"Beowulf"

email this story
read comments (65)
post a comment

Robert Zemeckis's Beowulf is an exceptional film on its own terms, but the 3-D version I saw last night is, no exaggeration, something close to stupendous. Which naturally makes me regret having passed along an idiotic negative comment (originating from some Hollywood Foreign Press guy) last Wednesday. I'm not going to run a "review" until 11.12, but I have to at least correct the impression that this earlier item instilled, so I'm going to run portions of an e-mail I sent this morning to Beowulf exec producer and co-screenwriter Roger Avary.

"I'm not a huge fan of this type of film -- animated sword-brandishing brawny heroes on mighty steeds fighting dragons, etc. -- but Beowulf is really and truly something else. For me it's a new permutation of movie thrills along with an underlying adult intrigue -- a sense of spiritual complexity and even existential angst -- that fortifies thematically.

"I found it far more exciting and complex in every respect than 300, a homoerotic meathead flick that I pretty much hated. Beowulf, however, is a fascinating story about a hero with feet of clay made into the most visually arresting and exciting adventure of this type I've ever seen.

"I was open-mouthed with awe at the amazing clarity of the 3-D aspects alone. Did Zemeckis really say that 'to call performance-capture animation is a disservice to the great animators'? Is he nuts? This film is obviously animated through and through. It deserves the Best Feature Animation Oscar, bar none. I don't care what anyone says -- this is not live-action except in the most rudimentary sense of the physical acting aspects, which represent, in my view, a relatively small portion of the whole.

"If the Academy committee decides against qualifying Beowulf for the Best Feature Animation Oscar it at least deserves some kind of special Oscar for having moved the 3-D form forward to a vivid and spectacular new place. The 3-D is the absolute best I've ever seen, bar none. Light fills every corner of the screen, no soft or murky edge elements, wondrously sharp focus. What's the precise name of the 3-D process exactly? It's a definite improvement -- far and away the best quality 3-D these eyes have ever beheld.

"The only thing that doesn't quite work are the galloping horses -- their forward movement lacks the fluidity and the biological muscular complexity of actual steeds.

"I'm amazed this we were shown the PG-13 version. It seemed kind of R-ish because of the dripping wet hot-bod Angelina scenes and two or three other sexual-content moments."

"Tech aspects aside, Beowulf is much, much better than I expected. I thought I'd be slightly bored from wading through the usual dead spots a la 300 or the Rings trilogy...not! You and Neil Gaiman have written a very sharp, well-structured script that gets right down to it. No dullish exposition, no narrative flab, no philosophical geek-movie bullshit. Plus I love that it doesn't fully explain the curse to the idiots in the audience.

"I was forced to read 'Beowulf' in ninth grade, and of course I paid as little attention as possible. I now realize it's a very powerful and unusual story."

Footnote: The vast majority of US theatres are going to show it flat, of course, but just under a thousand screens will be showing it in 3-D -- the largest 3-D opening in history. No excuses, no evasions...it's absolutely essential to see it in 3-D. "Flat" is for flatheads.

Cristian Mungiu interview<< previous | next >>Morris and Herzog

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on November 3, 2007 at 10:23 AM

comment #1

Ian Sinclair says ...

"Flat is for flatheads!" Brilliant!

Nice piece, Jeff!

Posted by Ian Sinclair at November 3, 2007 11:19 AM

comment #2

EDouglas says ...

There's so many possible comments/responses/jokes but there's so little time, so I'll just say...

FIRST!!!!

Posted by EDouglas at November 3, 2007 11:22 AM

comment #3

EDouglas says ...

Damn you, Ian Sinclair. Damn you.

Posted by EDouglas at November 3, 2007 11:23 AM

comment #4

JD says ...

I can't recall, Jeff, did you see The Polar Express in 3D? I was pretty amazed by that (in spite of the shittiness of the movie) so I'm wondering how far beyond that presentation this 3D goes. And what's the current status of the R and/or NC-17 version? Do we have to wait for DVD?

Posted by JD at November 3, 2007 11:24 AM

comment #5

Devin Faraci says ...

Jeff, the movie actually wildly diverges from the original poem once Beowulf meets Grendel's Mother.

Posted by Devin Faraci at November 3, 2007 11:26 AM

comment #6

Ian Sinclair says ...

The third act is directly from the poem though.

Posted by Ian Sinclair at November 3, 2007 11:29 AM

comment #7

Devin Faraci says ...

