Edit: Also, I couldn't figure out the John Malkovich character. He didn't seem like he really belonged in the movie, like they could have left him out entirely and it wouldn't have made a difference.
Unferth is there to be a counterbalance to Beowulf, a way of showing who the real champion is. In the original poem, he's the pseudo-heroic character that kinda shows what candyasses the Danes are compared to the Norwegians. Notice in the last half of the movie
he becomes a (fairly pathetic) Christian priest, underscoring what Beowulf said about Christianity destroying the age of heroes.
The last third of the movie is different from the first two thirds because that's how the original poem goes. It's Grendel - Grendel's Mom - Fast Forward to the end of Beowulf's life and the Dragon. There's a reason most retellings ignore the third part (The 13th Warrior ends after killing the "mother" character, I think the Lambert Beowulf does, too). They wanted to be different and faithful to the original work, which I respect.
I didn't notice it was CGI at all. Then again, it didn't look that great and I wasn't watching it that closely. I hated the old Beowulf (1999 film) movie's story so I didn't think I would like the 2007 film at all. I might still go see it though.
There's an NC-17 version coming out later on DVD only. They couldn't release it in theaters because of "false advertising" or some such shit.
False advertising?? LOL. I'm sure there is a better explanation.
I'm thinking it might have to do with the amusing fig-leaf (candle stick/ viking warrior/ other object to block the groin-shots) use during the Beowulf vs Grendel fight scene.
I get what your talking about with Unferth,
I felt it was kind of lazy the way that they had
him as a drunken critic of Beowulf in the begining, then suddenly he is this honest and right thinking enough that he gives Beowulf his ancestral sword. (He was jealous of the attention Beowulf got before he killed Grendal, why wasn't he jealous of the attention Beuwolf got after he killed Grendal?) Then in the end he's a priest with like 2 lines. I just felt like they could have communicated the same information better if they hadn't of used him like that.
I really dont understand how so many people are not recognizing that this is a CGI film until they are told or something.
Maybe it has something to do with HDTV when viewing the movie trailers / previews, and the quality of the Theatre projector or something.
The very first time I saw the trailer I thought it was for a video game, and it took a couple of times of seeing the trailers/previews in different places before I figured it out that it was a movie =P
I think Unferth really caught Beowulf off guard when he apologized and put his trust in to Beowulf. Which makes Beowulf's betrayal all the more meaningful.
I just loved the dinner scene when Beowulf is bullshitting his ass off then turns to Unferth and says something like "OH! and your sword was there too."
Saw this just now - me, a bunch of other Old English students and our Old English teacher. We sniggered through quite a lot of the first half - partly due to a Eastender Beowulf (Leave it ahht, Grendel!), and partly due to the butchering of the story from the original. I understand why they moved all the stuff around, though, as the original poem would be really strange on film - especially the middle bit where it's all talking.
The CGI worked for me most of the time - Beowulf and Wiglaf were pretty stunning, but the background characters still look like Shrek extras for the most part. Hrothgar's face was good, but his body was waxy and not old enough. Facial expressions, and the little subtleties, were quite impressive.
Am I the only one who thought that Ray Winstone and John Malkovitch's delivery was, at times, pretty godawful? Malkovitch in particular - it might just be his voice, but he was grating.
Possibly spoilerific thoughts:
Those sea monsters reminded me of the water temple boss in Twilight Princess. Actually, the monsters were fairly like computer game bosses all round - avoid their attacks, spam the weak spot.
The way they went with Grendel's mother worked from the cohesion standpoint, and there are some readings of the original that are almost sexually suggestive, but this shows that film makers still prefer hot femmes fatales than women's heads being chopped off.
I was hoping that Grendel couldn't attack Hrothgar because he was the antithesis of what Grendel represented - just like in the poem, when Grendel can't approach the high seat in Heorot because it symbolises the lord-thegn relationship.
Beowulf sure liked getting nekkid.
Grendel was the same size as the skeletons in his lair, but much bigger when in the hall - what the hell? Also, it seemed weird that Hrothgar's son looked like a butcher's dustbin whereas Beowulf's looked like an Academy Award.
Hell of a lot of anachronisms for fifth century Denmark - stone architecture, for one. Also Christianity, but as the original poet shoehorned Christ in I'm not blaming the film for doing it as well. I'd have liked to have seen a Sutton Hoo-style harp as opposed to the Welsh one Wealtheow had, but as they were adding a Welsh angle it sort of made sense.
