Beowulf

Some of the animation looks pretty good in this some looks really bad. When I first saw some of the early stills I actually had to get close to notice the computer graphics, however there are some other moments where it just looks so bad, like the horses running and the fire on the bridge.

On another note, I have not seen this but after watching the red band trailer and just reading peoples responses this film feels much more like it deserved an R rating rather then the PG-13-you're thoughts?
 
It definitely pushes the boundaries of PG-13, not only in the violence but the sexual content, a lot of innuendo and scantily clad bodies.
 
If it wasn't animated, there's no way it would have gotten a PG-13. Even as it was, it was definitely pushing things.

I saw it Thursday night in Dolby 3-D (2k projection). The 3-D was fantastic. The one thing I found distracting at first was that objects were flying toward you, and off the sides or top and bottom of the screen couldn't come nearly far enough toward you, as the screen didn't fill enough of the peripheral vision (I wonder what the difference here is with IMAX 3-D). I also agree that a higher framerate would have really helped out. I'm also of the opinion that in a number of shots, the DOF was too shallow to sell the 3-D.

The story was pretty strong. I'm not familiar with the source material, so I can't comment on that (I've heard that it strays pretty far, though). The middle bit of the story was a bit weak, as others have said.

Overall, a fantastic 3-D experience, especially the dragon fight.
 
I have loved this story since I was a senior in High School "I will shape destiny with Hrunting..."

I am sure that there will be a lot of dramatic license taken with the story...but I ahven't seen it yet. .....so what do I know?
 
traviscool said:
Some of the animation looks pretty good in this some looks really bad. When I first saw some of the early stills I actually had to get close to notice the computer graphics, however there are some other moments where it just looks so bad, like the horses running and the fire on the bridge.
Click to expand...

Yes, the horses scenes look very computer animation (bad), nothing to be compare with other great horse scene from movie like LTR, King Arthur and others.
 
Saw it in an Imax 3D theatre. If you enjoy the experience of watching movies on the big screen you should definitely see this in 3D. I have never had a cinematic experience like this before. I can't for the next one.
 
I saw it on 3D, it was awesome!! I thought it was going to be super cheesy, but it was the most fun i had at the movies since seeing the last Die Hard.

PK - you said that making real people look real by using CG shouldn't be done because it's still "fake". The thing is, movies are inherently fake, even if the people are real, once they enter that camera lens they become fake as well, IMO. I'm all for it, it was fun!

-Tom
 
Just from seeing the trailers, I'd say it pushes the limits. Sure, there are tell-tale signs that it's CG, not real actors--but I actually do think that it fools the eye more than the Final Fantasy stuff and other recent CG films. The lighting seems more dynamically realistic, and the actions more subtle and natural except for the really exaggerated bits (the textures and surface modeling still don't seem quite there, though, especially skintones--but they're more than adequate).

Unlike some of the other films (again only from the trailers, where of course they put the best stuff), what I see here doesn't distract me with the obviousness that it's CG. And that's saying a lot for me. But of course, seeing the whole movie might change my mind on that.

Barring that, the real question for me is whether it tells a good story, well. If it does, then it accomplishes its mission. Toy Story and Monsters, Inc. did that, and their pseudorealism was obviously far below what's becoming possible now. Heck, I liked the animated Hobbit movie for what it was. I just hope that Beowulf hasn't "all about the CG" and actually makes a good movie.
 
Yeah, the fire on the bridge really did look horrible, didn't it? Like something excusible for a video game, but not for a movie.

Thing is, Hollywood has been doing realistic CG fire in movies for the last decade. What gives?
 
Well, the real problem is that this is just a glorified video game with no user interface. :kali:
 
I noticed that at times it totally looks cgi (angelina in the ocean) and other times looked like real life. You guys think that was deliberate or just weakness in the technology?

I really like the movie and found the story solid and added to the original poem in a good way. I wish they hadn't done it with motion capture though. I don't know what they gained using that method.

Angelina's digitally enhanced body. Wasn't it great? If it was my movie I think I woulda filled out her butt a little more though. But still, big improvement over the real AJ. Love those built in spikes.
 
Last edited:
The script absolutely mutilated overblown train-wrecks like Jackson and Walsh's LOTR blandogy.

However, Zemeckis' direction was awful in a few places.

Regardless, it was the strongest Fantasy script I have ever seen on the screen, and Avary and Gaiman should be proud.

Calling this "just another videogame movie" is incredibly short-sighted and baseless, seeing as the weakest aspects of the film were in its slapped together 'action' scenes which, thank gods, were in mercifully short supply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top