No it's not.

Posted by Devin Faraci at November 3, 2007 11:40 AM

comment #8

Ian Sinclair says ...

I have a copy of Seamus Heaney's translation right here. Yup, dragon.

Posted by Ian Sinclair at November 3, 2007 11:44 AM

comment #9

bmcintire says ...

I'm shocked at this. After having viewed the sea monster footage a few days ago, I had written this thing off. The movement looked terrible, and the narration (it sounded like Ray Winstone was channeling Bob Hoskins from WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT) was screechingly bad. Does this footage (as presented) not appear in the actual film? I'd have a difficult time judging any movie with a scene like that as "good."

http://screenrant.com/archives/new-beowulf-footage-uh-oh-1116.html

Posted by bmcintire at November 3, 2007 11:44 AM

comment #10

Devin Faraci says ...

Yes, it has a dragon. Every detail is changed. You haven't seen the movie, so you obviously have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.

bmcintire, in that scene Beowulf is spinning a bullshit story about fighting sea monsters. It's supposed to be over the top. It works in context.

Posted by Devin Faraci at November 3, 2007 11:49 AM

comment #11

Ian Sinclair says ...

"You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, as usual."

I have the screenplay right here, dickhead. And you are the cluless cretin who said Beowulf would be crap and insulted me in the process. Now you can kiss my ass, dick and balls. When you're done with that, you can go and fuck yourself.

Posted by Ian Sinclair at November 3, 2007 11:54 AM

comment #12

Crow T Robot says ...

"I'm not going to run a "review" until 11.12, but I have to at least correct the impression that this earlier item instilled, so I'm going to run portions of an e-mail I sent this morning to Beowulf exec producer and co-screenwriter Roger Avary."

So you're not going to run a ""review"" (note the double quotes) but you are going to let us know what you think of the film in 10 paragraph of detail?

Now that was Poland-esque.

Posted by Crow T Robot at November 3, 2007 11:57 AM

comment #13

BNick says ...

Cool....this was kind of low on my must-see list but Jeff's thoughts have moved it up.

I'd also add that the marketing for this film has been great. In NYC, the subway posters look top notch and the TV ads I've seen are basically framing it as a "300"-type film, which is obviously smart considering the megabucks that movie brought in.

I've resisted reading the poem because I want to be surprised going in, so I can't add much to the discussion of plot changes.

Posted by BNick at November 3, 2007 12:02 PM

comment #14

Devin Faraci says ...

You have the script and the poem in front of you? Can you point out where in the poem:

SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS

Beowulf fucks Grendel's Mother

Beowulf becomes the king of Denmark

Hrothgar kills himself

The dragon is Beowulf's son

That's just a couple of the MAJOR changes. So yes, there is a dragon in the third act. And a guy named Beowulf kills it. But every aspect surrounding it is changed in major ways. It's like saying the end of Kubrick's THE SHINING is the same as Stephen King's because Jack dies, despite the incredibly huge differences.

Posted by Devin Faraci at November 3, 2007 12:02 PM

comment #15

Ian Sinclair says ...

Due to the vast stretch of Beowulf's life that seperates the two major events it was Neil Gaiman's idea to link the last part of the poem with the previous events (it was why Avery brought him on board) and I think it worked.

Posted by Ian Sinclair at November 3, 2007 12:08 PM

comment #16

Devin Faraci says ...

I didn't say it didn't work. I said you were an idiot for saying that the third act is the same as in the poem. I don't believe you have the script at all.

Posted by Devin Faraci at November 3, 2007 12:11 PM

comment #17

Ian Sinclair says ...

I posted that spoiler on IMDB a month ago.

Posted by Ian Sinclair at November 3, 2007 12:12 PM

comment #18

Devin Faraci says ...

Gaiman and Avery said all of that at Comic Con this summer. You're a tragic liar.

Posted by Devin Faraci at November 3, 2007 12:16 PM

comment #19

Ian Sinclair says ...

I have never been to a Comic Con in my life. You're the geek who writes for CHUD. I am married, have clear skin and have never been overweight.

Posted by Ian Sinclair at November 3, 2007 12:18 PM

comment #20

John Y says ...

Jeff, you saw the Digital 3D version and not the IMAX 3D version, right? I wonder how the two 3D versions compare to each other.