The poem being read out in the hall was a nice touch - almost as if we weren't watching the events of the poem, but the events that the poem was based on.
Adding Finn was a totally pointless detail that pleased me immensely.
The dragon scene was awesome.
Most of my complaints are nit-picking (what do you expect, I've just spent the last six weeks studying the poem), but overall it was a decent action flick vaguely based on an Old English poem, with the odd bit added to keep Beowulf students happy. Much better than the abortion on a dirty plate that was Troy.
The CGI worked for me most of the time - Beowulf and Wiglaf were pretty stunning, but the background characters still look like Shrek extras for the most part. Hrothgar's face was good, but his body was waxy and not old enough. Facial expressions, and the little subtleties, were quite impressive.
Wiglaf in particular was fantastic. I looked at him, squinted, then asked my friend if that was the guy who played Hamish in Braveheart. Turns out, yep, Brendan Gleeson did both roles. Amazing that I could recognize him almost immediately despite the CGI and after all these years.
Am I the only one who thought that Ray Winstone and John Malkovitch's delivery was, at times, pretty godawful? Malkovitch in particular - it might just be his voice, but he was grating.
Well, we're supposed to hate Unferth... that's his role, so I wouldn't be surprised if Malkovich were purposefully annoying.
My problem was Grendel's constant whining and actually using Old English dialect when nobody else did.
Possibly spoilerific thoughts:
Grendel was the same size as the skeletons in his lair, but much bigger when in the hall - what the hell? Also, it seemed weird that Hrothgar's son looked like a butcher's dustbin whereas Beowulf's looked like an Academy Award.
On your Grendel issue:
You could see him actually shrinking after Beowulf ripped his arm off. He got smaller and smaller until he was just a frail little skeleton thing with a bulbous head. Part of being a half-demon means never having to be governed by logic.
Also, with regards to the monster sons, I think that was indicitive of the quality of the fathers. Hrothgar wasn't half the man that Beowulf was... look at how each of them died. Why do you think Grendel's mom wasn't that broken up about losing her son after learning that she could get the upgraded version from the killer?
You could see him actually shrinking after Beowulf ripped his arm off. He got smaller and smaller until he was just a frail little skeleton thing with a bulbous head. Part of being a half-demon means never having to be governed by logic.
Also, with regards to the monster sons, I think that was indicitive of the quality of the fathers. Hrothgar wasn't half the man that Beowulf was... look at how each of them died. Why do you think Grendel's mom wasn't that broken up about losing her son after learning that she could get the upgraded version from the killer?
I'll give you the Grendel size thing, and I guess I was still thinking of Hrothgar as he's portrayed in the poem.
The last third of the movie is different from the first two thirds because that's how the original poem goes. It's Grendel - Grendel's Mom - Fast Forward to the end of Beowulf's life and the Dragon. There's a reason most retellings ignore the third part (The 13th Warrior ends after killing the "mother" character, I think the Lambert Beowulf does, too). They wanted to be different and faithful to the original work, which I respect.
See how the start of the paragraph, when taken into context, modifies the meaning of the fragment you extracted and, in fact makes sense?
Even if you're going on the stance that the film was unfaithful overall to the original poem because it changed some details, modified some characters, and made the entire plot more coherant, it doesn't mean that the movie makers didn't want to follow the original more than other movies in certain ways.
Okay, I probably just got too English major-ized there. Sorry. Thinking about English literature will do that.
The last third of the movie is different from the first two thirds because that's how the original poem goes. It's Grendel - Grendel's Mom - Fast Forward to the end of Beowulf's life and the Dragon. There's a reason most retellings ignore the third part (The 13th Warrior ends after killing the "mother" character, I think the Lambert Beowulf does, too). They wanted to be different and faithful to the original work, which I respect.
See how the start of the paragraph, when taken into context, modifies the meaning of the fragment you extracted and, in fact makes sense?
Even if you're going on the stance that the film was unfaithful overall to the original poem because it changed some details, modified some characters, and made the entire plot more coherant, it doesn't mean that the movie makers didn't want to follow the original more than other movies in certain ways.
Okay, I probably just got too English major-ized there. Sorry. Thinking about English literature will do that.
I'm studying for a degree in English Literature, and I think that frankly the alterations made to it both spit in the face of the original poet and shovel dirt on the poem's themes. An absolute failure by the scriptwriters to understand the nature of the conflict between the heathen and the Christian; subtractions from the plot that remove much of the cultural commentary that makes the original great; additions that are frankly ludicrous (and I'm sure I don't need to go into any more detail about that, although I'd be glad to if asked): all contribute to the failures of this adaptation. The implication that the original poem was an inaccurate take on the events portrayed in the film holds no water whatsoever even within its own context and, as far as I'm concerned, justifies nothing.
