Official Thread of Robert Zemeckis's Beowulf - News, Pics, Posters, Trailers and etc.

[terry78]

Well, next Xmas we get to see the Christmas Carol version of this, with Jim Carrey. It'll be just as scary I'm sure.

 

[Golgo-13]

What could be unrated about this? Do we see nipples? Literal head biting?

That's exactly what they show.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Got the DC yesterday, its a bit better, and more gore is always welcome, but it wasnt worth an extra £5 IMO. But the extra scene's off the Grendal attacks and Dragon battle were definately welcome. The only thing is, the extra violence doesnt change the rating of the movie here, so why didnt they just release this version in the first place.

Still like the movie a lot though.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The more i watch this movie the more i think Ray Winstone's performance was superb, they really did pick the right man for the job in this case. Confident and cocky as the younger version, regretful, emotional and more heartfelt as the older version.

Thats the big advantage of this technology really, actors in Ray's position being able to take on roles they wouldnt be able to in live-action. But he does give a great performance, and the more i watch the movie, the more i think he carries it.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

How was the movie? Was it a success?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

It made its money back WW, not sure if the studio did though. And i personally REALLY enjoyed it, Winstone and Jolie were superb, the action amazing, and it wasnt as emotionless as some claim, i found plenty of the scene's with the older Beowulf pretty damn emotional.

 

[C.F. Kane]

So, has anyone heard that Mike Nelson and the other MST3K guys have riffed on this movie?

 

[Mr. Credible]

i liked this movie, in digital IMAX 3D... but on dvd it just loses it's flair. especially after seeing it that way.

maybe i'd feel differently if i had a 62inch plasma 1080i blah blah blah with blu-ray player... but i don't.

so, yeah...

 

[X-Maniac]

I saw it in IMAX 3D with my partner and some other friends. We all hated it.
We only enjoyed it for the IMAX 3D experience.

The final dragon flight sequence was brilliant...but the rest of it was horrible. Angelina Jolie looking exactly like Angelina Jolie with a ponytail that became a tentacle and with some sort of high heels; Anthony Hopkins with his Welsh accent despite being a Danish king. Everyone was motivated by sex not by any nobler virtues. More selfish heroes who care only about themselves.

Beowulf was just a braggart and a liar. The attempts to make the story cyclical - each generation giving the water-demon a son (it ended with that possibility once again, at the shore) - was in theory a great idea but in practice made everyone motivated by lust and gave a very hollow feel to it all.

An interesting attempt to take the technology of '300' to the next level but it was all style over substance and did a great disservice to the poem and its historical setting. Pity. This could have been something much grander along the lines of LoTR.

 

[Mr. Credible]

I saw it in IMAX 3D with my partner and some other friends. We all hated it.
We only enjoyed it for the IMAX 3D experience.

The final dragon flight sequence was brilliant...but the rest of it was horrible. Angelina Jolie looking exactly like Angelina Jolie with a ponytail that became a tentacle and with some sort of high heels; Anthony Hopkins with his Welsh accent despite being a Danish king. Everyone was motivated by sex not by any nobler virtues. More selfish heroes who care only about themselves.

Beowulf was just a braggart and a liar. The attempts to make the story cyclical - each generation giving the water-demon a son (it ended with that possibility once again, at the shore) - was in theory a great idea but in practice made everyone motivated by lust and gave a very hollow feel to it all.

An interesting attempt to take the technology of '300' to the next level but it was all style over substance and did a great disservice to the poem and its historical setting. Pity. This could have been something much grander along the lines of LoTR.

1. how does the technology of 300 have anything to do with the motion capture (or any of the) technology in beowulf? the two share absolutely no similarities, other than both involving swords and sandals... none whatsoever. beowulf's technology is not even close to the next step in 300's filming technique. what you've just said makes no sense.

2. LoTR sucked.

 

[X-Maniac]

1. how does the technology of 300 have anything to do with the motion capture (or any of the) technology in beowulf? the two share absolutely no similarities, other than both involving swords and sandals... none whatsoever. beowulf's technology is not even close to the next step in 300's filming technique. what you've just said makes no sense.

It's pretty obvious. 300 was a stylised interpretation of classic history/myth using real actors but an almost entirely CGI setting. Beowulf was a stylised interpretation of classic history/myth (a poem with some historical basis) with not just a CGI setting but CGI actors created from the real actors. It took the idea of digitising an epic FX movie to the next level. The link from one to the other is fairly obvious. Also, Leonidas yells 'This is Sparta' and Beowulf yells 'I am Beowulf' in an identical sloganeering inflection that seemed very obvious.

