sexy Beast.” Everyone else in the stellar cast resembles the actors playing them: Anthony Hopkins, John Malkovich, Robin Wright Penn, Brendan Gleeson and especially Angelina Jolie as Grendel’s seductive, magical mother.

After watching his celebratory hall torn apart and many of his people slaughtered, Hopkins’ aging King Hrothgar prays that someone will come to his kingdom and kill the mighty, and mightily misunderstood, Grendel. (And the creature is a frighteningly grotesque figure to behold.) His prayers are answered when Beowulf arrives on his shores with his army of warriors; meanwhile, his young queen, Wealthow (Penn), finds herself unexpectedly smitten.

Beowulf likes the riches, women and celebrity that being a well-known slayer of sea monsters and dragons can bring — so much so that he perhaps fudges the details here and there in the retelling of his many conquests. (Malkovich, as the kingdom’s jealous, lone skeptic, gets some bitingly funny zingers as he tries to take Beowulf down a few notches.)

Nevertheless, when it comes time to take on this beast in the town hall, Beowulf promptly strips down — no weapons, no armor — to fight Grendel on equal terms, mano a mangled mano. (His nudity also allows for an amusing sequence, reminiscent of “Austin Powers,” in which several items are placed strategically to obscure his manhood: a candlestick, one of his men’s helmets. So naughty!)

Beowulf must then take on Grendel’s mother to erase completely the curse that has plagued the kingdom. She makes it tough, though. As played by Jolie, she’s covered in nothing but iridescent gold with high heels for feet and a braid that whips around like a devil’s tail. (Besides, if you had magical powers, wouldn’t you turn yourself into naked Angelina Jolie?)

Unless you’re a fantasy geek, though, it’s hard to take all this swordplay and dragon slaying seriously. Beowulf bellows “I am Beowulf!” so many times, it could be a drinking game; it certainly rivals “This is Sparta!” as the year’s preferred macho catch phrase. (And yes, fanboys, bring it on — the misogynistic e-mail onslaught that came after reviewing “300” wasn’t enough for one lifetime.)

Themes of heroism and bravery and loyalty seem secondary here. Depicted today, this comes off as a cautionary tale about the pitfalls of undeserved fame. Beowulf could be Paris Hilton, if Paris Hilton had a goatee and six-pack abs.

[Brack]

Just to let everyone know out there that unless there are nipples on the boobies, that technically is not "R-rated" nudity as far as the MPAA is concerned.

I enjoyed this a lot, and the 3D IMAX was spectacular. The story was fine, but the action was the real star, and was much more exciting than 300, even though I still enjoyed that somewhat.

[Baron Of Hell]

Just watched it and thought it was great fun. I don't remember the last time I watched a movie in 3D. I'm glad I took the time to see it.

[Drop]

It doesn't even seem like that foxnews AP reviewer actually saw the film.

The film is not more violent than 300, there isn't that much nudity, unless you find a wet suit to be exactly like the naked human body, and I believe he says "I Am Beowulf" 2 or 3 times in the film, what a terrible drinking game that would be.

[fumanstan]

Well, considering the entirety of Beowulf's fight is him in the nude, with a lot of bare ass shots, there's certainly more nudity then most PG-13 movies. And i'd say he says his name Beowulf at least a half dozen times.

Definitely not as much violence as 300 though.

[Baron Of Hell]

Nope he only says it three times. Once when he comes to the curse lands, once during the fight with hunter rose, and once during the telling of the story on how he killed mama demon.

[TomOpus]

Went to the IMAX after turkey feast. The 3D was amazing but the story was so-so. There was more action than I expected, so that was good. Overall, I enjoyed it.

The IMAX trailer for I Am Legend rocked.

[fumanstan]

Nope he only says it three times. Once when he comes to the curse lands, once during the fight with hunter rose, and once during the telling of the story on how he killed mama demon.

I still don't believe it :shrug: I don't plan on seeing this again so I couldn't be sure, but i'd bet money that he says his name more then 3 times. Not the entire phrase "I am Beowulf" mind you, but his name specifically.

[Goldberg74]

Loved the movie.

Loved the storytelling.

Loved the model of Grendel.

Hated the animating (or lack there of) of the hands.

