• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

saw Beowulf on tv last night

G

gimmewhitecastles

Golden Member
Was flipping through the channels last night and caught Beowulf on FX. I immediately did a doubletake. I remember when the movie was in theaters the trailers and commercials made it look like some 300 clone. So I passed over it without a second thought. I look at it now and I realize it was a full CGI movie. I thought I was watching Shrek at first.

But after watching for about a half hour I changed the channel because the character animations were ridiculous and the dialogue was stupid.

"I. AM. BEOWULF!"

But I'm just amazed I didn't realize this before when I first saw the trailers. I guess I need my eyes checked. :\
 
i thought it was some good dumb fun.
some of the cg was good, some was kinda off.
and yea the nude jolie was not bad at all
 
i paid to watch it, i was really upset.

i paid to watch clash of the titans too, that was upsetting.

why do i keep paying for stupid movies? silly relationships..
 
LordMorpheus said:
I saw it, too. It was FX, they blurred it but didn't cut it.

But man, that movie was terrible. I couldn't take it.
Click to expand...

They forgot to blur her nipple out in the scene at the end where she jumps in the water. Yeah I watched it. It was pretty terrible. Especially the ending.
 
Hm, I never gave much thought to it, but I might have to check it out now that I see Neil Gaiman had a hand in the writing. Five bucks on HD-DVD 😎
 
nakedfrog said:
Hm, I never gave much thought to it, but I might have to check it out now that I see Neil Gaiman had a hand in the writing. Five bucks on HD-DVD 😎
Click to expand...

Overall the story wasn't too terrible. The only thing that really sucked was the ending. They were obviously just trying to set it up for a sequel, but even then it sets it up for a terrible sequel.

It would have been a much better movie if it hadn't been animated.
 
I liked it. I thought they should have had more character development of Beowulf's half-breed dragon son. The movie just sorta throws him out there at the end, seemingly as an excuse for another quick fight scene.
 
SlitheryDee said:
I liked it. I thought they should have had more character development of Beowulf's half-breed dragon son. The movie just sorta throws him out there at the end, seemingly as an excuse for another quick fight scene.
Click to expand...

Hwæt! Not to point out the obvious, but:

syððan Beowulfe brade rice
on hand gehwearf; he geheold tela
fiftig wintra (wæs ða frod cyning,
eald eþelweard), oððæt an ongan
deorcum nihtum draca ricsian
Click to expand...

The dragon just kind of shows up in the original, too. (he's not Beowulf's son though, that's just in the movie.) The movie changed up a lot, but the entire core of the story is that Beowulf has to fight Grendel, Grendel's mother, and the dragon.
 
You know...I didn't think it was great, but I really dug what they did with the story. Serious liberties were taken, sure, but they made a coherent film plot out of a very unconnected story.

I think it worked really, really well, and probably shows why all of the other adaptations of the story have failed miserably for film. Also the coolest, most accurate interpretation of Grendel that I have seen.

Horrible dialogue, yes; but I think the story and characters were nearly flawlessly adapted for the first coherent Beowulf screenplay.
 
bignateyk said:
Overall the story wasn't too terrible. The only thing that really sucked was the ending. They were obviously just trying to set it up for a sequel, but even then it sets it up for a terrible sequel.

It would have been a much better movie if it hadn't been animated.
Click to expand...

the ending stands alone, I think. No reason to think it was being set-up for a sequel...unless you want to see the same cycle repeat itself, which is what we're left with.
 
SlitheryDee said:
I liked it. I thought they should have had more character development of Beowulf's half-breed dragon son. The movie just sorta throws him out there at the end, seemingly as an excuse for another quick fight scene.
Click to expand...

well, that's the major problem with adapting the original story to screen. The dragon story is somewhat random. It's 50+ years later, Beowulf is long removed from Heorot, having been king of his own Geatland (or was he the thane--kind of hazy).

To make it more coherent, they kept Beowulf at Heorot, taking over the throne that he defended by defeating Grendel (he waxed the mom in the book, too--HUGE liberty in the film), and added a real connection to the Dragon via Grendel's mom, the price of that throne, an entirely new morality trope involving the price and corruptibility of power that isn't really found in the original prose.

There's a lot of great side stuff in the film too--the conflict between the new monotheism of Christianity shoving away the old gods (the original is essentially written as a trope of Christ--a heavily-Christian-themed piece of work, translated by monks as a heroic adaptation of Christ's story, more or less). The movie plays on this well-documented scholarly approach to the original, and adds its own twist. I think it works really well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top