DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Movie Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk-17/)
-   -   Beowulf (11/16/2007) (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/507424-beowulf-11-16-2007-a.html)

Steve Phillips 11-19-07 05:15 PM

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 11-19-07 11:29 PM

Spoiler:
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 11-19-07 11:33 PM


Originally Posted by sk8r1189
Spoiler:
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 11-19-07 11:35 PM


Originally Posted by Patman
But they left out the tattoos...

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

meshershark 11-20-07 08:09 AM


Originally Posted by JaxComet
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 11-20-07 03:29 PM

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 11-20-07 03:41 PM


Originally Posted by meshershark
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 11-20-07 03:47 PM


Originally Posted by 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

On the other hand: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Nov...eowulf,00.html
Spoiler:

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 11-22-07 07:38 PM

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 11-22-07 08:00 PM

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 11-22-07 09:40 PM

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 11-22-07 10:33 PM

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 11-23-07 07:22 AM

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 11-23-07 09:25 AM

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 11-23-07 10:49 AM


Originally Posted by 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.

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 11-23-07 12:21 PM

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 11-26-07 09:11 AM


Originally Posted by 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.

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 11-27-07 11:14 AM

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 11-27-07 10:55 PM


Originally Posted by Snowmaker

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 11-28-07 06:33 AM


Originally Posted by Snowmaker
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.

OldBoy 03-01-08 10:54 PM

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 03-01-08 11:55 PM


Originally Posted by 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?

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.

OldBoy 03-02-08 10:20 AM


Originally Posted by fumanstan
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. 03-02-08 11:07 AM


Originally Posted by scott1598
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/ar..._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 03-02-08 02:02 PM

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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:44 PM.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.