The salt in the wound was the utterly hamfisted symbolism forced in at the end:
Beowulf hacks off his own arm, leaving him a parallel of the monster Grendel in body as in action? Give me a break.
I'll stop myself ranting for the sake of everyone else in the thread, but if this is how Beowulf's going to be adapted for a modern audience, it'd have been better if it'd never been adapted at all.
I am completely baffled as to how terrible this movie was. I saw the preview a couple months ago and had absolutely no idea that it was animated. I had read no reviews. And then I notice in the first 30 seconds that its animated, and I was all like "WAHAHhahah??" I was almost convinced I saw a preview for some other Beowulf movie, and that they were so ashamed of how terrible the animation was that they avoided showing it in the preview. And sure enough, when I got back just now and watched it then just flash any characters on the screen for a fraction of a second to obscure the terrible animation.
I must have seen a different movie than you all. The Beowulf I just saw looked absolutely terrible. All of the characters put together couldn't have blinked more than 50 times total. It was so unbelievably distracting watching every character stare without a single blink in almost every scene. Hardly anything moved realistically. The horses... dear god. Everyone was completely hairless off of their head. The Queen looked like a man. A lot of times the characters just jerked around like it was from some buggy animation.
The quality of the animation was so bad that I pretty much couldn't pay attention to the rest of the movie. I actually came out thinking that they used a real Angelina Jolie for her first scene, and then a fake plastic barbie one for the rest of the movie, which baffled me. I have to say that the first 30 or 40 minutes were easily the most painful thing I've ever had to watch.
I'm still in so much shock as to how bad the animation was, an hour after I finished watching it, that I can't even think about the plot. I pretty much spent the entire movie with my mouth agape wondering how a CG animated movie could be so absolutely terrible. I very much wish that it had been done live action. I think it would have been so much better.
I almost wish it would have been live action since so many people seem unable to handle the CG. It was a great movie through and through, and I stopped caring whether or not it was CG after 5 minutes. Definitely the best fantasy movie to be released in the complete shit-wake that LotR wrought by being so good.
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
And yet nearly every critic agrees that it's groundbreaking animation...
Huh, I'm baffled as to how people can say that it's bad animation, or even mediocre. It's fucking amazingly done. Every CGI film has awkward scenes (like the Grendel fight scene), but Beowulf has blown them all away with just sheer beauty.
I liked it quite a bit, actually, even if there's a Gaiman bias at this point? Do we know when the last version fo this script was writting? Because, honestly, the entire second half practically felt like it was a response and a deconstruction of 300.
To clarify, the entire first half reminded me a lot of the Spartan mentality, from the warrior elitism to the obvious and logically inexplicable disdain for armor or any clothing for that matter, and the need to shout loud battlecries. And then the entire second half shows the human side to the hero, including myriad and severe fuckups, and an elegaic (see? I paid attention college English Literature class,) response to the of heroism. The practically monosyllabic hero who spends the entire second half admitting and atoning for his mistakes when an old man was excellent.
EmperorSeth on
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
The disdain for armor in the Grendel fight was to balance the fight, since Grendel had no weapons nor could be hurt by metal.
Just hoping you caught that.
Well, sure, that's what he SAID, I just don't buy that was the main reason, or at least the only one. Keep in mind this was early in the film, back when he was all about bravado and the expansin of his own legend. I mean, if he really believed those reasons, why did he bring armor and a weapon to the next two fights? Well, maybe just armor, since he was forced to bring a weapon in the second and the third could be hurt by metal. Or why, given these rules, didn't he order his men to do the same? I'm just saying that there were thematic or emotional reasons beyond the tactical one.
EmperorSeth on
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
i suppose the good thing about this movie is that my uncanny valley alarm wasn't tripped as nearly as much as with the Final Fantasy movie. most of the time i had thought it was the actual actors with a lot of post processing effects work done.
the movie itself though was a barely-passable action film with very clumsy symbolism thrown in for "depth". it's a rental at best. i am really puzzled why there are so many critics praising the movie.
even Angelina's CGI bits were annoying, even if nice-looking. her bit in the movie was distracting fanservice and almost nothing else.
