This is a lame attempt to bring the legend of Beowulf to the big screen, this flick is a bad television show at its best.My advice is don't buy it!Go and buy the 1999 version with Christopher Lambert in the leading role! He really does honor to the name of Beowulf and the adaptation of the poem is inovative and apealing!
shareThis movie sucked!! Absolutely sucked! The F-word was uttered about every ten seconds, that whole thing with the witch-whore was totally bogus and unnecissary, Hrothgar didn't do anything wrong, and it had a negative light on Christianity.
The book was good. It was so much better than the movie. I mean it was so much cooler to have suer-human Beowulf pull of the HUGE and terrible Grendel's arm. The witch part was the stuppidest thing ever. She had absolutely no reason to be in the movie. That whole thing with her and Grendel was obnoxiously nasty and just plain wrong.
If the epic is so good why do people go and change it? I was thoroughly disappointed.
I agree 100%. It seems to me like the filmmakers just decided to 'update' the story to 'todays' standards' by throwing in sex and vulgar language, and somehow making the whole 'eye for an eye' thing justifiable. This movie was dissapointing from beginning to end. I couldn't even watch the whole damn thing... I quit around the sea bitch.
shareMore Beowulf adaptions? Try "The 13:th Warrior", starring Antonio Banderas as the arab who becomes the 13:th member of a band of norsemen. The party leaders´ name is "Buliwyf" and the enemy "wendol".
They script-writers play around some with the saga, but in all not a bad adaption. Plus you get to see another swedish actor, Sven Wollter, an king Hrothgar (though it is a minor role in that film).
It is actually a mix of a genuine script by an arab man from the middle ages who met a band of vikings at the river Volga, and the old Beowulf saga. Not an oscar winner perhaps, but well spent rental money at least.
No mao mi ao å lima.
What is about certain people that they can't believe ancient peoples didn't swear or have sex? They've been present since time immemorial, so to include them only adds to the realism. If you have a problem with it, then say it's your problem rather than ascribing it to inaccuracy.
Oh, and the Danes lived by the eye-for-an-eye creed as Christianity (as evidenced in the film) was just being introduced. Look up the culture and you'll see that's how they functioned.
Or read the poem, whichever you prefer.
Oh come on now. Beowulf and his men are mercenaries and you don't expect them to swear and have/talk about sex? They were just portrayed more realistically, that's all.
shareI don't think it totally sucked, but they shouldn't have called it Beowulf, shoudl have called it 'Beowulf Revisisted' or something. The whole mamby-pamby 'Oh, poor Grendel, he's been wronged, maybe I shouldnt kill him' thing was absolutely pathetic and way too Hollywood.
The witch wasn't even in the original story - why did they need to put her in, and give her a north american accent? Jsut rip out every scene with her, and it would improve the movie tremendously.
F- bombs - well, in reality these guys probably cursed a lot, they were warriors after all. And it is obvious they aren't following the text totally literally.
And why they had explanations for everything but Grendel's mother is beyond me. I knew the story, so I knew that was Grendel's mother, but anyone not familiar had no idea and called her 'Seahag' instead. Not only that, when he couldn't kill with his sword, but somehow he killed her with the next swipe was never really explained.
Will there be a sequel? When Grendel's half-witch, 1/4 ogre son traverses the sea and starts harrasing Wiglaf?
Who's Wiglaf you say? Never heard of him? That's because the last part of the original story was left out of this production. If they had taken out the unnecessary bits and additional crap the Hollywood writers thought was necessary, they would have had time for the last part of the story.
this *beep* peice of *beep* is one of the worst films i have ever watch, the very pinacle of *beep* boring. It should have been called 'Beowulf the fag who never swings his sword and when he does he looks like he's incredibly bored, as you the audience will also be, and Grendel the down syndrome stone throning skipping fairy boy'
[deleted]
I personally think this movie sucked. Hrothgar a drunk, whining retard, Grendel a freakin daddy (did NOT need that "making of" scene, by the way...), random Canadian seers... the only good part was Beowulf. Gerard Butler did a magnificent job.
I must admit, I would have a much higher opinion of this movie if I hadn't read the book first. It goes on beyond Grendel's death until Beowulf dies in a battle against a dragon. So to me, the story is unfinished AND misses the best bit of literature I've ever read (Beowulf's death scene).
My advice to you...DO NOT READ THE POEM FIRST!!
[deleted]
No, it's not unfinished. It's just a horrible movie. Everything, the cinematography, the editing, the acting (especially the acting), the direction, every actor having a different accent, even the sound was bad.