Posted by John Y at November 3, 2007 12:21 PM

comment #21

p.Vice says ...

Dear Roger,

I am kneeling. Please present thy ass to your faithful servent so he might kiss it with extraordinary tenderness and care.

Love,
Jeffrey

P.S. I hope you don't mind if I "disclose" our little tryst to my readers as a way of sneakily breaking my review embargo.

Posted by p.Vice at November 3, 2007 12:23 PM

comment #22

MAGGA says ...

OMG! That sea monster-footage was the most hillariously crap scene I have seen in weeks! Anyway, I MAY see this because of my previous love for Zemeckis and this positive review, but I can not for the life of me see what this film has to offer. Hoping to be proved wrong, though

Posted by MAGGA at November 3, 2007 12:28 PM

comment #23

dre says ...

Can Aan and Devin get their own public access show please??

Posted by dre at November 3, 2007 12:40 PM

comment #24

dre says ...

whoops...*Ian

Posted by dre at November 3, 2007 12:42 PM

comment #25

MovieBob says ...

"This film is obviously animated through and through. It deserves the Best Feature Animation Oscar, bar none. I don't care what anyone says -- this is not live-action except in the most rudimentary sense of the physical acting aspects, which represent, in my view, a relatively small portion of the whole."

This whole issue has been on it's way to being a problem since mo-cap first became a viable tool; and it's going to continue to be a problem until they figure out just how to classify it.

Thing is, it's entirely reasonable for animators to feel sleighted at having to compete against material like this - how would you like to have spent two years figuring out EXACTLY how to mimic through animation the precise movement of a humanoid character and then be overlooked for a similar feat that was accomplished by hooking some actor up to the mo-cap suit?

It's ALSO entirely reasonable for actors to be worried on the other side. Say Winstone got nominated for this - would it really be fair for him to win due (innevitably / at least in part) to The Academy's amazement at the tranisition from young to old Beowulf when a big part of that work was done by the character designers/animators.

If this really is good enough to go all the way, give it a Special Oscar or two and then figure out what to do about it. I've been saying (to anyone who cares or'll listen - i.e. not many) ever since Andy Serkis was passed over twice for LOTR (he should've won) that the only fair way to do this is to create a seperate category for "effects assisted acting" or something to that effect - maybe split it up between "digital" and "physical" effects to cover this AND stuff like Hellboy.

Posted by MovieBob at November 3, 2007 12:43 PM

comment #26

D.Z. says ...

Anyone "forced" to read Beowulf shouldn't be trashing 300 and LOTR, because they come from the same literary mold.

Posted by D.Z. at November 3, 2007 12:51 PM

comment #27

gruver1 says ...

Wels to John Y: I saw the IMAX 3-D version.

Posted by gruver1 at November 3, 2007 12:53 PM

comment #28

KevinTC says ...

"Anyone 'forced' to read Beowulf shouldn't be trashing 300 and LOTR, because they come from the same literary mold."

Um... what? One's an epic poem from the first century, LOTR is a modern fantasy, but hardly from the same 'mold' as Beowulf, and 300 is a fucking comic book less than a decade old. I think it's safe to say one could reasonably trash or dislike one, two, all, or none of these and not be...what? A hypocrite? What a weird, lame argument.

Posted by KevinTC at November 3, 2007 1:26 PM

comment #29

Devin Faraci says ...

Tolkein made his academic bones writing about BEOWULF. The poem was a major influence on him.

Posted by Devin Faraci at November 3, 2007 1:42 PM

comment #30

mutinyco says ...

Same review pretty much everywhere...

1) Visuals are absolutely astonishing!

2) Movie itself is good, but not great.

3) But those visuals are absolutely astonishing!

Posted by mutinyco at November 3, 2007 1:48 PM

comment #31

Luke Y. Thompson says ...

how would you like to have spent two years figuring out EXACTLY how to mimic through animation the precise movement of a humanoid character and then be overlooked for a similar feat that was accomplished by hooking some actor up to the mo-cap suit?

Probably the same way I would have if I'd studied stop-motion for two years and then saw Jurassic Park.

Or, to describe something that actually happened to me...Spent four years at film school where I learned how to hand-splice super-8 and edit on VHS tapes, only to have both formats become basically obsolete as film-making tools shortly thereafter.

Technology moves on. What if someone tried to insist that animation had to be something that was drawn by hand, period? Ray Harryhausen couldn't call the effects in his early films "animation" because people thought that way at the time.