 

[Nirvana]

1. how does the technology of 300 have anything to do with the motion capture (or any of the) technology in beowulf? the two share absolutely no similarities, other than both involving swords and sandals... none whatsoever. beowulf's technology is not even close to the next step in 300's filming technique. what you've just said makes no sense.

2. LoTR sucked.

You fail at life

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

X-Maniac, I disagree.
It wasn't just about sex, not just about lust, although it’s included.
The demon could grant eternal glory for a chance to continue her race.
Quite literarily a pact with the devil but if you would care to notice the devil has a purpose of her own. She just wants her blood to survive and the only way she knows how to do it is interbreed with humans.
It’s the hero’s own fault that he agrees to the curse because he is seduced by the idea of power, which eventually makes him a sinner like any other, affected by lust, greed and pride.
They could’ve gone the happy little path of LotR but they chose gritty and dark tragedy instead and there’s still plenty of character development in there.

 

[Prefix]

It's pretty obvious. 300 was a stylised interpretation of classic history/myth using real actors but an almost entirely CGI setting. Beowulf was a stylised interpretation of classic history/myth (a poem with some historical basis) with not just a CGI setting but CGI actors created from the real actors. It took the idea of digitising an epic FX movie to the next level. The link from one to the other is fairly obvious. Also, Leonidas yells 'This is Sparta' and Beowulf yells 'I am Beowulf' in an identical sloganeering inflection that seemed very obvious.

Except that Beowulf was in development before 300 even started production.

 

[Rezzo]

Just got the DVD for my birthday.

 

[X-Maniac]

Except that Beowulf was in development before 300 even started production.

You are correct chronologically.... but I am talking technologically, in which case Beowulf still takes the technical feats of 300 to the next level

 

[X-Maniac]

X-Maniac, I disagree.
It wasn't just about sex, not just about lust, although it’s included.
The demon could grant eternal glory for a chance to continue her race.
Quite literarily a pact with the devil but if you would care to notice the devil has a purpose of her own. She just wants her blood to survive and the only way she knows how to do it is interbreed with humans.
It’s the hero’s own fault that he agrees to the curse because he is seduced by the idea of power, which eventually makes him a sinner like any other, affected by lust, greed and pride.
They could’ve gone the happy little path of LotR but they chose gritty and dark tragedy instead and there’s still plenty of character development in there.

I agree with your interpretation also; but I think movies have to create some likable, relatable characters. Acting purely for lust or glory isn't a very likable trait in a human being.

Perhaps it's a reflection of our selfish age that movies no longer create 'role models' or inspiring characters.

 

[DorkyFresh]

I agree with your interpretation also; but I think movies have to create some likable, relatable characters. Acting purely for lust or glory isn't a very likable trait in a human being.

that's the beauty of Beowulf. he's supposed to be the original action hero and when you're the first you don't have everything put in front of you. he didn't have a role model to learn from. he had to make his own mistakes in order to learn from them. his actions might not be likable but considering the movie is totally artificial they NEEDED to give Beowulf human qualities. it would've be rather boring if Beowulf did everything by the book and knew what to do in every situation. there would be less inner struggle and emotional drama. imo, giving Beowulf flaws and immorality makes him seem more human and more relatable than if he went through his adventures with the honorable intentions. if there is anything that Casino Royale taught us, it's that heroes need their flaws and weaknesses in order to be interesting.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

X-Maniac, I disagree.
It wasn't just about sex, not just about lust, although it’s included.
The demon could grant eternal glory for a chance to continue her race.
Quite literarily a pact with the devil but if you would care to notice the devil has a purpose of her own. She just wants her blood to survive and the only way she knows how to do it is interbreed with humans.
It’s the hero’s own fault that he agrees to the curse because he is seduced by the idea of power, which eventually makes him a sinner like any other, affected by lust, greed and pride.
They could’ve gone the happy little path of LotR but they chose gritty and dark tragedy instead and there’s still plenty of character development in there.