I just got back from seeing the 3D version, and I must say... holy cow. Scenes that dragged in the 2D version were immersive and exciting. The 3D wasn't just for some parts of the movie... every single scene had increased depth and texture... it was almost like seeing an entirely different movie. I noticed a lot of stuff that wasn't all that clear the first time around.
If you have the opportunity, see the 3D version even if it costs a little more: clearly a superior experience.
The disdain for armor in the Grendel fight was to balance the fight, since Grendel had no weapons nor could be hurt by metal.
Just hoping you caught that.
Well, sure, that's what he SAID, I just don't buy that was the main reason, or at least the only one. Keep in mind this was early in the film, back when he was all about bravado and the expansin of his own legend. I mean, if he really believed those reasons, why did he bring armor and a weapon to the next two fights? Well, maybe just armor, since he was forced to bring a weapon in the second and the third could be hurt by metal. Or why, given these rules, didn't he order his men to do the same? I'm just saying that there were thematic or emotional reasons beyond the tactical one.
This information was in the poem. That's what I'm going on. It was well-known by the time Beowulf came to Denmark that Grendel had a charm against metal.
Beowulf wanted to make the fight more equal by sacrificing weapon and armor, fighting Grendel man-to-man. Grendel's mother does not have the same feature, but she can melt down weaponry by touching it. The dragon also had no charms and thus Beowulf could use all the protection he could get.
Zephyr_Fate on
0
Options
Big DookieSmells great!Houston, TXRegistered Userregular
edited November 2007
Saw the movie last night. Not a perfect movie, but pretty entertaining, and visually stunning. I know some people are put off by the animation, but I thought it was incredible. Wiglaf in particular was so well done, I had to squint and make sure it wasn't a real actor a couple of times, despite knowing that it wasn't. Some of the animation was a little awkward, but overall it's better than any other CGI movie I've seen.
Regarding Grendel:
I have to say, this is the first time I've ever been literally repulsed by a character in a movie. I've seen a lot of movies, and as we all know, there have been many repulsive and terrifying monsters in film over the years. There was just something about Grendel here however that really hit a nerve with me. I think the way he screamed was part of it... I don't know, he was just very creepy looking. Very well done.
Regarding the fight scenes:
I have to admit, I laughed out loud a few times in the fight scenes. However, thinking about it, it wasn't really in a bad way. Some of the action sequences, such as Beowulf bursting out of the eye of the sea monster and screaming his own name, and when he cuts his own arm off so that he can reach in and rip out the dragon's heart with his bare hand - it really seemed like they were purposefully over the top to show how Beowulf was practically superhuman. They were laughs that basically expressed, "Holy crap, I can't believe how awesome this is!" It was a gleefully self indulgent movie in terms of action, and I loved it.
In any case, I thought it was a great movie, even though I didn't get to see it in 3D IMAX. Hopefully I'll get a chance to before it leaves theaters.
Heheh, I enjoyed this movie quite a bit more than I thought I would. I got dragged to this movie by the same friends who dragged me to see 300, and I ended up liking it a lot (just like I did with 300). I should start paying more attention to my friends tastes.
3D IMAX = Orgasm
Everyone semi-jokingly reached out and tried to touch some of the things on screen, and of course I had to be 'that guy' and try to touch Angelina Jolie's ass. Someone had to do it.
I thought it was OK at best, and I think this was just because I saw it in 3D. It was fun in some parts but it really dragged on at the end. I think this is a movie that would have been better if it had just been made with more traditional techniques and they stuck to CG for the monsters.
I think what killed me the most was all the close ups on faces that could show almost no emotion. I hate it in live action movies and I hate it more in CG movies.
I have got to admit, the 13 year old boy in me really did like the tirade at the end of the Grendel fight . . . . but I think I would have liked it more in live action.
Hraka on
I had a stick of Carefree gum, but it didn't work. I felt pretty good while I was blowing that bubble, but as soon as the gum lost its flavor, I was back to pondering my mortality
It was alright. I enjoyed the fight scenes more than anything else. Take out the sea serpents, the dragon, and Grendel, and it wouldn't be worth watching.
As for the CGI itself... Blizzard makes better CGI movies for their games than this.
Posts
Unferth is there to be a counterbalance to Beowulf, a way of showing who the real champion is. In the original poem, he's the pseudo-heroic character that kinda shows what candyasses the Danes are compared to the Norwegians. Notice in the last half of the movie
The last third of the movie is different from the first two thirds because that's how the original poem goes. It's Grendel - Grendel's Mom - Fast Forward to the end of Beowulf's life and the Dragon. There's a reason most retellings ignore the third part (The 13th Warrior ends after killing the "mother" character, I think the Lambert Beowulf does, too). They wanted to be different and faithful to the original work, which I respect.