Posted by Luke Y. Thompson at November 3, 2007 2:36 PM

comment #32

christian says ...

Well, well, Wells...now I'm excited.

Posted by christian at November 3, 2007 3:29 PM

comment #33

frankbooth says ...

As of yesterday, I wasn't seriously considering seeing this. Now I am.

On the other hand: remember the Maine, remember the Alamo, and above all, remember the Kong.

Posted by frankbooth at November 3, 2007 4:13 PM

comment #34

D.Z. says ...

Kevin: "One's an epic poem from the first century, LOTR is a modern fantasy, but hardly from the same 'mold' as Beowulf, and 300 is a fucking comic book less than a decade old."

I'm talking about the same approach to oration.

Posted by D.Z. at November 3, 2007 4:36 PM

comment #35

Dan Revill says ...

DZ. You make my head hurt.

Posted by Dan Revill at November 3, 2007 4:44 PM

comment #36

adorian says ...

Why doesn't Beowulf have any body hair? Do we think he shaved like a collegiate swimmer or plucked like a Houston drag queen?

Posted by adorian at November 3, 2007 4:48 PM

comment #37

jeffmcm says ...

Ian Sinclair is well-known to be a liar, so anything he says can be discounted. Also, a simple look at his Myspace page shows that he may not be overweight but he is bald.

Posted by jeffmcm at November 3, 2007 5:47 PM

comment #38

Ian Sinclair says ...

He is? News to me. Of course, there are those who would say that it is better to be a fat, bald, toothless, club-footed, broke, near-sighted, deaf, dumb, blind, stupid, halitosis-suffering, flea-ridden, pigeon-toed, coprophiliactic, bipolar midget living in a septic tank than to be that pompous blowhard and well-known masturbator to torture-porn that is jeffmcm. And they would be right.

Posted by Ian Sinclair at November 3, 2007 6:12 PM

comment #39

malibugigolo says ...

Did any of you clowns catch "Our Man in Havana" on TMC earlier today?

God, what a movie.

The chess "match"

The way Carol Reed frame each scene that obtuse sight line. Magic.
I was off Mr. Reed after I saw The Fallen Idol in a theatre last year, but but Sir Alec...what a fucking movie.

Cinema!

Ian Sinclair did you see it?

Posted by malibugigolo at November 3, 2007 6:34 PM

comment #40

Ian Sinclair says ...

No, but I know it very well, Mali, and am often reminded of it when I see an upright vacuum cleaner. Incidentally, did you know Noel Cowerd was up for the role of Harry Lime? I would love to see The Fallen Idol again, and it must be ten years since I last saw The Heart of the Matter, which apparently Criterion are working on even as we type.

Posted by Ian Sinclair at November 3, 2007 6:41 PM

comment #41

le corbeau says ...

You don't like The Fallen Idol? Richardson's fantastic. I miss him more than any of the other Sirs, mainly for two great throwaway lines delivered in querulous old age:

"Do try not to die like a dog."

"I am the Supreme Being, I'm not entirely dim."

Points to anyone who can name both. I know you can name the second one.

Posted by le corbeau at November 3, 2007 6:43 PM

comment #42

malibugigolo says ...

Ian,

I haven't looked it up (pure Anglo ego) but was that Mr. Greene in one scene when he tells Alec about how he will be poisoned? (and then the dog and the carrots, man I loved it)... Fallen Idol is sort of like that new Sean Penn movie, yeah adults lie a good short story, a ok 1st act to a movie...but then both movies.....drag..on...and on...and on...

Posted by malibugigolo at November 3, 2007 6:45 PM

comment #43

Ian Sinclair says ...

Mgmax: O Lucky Man and Time bandits.

Posted by Ian Sinclair at November 3, 2007 6:46 PM

comment #44

Don Murphy says ...

Devin

Why not?

Posted by Don Murphy at November 3, 2007 6:57 PM

comment #45

malibugigolo says ...

Marty was supposed to do
The Heart of the Matter
But he hired some HACK writer to do it.

This was before Marty lost his soul....(around 3 years ago)

I still indulge in some pink gin like Scobie just because that book told what tragedy was...

Posted by malibugigolo at November 3, 2007 6:59 PM

comment #46

Ian Sinclair says ...

I love a Bombay Sapphire and tonic. But back in Blightly they call gin "mother's ruin." The girls who drink it always end up sitting on the stairs at parties, crying their eyes out.

