I saw Beowulf in the theater, and, quite frankly, I was unimpressed. The story was fairly good, which is quite a feat if you’ve ever read a translation of the original. However, all of that CGI was just kind of crap.
I understand that this was some kind of Breakthrough film and all of that, but it wasn’t a breakthrough that was needed. I’m still not sure why they didn’t just have the actors act and then fill in the bits that wouldn’t work with CGI. After all, one of the cast members has a “Sir” in front of his name, I’m pretty sure he could pull off just about anything that they wanted, and I doubt Sir Anthony would have kept the wooden expression on his face like his CG counterpart did. Those unmoving expressions are what really killed the film for me. I don’t know if this is the case, but I recall their mouths all moving a little like Wallace’s from Wallace and Grommit. Maybe that’s just me.
Of course, Beowulf does have a naked Angelina Jolie dipped in gold. That’s nearly worth the price of admission right there. But then you have to sit through two hours of wooden faces and oddly stressed sentences to get there.
I wish Gaiman would go back to writing comics. Sandman kicked ass. His novels are all excellent, but his films are a little weak. MirrorMask was pretty, but pointless. And Beowulf, had better writing, but wanted too much to be known for its technical prowess. So, head on out to Wal-Mart and take a good long look at the DVD case and remember that face, make sure you like it, because that’s the only one you get in this sucker.
Tune in next time when it’s not my birthday and I’m ranting about something else.

























Amanda | 26-Feb-08 at 3:38 pm | Permalink
But Stardust was really good. It’s not quite the same story that Gaiman wrote in the novel, but it’s an amazing story on screen nonetheless.
Tom | 27-Feb-08 at 4:21 am | Permalink
Frankly, I quite liked the movie. It was well made and entertaining….