I thought the nude grendel/beowulf fight was particularly crummy. Sucked at every level.
Beowulf
- Thread starter dvpixl
- Start date
I thought the nude grendel/beowulf fight was particularly crummy. Sucked at every level.
Batutta
Major Contributor
Maybe there will be an uncensored DVD version with his digital shlong whipping around instead of the comic "austin powers" hide and go seek.
StefanHaynes
Well-known member
Conceptually it was interesting. From Raffel's translation:
While complete nudity is a bit of a stretch, I can at least see where they're coming from. The nude, bare-all mythos of Ancient Greece plays nicely into it.Burton Raffel's Beowulf said:
However, they should have taken a cue from Eastern Promises, and just shown it when it needed to be seen. The hide-a-cock was pointless and horribly executed, looking comical when the script demanded solemnness.
On the same note, Grendel's slapsticky "let's-test-the-ragdoll-engine" kung fooey as he tosses man after man randomly across the room was about as much fun to watch as your six-year-old son eating lead paint off the garage door.
The dragon scene was the best battle scene, but it still sucked.
But who really cares? The script was incredible. It really surprised me that Avary co-wrote it, considering his godawful track record. Regardless, it was well-written. And that's really all that matters anyway.
mikkowilson
Steadi-Guru
I just saw this last night.
I'd seen the trailers on TV, but not read anything about it. I went in expecting a live action movie.
About 30 sec into the first shot of the film at the party, i was thinkign to myself how the heavy style looked kinda cool. I commented on the look to my firned I was with, and then added ".. it almost looks animated." His response (after a sudden realisation on his part): "It is."
Pause.
Close stare at the screen.
Pause.
:shocked::shocked: Totally fooled me. Of course as the film progressed, the CG becaame obvious (painfully so, at times). But there where still many moments that had me wondering if there was occasional live-action intercut with the CG. (How's that for a roler reversal!?)
Overall the film looked very good, despiste some issues, such as some female facial charachters beeing a little 'off' (hard to describe how).
I do have to agree with Batutta about this though:
Austin Powers is exactly what it screamed to me too.
A decent enteraining film, but well worth seeing just to see where 3D animation is at today. It was strange how the bits you expected to be CG, looked , CG .. but the bits you expected to look real - for the most part - did!
I wouldn't call it a milstone in GCI, like Jurassic Park, but it's certainly another step forwards in technical development. (regardless of if that's a good thing or not).
- Mikko
I'd seen the trailers on TV, but not read anything about it. I went in expecting a live action movie.
About 30 sec into the first shot of the film at the party, i was thinkign to myself how the heavy style looked kinda cool. I commented on the look to my firned I was with, and then added ".. it almost looks animated." His response (after a sudden realisation on his part): "It is."
Pause.
Close stare at the screen.
Pause.
:shocked::shocked: Totally fooled me. Of course as the film progressed, the CG becaame obvious (painfully so, at times). But there where still many moments that had me wondering if there was occasional live-action intercut with the CG. (How's that for a roler reversal!?)
Overall the film looked very good, despiste some issues, such as some female facial charachters beeing a little 'off' (hard to describe how).
I do have to agree with Batutta about this though:
Austin Powers is exactly what it screamed to me too.
A decent enteraining film, but well worth seeing just to see where 3D animation is at today. It was strange how the bits you expected to be CG, looked , CG .. but the bits you expected to look real - for the most part - did!
I wouldn't call it a milstone in GCI, like Jurassic Park, but it's certainly another step forwards in technical development. (regardless of if that's a good thing or not).
- Mikko
Exactly. I already found FInal Fantasy, the Spirits Within, quite impressive, but this movie really shows how CGI evolved.
However, I must say I still cant find a reason for this movie to be CGI. This was a movie that could be Excelent with real locations, and real flesh and blood acting. As impressive as the motion capture animation was, there's still much lost on the acting of the actors, may it be Anthony Hopkins maneirisms or Angelina Jolie's own charismatic presence.
Last edited:
Mark Harris
Pain in the ass
Well I had no idea creepy rubber people could act so well. I am dying to see the Cherry Orchard done this way. 
I saw this tonight on the IMAX 3-D screen. That 3-D is a trip in itself, and I am glad I did NOT take those bong hits before going.
I loved the Austin Powers bit. Kill, slash, maim, but God forbid you see a nipple or a John Thomas. Just made the whole thing goofy as hell.
But I did have a good time.
I agree with some above, this would have been better with real people in real places, but the big grusome Grendel CGed in ala Gollum.
I saw this tonight on the IMAX 3-D screen. That 3-D is a trip in itself, and I am glad I did NOT take those bong hits before going.
I loved the Austin Powers bit. Kill, slash, maim, but God forbid you see a nipple or a John Thomas. Just made the whole thing goofy as hell.
But I did have a good time.
I agree with some above, this would have been better with real people in real places, but the big grusome Grendel CGed in ala Gollum.
dvpixl
Veteran
finally saw it. was a great movie. I not only enjoyed it but it brought me back to the days of nerdy D&D and other fantasy role playing computer game days. It just had a feeling of being a really really good game and THEN a good movie.