Posted by Ian Sinclair at November 3, 2007 7:02 PM

comment #47

malibugigolo says ...

Boodles?

Good on ya' Ian.

I prefer Bombay clear.
What's a book I should check out?

Posted by malibugigolo at November 3, 2007 7:04 PM

comment #48

Ian Sinclair says ...

Mali: try Charles Cummings' "A Spy By Nature", a very good first novel, a touch of Greene, a lot of LeCarre. For non-fiction try "Agent Zigzag" by Ben Macintyre, a first-class true-life WWII yarn.

Posted by Ian Sinclair at November 3, 2007 7:10 PM

comment #49

malibugigolo says ...

Thanks. I'm on it.

I told Wells about this book. Got no response. Whatever.

GOMORRAH by Roberto Saviano.
Amazing.
I dated a girl in US publishing and had to sit through a meal at the Union Sqaure cafe just for this galley.

Posted by malibugigolo at November 3, 2007 7:15 PM

comment #50

malibugigolo says ...

Nada was great by the way. Why didn't you like it?

Posted by malibugigolo at November 3, 2007 7:18 PM

comment #51

Ian Sinclair says ...

Nada? Didn't like the translation. My wife loves it, though: thought I'd told you that. I'm trusting you on the translation for GOMORRAH - I've just ordered it from Amazon.

Posted by Ian Sinclair at November 3, 2007 7:23 PM

comment #52

malibugigolo says ...

And I have ordered Agent Zigzag!

Reading the galley of ORDINARY SPY by Joseph Weisberg

Ok, so far....

Enjoy your weekend.
I'm going a screening of Love in the Time of Cholera this week. Can't wait!

Posted by malibugigolo at November 3, 2007 7:55 PM

comment #53

malibugigolo says ...

Oh also , A View of the Ocean by De Hartog

good, too!

Posted by malibugigolo at November 3, 2007 7:57 PM

comment #54

PerfectTommy says ...

So Wells, Is Beowulf a better film than Ratatouille?

Posted by PerfectTommy at November 3, 2007 8:00 PM

comment #55

malibugigolo says ...

Pete Hammond IS Grendel

Posted by malibugigolo at November 3, 2007 8:07 PM

comment #56

StewartforPresident says ...

Ian and Mali, why don't you two just fuck and get it over with already, seriously.

Posted by StewartforPresident at November 3, 2007 9:48 PM

comment #57

nemo says ...

"Do try not to die like a dog."

O Lucky Man.

"I am the Supreme Being, I'm not entirely dim."

Time Bandits.

The Fallen Idol is excellent, especially the snake. Can't believe I'd never heard of it before this past year.

Posted by nemo at November 3, 2007 11:34 PM

comment #58

christian says ...

Who the fuck is Robert?

Posted by christian at November 4, 2007 11:19 AM

comment #59

Howlingman says ...

"Robert" must be Zemeckis.

bigfan808 is a spammer. I'm sure they will be dealt with, though it would have been amusing if they'd written, "Can't wait to see the movie! I am Beowulf's big fan! Is Beowulf single again?"

Posted by Howlingman at November 4, 2007 11:24 AM

comment #60

PerfectTommy says ...

Some think Beowulf has a shot at being nominated for the Best Picture Oscar; those same people insist the film must be seen in Imax 3-D. Many academy voters (because of busy schedules or laziness) depend on DVD screeners.

Posted by PerfectTommy at November 4, 2007 12:08 PM

comment #61

Enoch S. Shapiro says ...

That's a horse of a different color. First, it would have to be ruled inelegible by the Animation branch, but hey, there's no locks for Best Picture so far so if it makes a bundle and gets good reviews (which it looks like it's getting already) then why not? Wasn't the first Star Wars nominated? And Raiders of the Lost Ark? Beowulf sounds like that sort of movie to me.

Posted by Enoch S. Shapiro at November 4, 2007 1:25 PM

comment #62

GLee2112 says ...

Some of you guys are worse than the nerds over at AICN.

Posted by GLee2112 at November 5, 2007 9:55 AM

comment #63

Spicer says ...

Star Wars and Raiders would never get nominated for Best Picture today. They are not serious enough. The Academy seems to have a narrower and narrower view of what films it should honor.

Posted by Spicer at November 5, 2007 11:18 AM

comment #64