I'm thinking it might have to do with the amusing fig-leaf (candle stick/ viking warrior/ other object to block the groin-shots) use during the Beowulf vs Grendel fight scene.
OK, maybe I'm hoping that was it. *swoon*
I felt it was kind of lazy the way that they had
Maybe it has something to do with HDTV when viewing the movie trailers / previews, and the quality of the Theatre projector or something.
The very first time I saw the trailer I thought it was for a video game, and it took a couple of times of seeing the trailers/previews in different places before I figured it out that it was a movie =P
MWO: Adamski
I just loved the dinner scene when Beowulf is bullshitting his ass off then turns to Unferth and says something like "OH! and your sword was there too."
It's ok but $5.00 or less would have made me a happy camper.
The CGI worked for me most of the time - Beowulf and Wiglaf were pretty stunning, but the background characters still look like Shrek extras for the most part. Hrothgar's face was good, but his body was waxy and not old enough. Facial expressions, and the little subtleties, were quite impressive.
Am I the only one who thought that Ray Winstone and John Malkovitch's delivery was, at times, pretty godawful? Malkovitch in particular - it might just be his voice, but he was grating.
Possibly spoilerific thoughts:
The way they went with Grendel's mother worked from the cohesion standpoint, and there are some readings of the original that are almost sexually suggestive, but this shows that film makers still prefer hot femmes fatales than women's heads being chopped off.
I was hoping that Grendel couldn't attack Hrothgar because he was the antithesis of what Grendel represented - just like in the poem, when Grendel can't approach the high seat in Heorot because it symbolises the lord-thegn relationship.
Beowulf sure liked getting nekkid.
Grendel was the same size as the skeletons in his lair, but much bigger when in the hall - what the hell? Also, it seemed weird that Hrothgar's son looked like a butcher's dustbin whereas Beowulf's looked like an Academy Award.
Hell of a lot of anachronisms for fifth century Denmark - stone architecture, for one. Also Christianity, but as the original poet shoehorned Christ in I'm not blaming the film for doing it as well. I'd have liked to have seen a Sutton Hoo-style harp as opposed to the Welsh one Wealtheow had, but as they were adding a Welsh angle it sort of made sense.
The poem being read out in the hall was a nice touch - almost as if we weren't watching the events of the poem, but the events that the poem was based on.
Adding Finn was a totally pointless detail that pleased me immensely.
The dragon scene was awesome.
Most of my complaints are nit-picking (what do you expect, I've just spent the last six weeks studying the poem), but overall it was a decent action flick vaguely based on an Old English poem, with the odd bit added to keep Beowulf students happy. Much better than the abortion on a dirty plate that was Troy.
SS13 Rules Post
hehehe... I forgot, but I was thinking the same thing during the scenes where they were in the hall.
Wiglaf in particular was fantastic. I looked at him, squinted, then asked my friend if that was the guy who played Hamish in Braveheart. Turns out, yep, Brendan Gleeson did both roles. Amazing that I could recognize him almost immediately despite the CGI and after all these years.
Well, we're supposed to hate Unferth... that's his role, so I wouldn't be surprised if Malkovich were purposefully annoying.
My problem was Grendel's constant whining and actually using Old English dialect when nobody else did.
On your Grendel issue:
Also, with regards to the monster sons, I think that was indicitive of the quality of the fathers. Hrothgar wasn't half the man that Beowulf was... look at how each of them died. Why do you think Grendel's mom wasn't that broken up about losing her son after learning that she could get the upgraded version from the killer?
This wasn't a sentence I expected to read in this thread.
To be fair, that was a participle sentence fragment, not a complete sentence.
The complete sentence was:
This, too, can be taken out of context, so let's expand it further:
See how the start of the paragraph, when taken into context, modifies the meaning of the fragment you extracted and, in fact makes sense?
Even if you're going on the stance that the film was unfaithful overall to the original poem because it changed some details, modified some characters, and made the entire plot more coherant, it doesn't mean that the movie makers didn't want to follow the original more than other movies in certain ways.
Okay, I probably just got too English major-ized there. Sorry. Thinking about English literature will do that.
The ending:
Personally, I would have rather had him squint at her, shrug, and say "Naah, she's not my type," and go back to the castle.