Hollywood still has trouble with animating hands and faces.

[Giles]

I enjoyed this a lot, but much more so the second time.

During the first showing I attended, the 3-D was "inside-out", or "psuedo-stereo" which makes the backgrounds and foregrounds appear to switch places. The only way to see the 3-D properly was to turn the glasses upside down! I quickly notified the manager of the problem and explained that the polarizing filter must be installed wrong, and that they had better get it fixed quickly. Guess when it got fixed? HALFWAY THROUGH THE MOVIE! The entire audience was wearing their glasses upside down for the first half of the movie, and then had to switch them when they finally corrected the mistake. I should say, it was opening day at this multi-plex, but man, what a fiasco. I shudder to think what happened before I got there to explain this to them, as they were running it in 3-D on 7 screens all day. I really hope hundreds of people didn't watch the movie and wonder why the 3-D sucked! This occured at the new Rave Motion Pictures in Las Vegas.

I went to another theater the next day (Red Rock Station) and thankfully it was presented correctly and flawlessly. Truly amazing 3-D, at least the second time.

I have to say, in over 70 polarized 3-D screenings, I have never seen the 3-D presented backwards or inside out before.

funny the second time I saw the film first screening) Digital 3D, second) IMAX 3D it was less annoying... for starters I saw the footage I fell asleep on the first go around. The IMAX crowd was different in that the sexual innuendo's were perceived as hysterical, Jolie's entrance in the high heels evocked laughter. The Dragon scene still is the best scene of the entire movie. Comparing the two 3D experiences, the IMAX had double lined outer borders on objects that were closer to the viewer while the Digital presentation did not have.

[Snowmaker]

Saw it in IMAX yesterday. If not for the 3-D, this would have been a much weaker movie. I found the story to be pretty good, but this movie is nothing without the visuals. I don't even think I could sit through it again on DVD.

One question about the story though, why was Grendel such a deformed adolescent-acting monster and Beowulf's offspring was a strong gold dragon guy?

[Giantrobo]

One question about the story though, why was Grendel such a deformed adolescent-acting monster and Beowulf's offspring was a strong gold dragon guy?


I wondered about that too.

[Neeb]

One question about the story though, why was Grendel such a deformed adolescent-acting monster and Beowulf's offspring was a strong gold dragon guy?

I think it has to do with the quality of the father.

Grendel's was presented as a braggart and party animal.

The Dragon's was... a hell of a man.

[scott1598]

how was this movie not nominated in Best Animated feature at this year's Oscars? you are telling me "Happy Feet" deserved it over this technical marvel or does this not fit into the "animated" category since it is different?

[fumanstan]

how was this movie not nominated in Best Animated feature at this year's Oscars? you are telling me "Happy Feet" deserved it over this technical marvel or does this not fit into the "animated" category since it is different?

I don't see what it being a "technical marvel" would have to do with anything, since the award isn't based on technical achievement.

And Happy Feet was last year. Surf's Up was nominated this year. I'm not sure if it counts, although I'm leaning towards it not counting because of the motion capture stuff, but maybe i'm wrong. I thought there was a list or something of movies up for nomination.

[scott1598]

I don't see what it being a "technical marvel" would have to do with anything, since the award isn't based on technical achievement.

And Happy Feet was last year. Surf's Up was nominated this year. I'm not sure if it counts, although I'm leaning towards it not counting because of the motion capture stuff, but maybe i'm wrong. I thought there was a list or something of movies up for nomination.
yes, i meant "Surf's Up".

and how was this not rated R in theaters? this was more graphic and just plain more brutal than some horror pieces of crap that have come out of late.

[Jay G.]

how was this movie not nominated in Best Animated feature at this year's Oscars? you are telling me ["Surf's Up"] deserved it over this technical marvel or does this not fit into the "animated" category since it is different?
It qualified as an animated film for nominations. However, since there weren't enough qualifying animated releases, the number of nominations was limited to 3, and Beowulf simply didn't make it.
http://animatedfilms.suite101.com/article.cfm/beowulf_an_animated_film

Surf's Up seems a bit of a surprise nomination, especially when figuring in the other animated films that didn't make it, like The Simpsons Movie and Shrek the Third. However, those films seem like more likely candidates than even Beowulf. As fumanstan pointed out, the category is about the overall quality of the movie, and really Academy members views of the films, not just technical achievement

and how was this not rated R in theaters? this was more graphic and just plain more brutal than some horror pieces of crap that have come out of late.
The MPAA has been more lenient of "fantasy" violence over other forms of violence. If the violence is enacted on a monster, or has some other unreal element to it, like being animated, then it doesn't get as harsh a rating as had it been enacted in a more "realistic" fashion. The LOTR films benefited from the same bias.

