Beowulf

→ in
Tools    





Here's my review of Beowulf, which I saw yesterday afternoon. I wasn't blown away, but it was genuinely exciting, and I think there's a good chance we'll end up looking back at this film as a landmark in digital filmmaking. Time will tell.

Beowulf



Robert Zemeckis has never been one to shy away from a challenge. For over twenty years, he's blazed one trail after another. He was the first director to merge live action and animation in a truly seamless fashion with 1988's Who Framed Roger Rabbit?. He filmed Back to the Future II and Back to the Future III back-to-back in 1989, before such gambles were in vogue. And now, he's championing the motion-capture technology introduced in The Polar Express and substantially improved in Beowulf.

Though The Polar Express received its share of praise from critics, many noted that the characters' eyes did not move realistically; they were lifeless, and more than one reviewer used the word "creepy" to describe them. Zemeckis apparently took note of this, and an EOG (Electrooculography) device was used this time around to allow the animators to "track muscle pulses being given off by the eye." The results are staggering. The characters in Beowulf move so subtly, and in such human ways, that moviegoers may be forgiven for occasionally forgetting that they're not watching human actors.

Of course, it's hard to forget this when the screen is filled with demons and dragons. Though there are plenty of human moments, and the film is about relationships as much as heroics, it moves at a breakneck pace from one battle to the next. Whatever downtime there is only allows the audience to marvel at the visuals. The effects work here is so crisp and vibrant, that it'd be worth seeing even if the characters weren't doing anything noteworthy.

But, of course, they are. Based (and I use that word very loosely here) on the epic 8th century poem of the same name, Beowulf follows a man (also of the same name) who ventures to Denmark to rid King Hrothgar (Anthony Hopkins) and his kingdom of a fearsome demon named Grendel (Crispin Glover). Grendel is massively tall, outrageously strong, and hideous to behold. He appears to be falling apart, which has the unfortunate side effect of exposing his eardrums. This means that the boisterous "merrymaking" of Hrothgar and his men is unbearable to him, and he ventures down from his cave in the mountains to put a stop to it.

This leads to the first of several brutal battles. Though the goriest events are shown in silhouette, there's a great deal of blood, and some of it looks quite convincing. If you didn't know you were watching a PG-13 movie, you probably wouldn't have guessed it. Zemeckis seems to have pulled a fast one on the MPAA, who have allowed a good deal of violence and yes, even nudity, to escape an R-rating, presumably because it's technically animated. Such distinctions are nearly meaningless at this level of technological precision, however, and we're surely headed for a serious debate as to whether or not reality and photorealism should be treated any differently from a ratings standpoint.

Most of the performances are strong enough to show through their digital coating. Ray Winstone is suitably gruff and confident as the title character, and Robin Wright Penn is discerning and vulnerable as Queen Wealthow. Some of the characters (Angelina Jolie as Grendel's mother, most notably) look almost exactly like their performers, but some simply feel like them. Winstone looks very little like Beowulf, for the most part, but he still seems to inhabit him. The same is true of John Malkovich, as Unferth, King Hrothgar's advisor.

Given the genuinely exhilarating action and tremendous visual spectacle, Beowulf is likely to be compared to 300, and there's little doubt that the former will appeal to fans of the latter. It's a good deal smarter, however, and touches on themes of power, temptation and regret that may sail over the heads of those looking for a Ritalin substitute.

All in all, Beowulf will not, one would hope, become the definitive modern version of the tale. What it may become, however, is the first film to demonstrate that digital performances can work on a genuinely human level.




do you know that this movie have already a game version.,



do you know that this movie have already a game version.,
That's very cool then! I have yet to see this movie.. maybe this weekend..



I hope you will enjoy the movie., very much.,



Are there any oily nekkid people with chiseled bodies in it? :\
Yep. Beowulf fights Grendel in the nude (though a certain area of his is always obscured by something) for several minutes, and Grendel's mother (Jolie) emerges from the water covered by what resembles gold body paint in just a few select spots.