Otherwise, yes, the 3D was a trip.
the Journey 3D looked good too.(shot for 3D- does that mean the DVD will be 3D as well?-is it possible?) ... so that's the future of cinema eh?
but nothing beats the book.
Otherwise, yes, the 3D was a trip.
the Journey 3D looked good too.(shot for 3D- does that mean the DVD will be 3D as well?-is it possible?) ... so that's the future of cinema eh?
but nothing beats the book.
karapetkov
Well-known member
The script sucked and the 3D was inadequate. I'd pretty much prefer to see this as a real film... with a good script.
The script for Predator is based on that legend.
Nevertheless, it was fun to watch. It's a good kids-WOW- movie.
My 2c.
The script for Predator is based on that legend.
Nevertheless, it was fun to watch. It's a good kids-WOW- movie.
My 2c.
mikkowilson
Steadi-Guru
No kidding.
rogar-Shock(DBG):Now that you mention it, I can totally see the resemblance.
- Mikko
karapetkov
Well-known member
No kidding.
Now that you mention it, I can totally see the resemblance.
- Mikko
Yes, I can't remember where I read that. It's not in the imdb trivia [EDIT: it's in the wiki page
].The brothers Thomas [the writers] said that they were obsessed with Norse mythology and the Beowulf story in particular. Gotta check that story out.
It's a well written script and the movie is very good for its genre. Much better than Beowulf...
I mean, remember this line in Beowulf, when the old king says:
"What we need is a hero".
I mean, WTF, I was expecting something much more serious. But it was fun, alright.
Zemeckis is a great director but he missed this time, IMO.
I re-watched Contact recently and... WHOA, perfect!, so smart.
Last edited:
StefanHaynes
Well-known member
Odd, I adored Gaiman and Avary's script. See my post at the bottom of page 6, and on page 7.
Last edited:
karapetkov
Well-known member
Well, Predator is also full of nonsense and crappy Hollywood stuff.
The whole sequence when the platoon destroys the guerrilla camp is unrealistic and there are a lot of typical Hollywood nonsense lines and moments, but hey... it's a Hollywood movie...
I'm really fond of this movie, maybe because of my childhood. When I first watched it, I couldn't sleep for a week and it still scares me. That's why I like it and analyze it, because the ability to inspire fear.
Fear is good. It's the most sought-after thing for audiences, second only to laughter, which is a good fact.
I particularly like how the suspense is built in Predator. And also the Antagonist - very well crafted visually by Stan Winston, to incorporate the archetypal character of the hunter.
In terms of anthropology and cultural specifics, they've managed to create a character, which could visually strike audiences from different cultures.
Notice the main hunter's character in Apocalypto? The chief of the squad, whose son got killed by Jaguar Paw?
Identical archetype, the Predator and the chief Hunter in Apocalypto even look alike.
Archetypal characters. Nice. But depends on the story. Vogler, Campbell, Jung...
There are other similar things between the 2 movies - the waterfall leaps?
The whole visual style is identical and I like it very, very much - raw, visceral, naturalistic colors and lighting.
The "cooler" the antagonist, the more successful the story. Hitchcock said that. The antagonist creates the story.
In Predator, the Antagonist is invisible almost till the end. The audience finish the picture in their heads.
And another Hitchcock principle - if there has to be violence in a picture [and I can't think of Hitchcock movie which doesn't have violence] start with a lot of striking violence and then gradually decrease it - the audience's imagination finishes it and they're scared as hell ... Well, at least in theory...
Another good example - The Blair Witch Project - a tutorial in suspense.
I was expecting something more like Excalibur from Beowulf but, alas...
3D is not there yet.
The whole sequence when the platoon destroys the guerrilla camp is unrealistic and there are a lot of typical Hollywood nonsense lines and moments, but hey... it's a Hollywood movie...
I'm really fond of this movie, maybe because of my childhood. When I first watched it, I couldn't sleep for a week and it still scares me. That's why I like it and analyze it, because the ability to inspire fear.
Fear is good. It's the most sought-after thing for audiences, second only to laughter, which is a good fact.
I particularly like how the suspense is built in Predator. And also the Antagonist - very well crafted visually by Stan Winston, to incorporate the archetypal character of the hunter.
In terms of anthropology and cultural specifics, they've managed to create a character, which could visually strike audiences from different cultures.
Notice the main hunter's character in Apocalypto? The chief of the squad, whose son got killed by Jaguar Paw?
Identical archetype, the Predator and the chief Hunter in Apocalypto even look alike.
Archetypal characters. Nice. But depends on the story. Vogler, Campbell, Jung...
There are other similar things between the 2 movies - the waterfall leaps?
The whole visual style is identical and I like it very, very much - raw, visceral, naturalistic colors and lighting.
The "cooler" the antagonist, the more successful the story. Hitchcock said that. The antagonist creates the story.
In Predator, the Antagonist is invisible almost till the end. The audience finish the picture in their heads.
And another Hitchcock principle - if there has to be violence in a picture [and I can't think of Hitchcock movie which doesn't have violence
] start with a lot of striking violence and then gradually decrease it - the audience's imagination finishes it and they're scared as hell ... Well, at least in theory...Another good example - The Blair Witch Project - a tutorial in suspense.
I was expecting something more like Excalibur from Beowulf but, alas...
3D is not there yet.