[maingon]

Just saw this this weekend on HD-DVD and I really liked the movie, On the HD-DVD it has PIP of the movie without the CGI, just the actors on a big stage acting it out, its pretty neat seeing this and then the finally version.

[scott1598]

The MPAA has been more lenient of "fantasy" violence over other forms of violence. If the violence is enacted on a monster, or has some other unreal element to it, like being animated, then it doesn't get as harsh a rating as had it been enacted in a more "realistic" fashion. The LOTR films benefited from the same bias.
but the brutality is on humans when Grendel goes off in his opening scene. heads ripped off, bodies torn apart, heads bitten off. i mean that hall scene was graphic by animated or real action standards. i just can't believe parents taking their kids who are of age and younger to see this. it was pure graphic in nature and i would frown on parents taking 8-10, even 12-13 to see this. even the pseudo-nudity and images when the couple get on the floor and the women's skirt goes just enough over her torso to imply oral sex that is just not something i could ever envision taking my child to see at a younger age.

[Anubis2005X]

Personally I feel Beowulf got away with a lot more than normal for a PG-13 due to the animated nature, which surprised me a bit due to the realistic nature of the animation...

[Jay G.]

but the brutality is on humans when Grendel goes off in his opening scene.
You didn't fully read what you quoted from me, did you?

"If the violence is enacted on a monster, or has some other unreal element to it, like being animated, then it doesn't get as harsh a rating as had it been enacted in a more 'realistic' fashion."

[riley_dude]

I really thought I would love this movie but I thought it was horrible and the motion capture was just annoying.

[chris_sc77]

Fans of this film might be interested in the Hardcover book "The Art of Beowulf" which is only $8.00 right now at Amazon. Considering the list price is $40.00 and you can get this for $80% off it is a pretty decent deal I would say.
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Beowulf-Mark-Cotta-Vaz/dp/0811860388/ref=sr_1_77?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204579405&sr=1-77

[wm lopez]

Best animation movie of 2007.
Loved the action and Jolie semi-naked.

[Artman]

Fans of this film might be interested in the Hardcover book "The Art of Beowulf" which is only $8.00 right now at Amazon. Considering the list price is $40.00 and you can get this for $80% off it is a pretty decent deal I would say.
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Beowulf-Mark-Cotta-Vaz/dp/0811860388/ref=sr_1_77?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204579405&sr=1-77

Seems to be $26 now.... hmmm.

[majorjoe23]

The Jolie nakedness is less impressive when you find out she was several months pregnant at the time of filming and that's not her body at all.

[Baron Of Hell]

The Jolie nakedness is less impressive when you find out she was several months pregnant at the time of filming and that's not her body at all.

It is a animated movie so it couldn't be her body. Jolie is a real person not animated like Jessica Rabbit.

[Duh Vuh Duh]

Personally I feel Beowulf got away with a lot more than normal for a PG-13 due to the animated nature, which surprised me a bit due to the realistic nature of the animation...


I agree I have a bet with my step son that the dvd they rented and we watched the other day was not pg-13, checked amazon and looks like there is both unrated and pg-13, but does anybody know which one they stock at redbox? I wasn't there when him and his mom rented it.

Also, as above, did they get away with so much b/c it was cgi? I would say some of the violence and sexual content would qualify it for an R.

Him partially cutting his arm off to grab the dragon's heart and some of the semi nudity of Jolie, etc.

[Artman]

I agree I have a bet with my step son that the dvd they rented and we watched the other day was not pg-13, checked amazon and looks like there is both unrated and pg-13, but does anybody know which one they stock at redbox?


PG-13. As mentioned, this being animated and a fantasy gives it more leeway as far as content.

Also, what Scott described above is the Unrated Cut.