And while it may be crude to raise the issue, it seems inevitable to me that, as this technology becomes cheaper and more available, the pornographic industry is going to get ahold of it within a couple of decades. I'd even venture to say that some sort of landmark court case about a celebrity's likeness is unavoidable down the line. But I digress.



And while it may be crude to raise the issue, it seems inevitable to me that, as this technology becomes cheaper and more available, the pornographic industry is going to get ahold of it within a couple of decades. I'd even venture to say that some sort of landmark court case about a celebrity's likeness is unavoidable down the line. But I digress.
Hell yes.
__________________
MOVIE TITLE JUMBLE
New jumble is two words: balesdaewrd
Previous jumble goes to, Mrs. Darcy! (gdknmoifoaneevh - Kingdom of Heaven)
The individual words are jumbled then the spaces are removed. PM the answer to me. First one with the answer wins.



Did you see the normal version or the 3D one ? I usually hate 3D movies - because of the headache inducing blue and red glasses , and because i already wear glasses .
__________________



meatwad, have you seen any of the recent "digital 3-D" movies? I've seen some of the older ones like Sharkboy & Lavagirl and some of the more recent ones like Meet the Robinsons and the recent re-release of Nightmare Before Christmas. I think the 3-D effects have gotten a lot better on those newer ones. It still gets a little weird-looking when objects are moving really fast but other than that it's a pretty cool effect. Looking forward to this one.



meatwad, have you seen any of the recent "digital 3-D" movies? I've seen some of the older ones like Sharkboy & Lavagirl and some of the more recent ones like Meet the Robinsons and the recent re-release of Nightmare Before Christmas. I think the 3-D effects have gotten a lot better on those newer ones. It still gets a little weird-looking when objects are moving really fast but other than that it's a pretty cool effect. Looking forward to this one.
Do the newer 3D movies use the red and blue glasses ? I remember seeing a short muppets movie in 3D with clear (or possible white and gray) glasses



Do the newer 3D movies use the red and blue glasses ? I remember seeing a short muppets movie in 3D with clear (or possible white and gray) glasses
No, they do use glasses but the two newer ones I've gone too ('Robinsons' and 'Nightmare') used a different sort of tinted lense while 'Sharkboy' used those older red-blue foil glasses. I'm not sure what the technical differences are but both new ones I've seen have used the 3-D effect in a much more substantial way, especially 'Robinsons'. I have high hopes for Beowulf. I'm also kind of curious to know how the 3-D and IMAX versions stack up.



Sorry, I saw the normal version. There were some IMAX 3D showings around, but they weren't as convenient.

I saw The Nightmare Before Christmas in 3D recently and was underwhelmed by the technology. It was decent, and kind of fun, but some of it felt a bit tacked-on. I noticed a few instances during Beowulf, however, which seemed particularly well-suited to 3D. Based on that, as well as a 3D preview before The Nightmare Before Christmas, I'm thinking maybe the effect is much better when you're watching a featured created with 3D in mind.



Yikes, when I saw that in a quote box I read it through like it was an extract from a real review site and nothing about it flagged that it was amateur.

I only twigged when I scrolled back to the top to click the link to read *your* review and it was the same one.

I'm not brown-nosing, I'm just amazed. Excellent work all the same.




I'm not brown-nosing, I'm just amazed. Excellent work all the same.


Have some tissue...







__________________
“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton



I saw The Nightmare Before Christmas in 3D recently and was underwhelmed by the technology. It was decent, and kind of fun, but some of it felt a bit tacked-on. I noticed a few instances during Beowulf, however, which seemed particularly well-suited to 3D. Based on that, as well as a 3D preview before The Nightmare Before Christmas, I'm thinking maybe the effect is much better when you're watching a featured created with 3D in mind.
Yeah, as you point out Nightmare Before Christmas wasn't made to exploit the 3-D. I still thought they did a pretty good job with the FX there (though it certainly helped that the film had really spooky and exaggerated architectural features to begin with) but nowhere near as well as Meet the Robinsons. That one the 3-D effect was much more subtle and pervasively applied to to the environment. The movie wasn't that great but was worth seeing on the big screen just for that. I'm hoping Beowulf is similarly impressive.