Agreed, i liked the fact that Beowulf had a dark/selfish side to him which clouded his judgement at his most testing time. You can see the pain and anguish this gives him as an old man, and his efforts to re-deem himself work IMO. Its not until the his battle with the Dragon that the character truly becomes a hero in the story, and it is at this point that he finally understands the true meaning of a hero also, SPOILER, putting others ahead of youself (i.e sacrifising yourself ahead of others), which he does at the end, and in doing so, redeems himself IMO. I think the movie had some great character development in there.

 

[X-Maniac]

that's the beauty of Beowulf. he's supposed to be the original action hero and when you're the first you don't have everything put in front of you. he didn't have a role model to learn from. he had to make his own mistakes in order to learn from them. his actions might not be likable but considering the movie is totally artificial they NEEDED to give Beowulf human qualities. it would've be rather boring if Beowulf did everything by the book and knew what to do in every situation. there would be less inner struggle and emotional drama. imo, giving Beowulf flaws and immorality makes him seem more human and more relatable than if he went through his adventures with the honorable intentions. if there is anything that Casino Royale taught us, it's that heroes need their flaws and weaknesses in order to be interesting.

That's an interesting argument, though I don't necessarily agree.

There were heroes before Beowulf (a poem in the 8th or 11th century about events in the 5th or 6th century), so I don't think he was really the first, as there have been heroes before.

I also thought Casino Royale's Bond was a far better hero than Beowulf. I was able to relate to, and empathise with, Daniel Craig's Bond portrayal. He had a cause, he was unmistakably a good guy, I don't recall him acting for a personal gain that would cause great harm to others

I looked up the movie on Wikipedia and found some similar doubts about its portrayals in the sections called Differences from the Poem, and Critical Reception. Clearly the changes they made have had a mixed response, with some feeling a classic story has been Hollywoodised - I include myself in that response. Obviously, some want a flawed hero, an anti-hero; others want something more inspiring or for motivations to have some kind of external cause.

For instance, Magneto's villainous behaviour can be understood, even identified with; his parents were sent to the gas chamber for being different.
Wolverine was forced into a hideous and horrifying experiment that gave him a metal-coated skeleton. Batman's parents were murdered. When these people are driven to extremes, we know what's driving them, we know what's setting off the mental triggers. They are victims of something.

But when people do something purely for selfish reasons, it's not relatable, you cannot empathise.

 

[Gotham]

How was the movie? Was it a success?

Wasn't what the studio wanted in box-office take, I don't think. I particularly like the film.

 

[DorkyFresh]

But when people do something purely for selfish reasons, it's not relatable, you cannot empathise.

well that's where you and i differ. i don't need a character to be likable or relatable in order to find them interesting, entertaining, or relatable. case in point, Snake Plisken is a total @$$hole that really only cares for himself. yes, he's had hard times but that doesn't stop him from basically being a total prick to pretty much everyone he encounters. every good deed he did in his 2 movies was done out of self preservation. that being said, he's one of my favorite characters in cinema history.

anyway, i don't necessarily think that because a character is selfish it means that they're not relatable. not very honorable, but i can certainly relate.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Thank you guys for contributing to my point.
DorkyFresh and AVEIT, you make great arguments.
Yeah, that's another reason why the Dragon battle is the best part of the movie.

I agree with your interpretation also; but I think movies have to create some likable, relatable characters. Acting purely for lust or glory isn't a very likable trait in a human being.

Perhaps it's a reflection of our selfish age that movies no longer create 'role models' or inspiring characters.

But then that's a whole different point of personal taste and in no way is this the fault of the movie.
Is it not selfish to demand every epic to have a morally positive hero?
You’re kind of handicapping yourself here as well, if the only way you could enjoy a story is by having characters you can comprehend and/or connect with. But again, that’s your own personal taste.
And if you really want to find a logical character driven by tragic circumstances try Grendel’s Mother. She is the last of her kind and she wants her race to continue at all costs. Notice she never went out and killed or destroyed anyone. Her sons were the real monsters. Against a dominant male hero, to accomplish greater causes other than destruction and mass murder, the female icon prevails.

 

[dark_b]

is there a good documentary about the CGI on the DVD?

this movie is something special since it is 100% CGI. i expected more from sony imageworks on their site.

 

[hame4479]

Surprisingly cool flick, I didn't realize it was going to be so adult going into it and then wham, people are getting torn in half limbs ripped off, blood drank, and heads getting chewed on. Pretty badass if ya ask me. And you could totally tell crispin glover was doing grendal and that ****ing rocked.