Beowulf 2: Wiglafs revenge
I'm studying for a degree in English Literature, and I think that frankly the alterations made to it both spit in the face of the original poet and shovel dirt on the poem's themes. An absolute failure by the scriptwriters to understand the nature of the conflict between the heathen and the Christian; subtractions from the plot that remove much of the cultural commentary that makes the original great; additions that are frankly ludicrous (and I'm sure I don't need to go into any more detail about that, although I'd be glad to if asked): all contribute to the failures of this adaptation. The implication that the original poem was an inaccurate take on the events portrayed in the film holds no water whatsoever even within its own context and, as far as I'm concerned, justifies nothing.
The salt in the wound was the utterly hamfisted symbolism forced in at the end:
I'll stop myself ranting for the sake of everyone else in the thread, but if this is how Beowulf's going to be adapted for a modern audience, it'd have been better if it'd never been adapted at all.
And that's my stance on that.
Personally I thought
The story made sense and wasn't full of wishy washy jrpg spirits crap? Although the animation wasn't a whole lot better.
But yeah, I don't think the film was worth bothering with.
Well reasoned.
:P
That would be awesome.
Honestly, the Sci-Fi version with Christopher Lambert was more true to the epic.
Or atleast it seemed better, because Lambert is a bad ass.
Epic of Gilgamesh, I think, is the next epic Hollywood wants to ruin.
I must have seen a different movie than you all. The Beowulf I just saw looked absolutely terrible. All of the characters put together couldn't have blinked more than 50 times total. It was so unbelievably distracting watching every character stare without a single blink in almost every scene. Hardly anything moved realistically. The horses... dear god. Everyone was completely hairless off of their head. The Queen looked like a man. A lot of times the characters just jerked around like it was from some buggy animation.
The quality of the animation was so bad that I pretty much couldn't pay attention to the rest of the movie. I actually came out thinking that they used a real Angelina Jolie for her first scene, and then a fake plastic barbie one for the rest of the movie, which baffled me. I have to say that the first 30 or 40 minutes were easily the most painful thing I've ever had to watch.
I'm still in so much shock as to how bad the animation was, an hour after I finished watching it, that I can't even think about the plot. I pretty much spent the entire movie with my mouth agape wondering how a CG animated movie could be so absolutely terrible. I very much wish that it had been done live action. I think it would have been so much better.
Huh, I'm baffled as to how people can say that it's bad animation, or even mediocre. It's fucking amazingly done. Every CGI film has awkward scenes (like the Grendel fight scene), but Beowulf has blown them all away with just sheer beauty.
Just hoping you caught that.
the movie itself though was a barely-passable action film with very clumsy symbolism thrown in for "depth". it's a rental at best. i am really puzzled why there are so many critics praising the movie.
even Angelina's CGI bits were annoying, even if nice-looking. her bit in the movie was distracting fanservice and almost nothing else.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
If you have the opportunity, see the 3D version even if it costs a little more: clearly a superior experience.
This information was in the poem. That's what I'm going on. It was well-known by the time Beowulf came to Denmark that Grendel had a charm against metal.
Beowulf wanted to make the fight more equal by sacrificing weapon and armor, fighting Grendel man-to-man. Grendel's mother does not have the same feature, but she can melt down weaponry by touching it. The dragon also had no charms and thus Beowulf could use all the protection he could get.
Regarding Grendel:
Regarding the fight scenes:
In any case, I thought it was a great movie, even though I didn't get to see it in 3D IMAX. Hopefully I'll get a chance to before it leaves theaters.
Oculus: TheBigDookie | XBL: Dook | NNID: BigDookie
3D IMAX = Orgasm
Everyone semi-jokingly reached out and tried to touch some of the things on screen, and of course I had to be 'that guy' and try to touch Angelina Jolie's ass. Someone had to do it.
I thought it was OK at best, and I think this was just because I saw it in 3D. It was fun in some parts but it really dragged on at the end. I think this is a movie that would have been better if it had just been made with more traditional techniques and they stuck to CG for the monsters.
I think what killed me the most was all the close ups on faces that could show almost no emotion. I hate it in live action movies and I hate it more in CG movies.
I have got to admit, the 13 year old boy in me really did like the tirade at the end of the Grendel fight . . . . but I think I would have liked it more in live action.
It was alright. I enjoyed the fight scenes more than anything else. Take out the sea serpents, the dragon, and Grendel, and it wouldn't be worth watching.
As for the CGI itself... Blizzard makes better CGI movies for their games than this.