Iceland has nice scenery though.
god...reading this thread makes me wonder what kind of pathetic morons are on the other side of the internet typing away.
how can you losers like Christopher Lambert? seriously...
it's like LOOOOOOOOVING Chuck Norris...but you can't even use pop culture satire as an excuse.
he's pathetic. he's like david hasselhoff.
I agree 100%!
Fortezza
in the poem beowulf and his men were pagans weren't they? it's been about 9 years since i've read it, but if they were pagans they surely wouldn't be adhering to christian authority
shareI liked this movie, and can enjoy it even though it didn't follow the poem to the letter. What film does? My only complaint was the sea hag. Though they call him a troll, Grendel can be explained as a throwback or maybe a Neanderthal. It could've been an explaination. But the sea hag was a slice of supernatural that the movie didn't need.
shareThis Grendel was neither -- he looked just like another slightly-bigger-than-average Viking to me. Not a Neanderthal or other race, and certainly not a monster. Just a primitive exile Norseman of maybe an earlier tribe or settlement. Oh, one other thing -- retarded and speech impaired.
BTW, this movie is like something your 5th grade Social Studies teacher might have filmed when visiting the upper Hudson Bay longhouse indians. It was distinctively NOT Norse or Scandinavian. It is among the five worst movies I've ever seen.
And 'cause' never was the reason for the evening,
--Or the Tropic of Sir Galahad.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I was thinking the same thing.. I've not seen the animated version, but i still think it would be far less greater than this movie :)
shareProbably wondering what I'm wondering right now, "There's another version of Beowulf?"
I either forgot or had never heard of this version, much less the Lambert version.
I was wondering what people were talking about when they were mentioning "300" in the same sentence as "Beowulf"? Now I know. "I am Beowulf!"/"This is Sparta!" Wait, I thought that was the animated version!?!
The animated "Beowulf" also used the premise that Grendel is the son of the King. I kinda got the idea that they were the first to think of this angle after seeing the extras on the "Beowulf" DVD. But, I guess not.
[deleted]
Just seen the movie for the first time. I've read the Seamus Heany translation of the poem and loved it, so I came to this with a GREAT amount of trepidation. But I'm utterly converted.
When I saw the trailer and saw that Grendel was no longer a monster but a human-like troll I thought the production had gone off the deep end, and was all set to avoid the movie entirely. My friend, however, convinced me to give it a go, and I'm glad I did.
There are a lot of nods to the poem I know, and the show seems to be doing what the diasterous King Arthur movie of a few years back failed to, which is to find the "basis" for the myth. Not that I'm saying this is trying to present itself as any sort of historically accurate piece docudrama. It is PURE fiction, but brings an emotional depth to the chest-beating propoganda of the poem.
Lush production design on what must have been a very tight budget. Butler and Skarsgard both give warm and convincing performances, and the locations are worth of the Lord of the Rings for their exotic and warped beauty.
Glad I overcame my initial hesitation and gave it the time of day. More movies like this, please!
This Beowulf character sure does bring out that annoying breed of posters that thinks everything is stupid. Usually I don't get involved with posts that call a movie stupid but this film does need a little defending. I rented both versions and compared and although I'm a Chris Lambert from the Highlander movie, his version really did suck. Big Boobed Goth/punked women. Silly under developed male charaters. Super poor editing and production values. While "Beowulf & Gredel" (the newer version) is a cinematic classic in comparison. I really enjoyed it and it made much more sense than the other version. BTW - I never read the poem(s). So I'm not comparing it in relationship to that.
Macklin Crew
Instead of writing an original post that agrees with you, I'll just say you've hit it. I had read the Heany translation and was excited to see this in the theater; glad I did. I felt this movie tried to tell the story in a way that legends could be spawned from it. The poem was written many generations after the "events" and the movie rocks. I'm glad I own it and watch it whenever I meet someone who hasn't seen it.
Good movie making and I agree with earlier posters who realize that warriors of every generation have used foul language and got sex whenever the opportunity came up. The accents don't bother me and I enjoyed seeing a tribe trying to establish a village - who knows, maybe it could have been the beginning of Oslo or other cities.
I think the low budget of the movie enhances the story rather than detracts from it, as the recent cartoon (sic) showed that money does not mean a story is told well. Michael Bay anyone?
I think if people don't like the movie they probably don't "get" the story the director was trying to tell.
Lambert is one of the worst actors working in Hollywood today.....even in his prime he was useless.
"It's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it"
wait you think that the FUTURISTC christopher lambert movie "Beowulf" is better?
the original , first of all , is set in the past
chris' movies is in the "far future" i saw that movie. it was stupid.. nothing like the poem.. like they actually had all those weapons back then
BEOWULF & GRENDEL and beowulf (2007) are one of the best