Curmudgeon's Chronicle

[  Currently:  ]

So, they've made the mistake of creating a blog feature, have they? Mwah-Ha-Ha...*cough* I've never had a blog (stupid word) before and didn't think I needed one, but then I thought: Why not? A loverly place to vent my old fart feelings and frustrations about the state of S&SF in a vartiety of media.

Since I've just read the post on Beowulf, I'll give you my take on it:

It stinks. It stinks on ice, as a matter of fact. Why you ask? Well, pull up a rock and I'll give you the benefit of my point of view (No,no, don't thank me; I'll bill you... ):

For starters, there is the 're-imagining' as they call it, of the Beowulf legend itself. I havebn't anything against 'borrowing' from other sources. After all, J.R.R. Tolkien himself liberally lifted names places and plotlines from Old English literature and legend. And as has often been pointed out, there are only so many basic plotlines and variations thereof. Yet previously in literature, there has at least been an effort to dress up the old material; with a coat of paint and some shiny chrome doo-dads.

In Beowulf, the film starts by following fairly closely to the basic premise, with the main change being to portray Beowulf as a lying egomaniac with the inability to keep his cock in his pants (loincloth? breeches?) This is 're-magining'??

But I really lost interest when I got a look at Grendel's Mom. It was apparent that the whole thing was an excuse to work out some adolescent MILF (Monster I'd Like to Fuck?) fantasy. If you gotta have that, go google some pokemon porn, fer crissakes.

Really, there's nothing new here. A far better take on this sort of thing was done in Thirteenth Warrior. Or even the little noticed Beowulf and Grendel released some time ago.

But hey, it's a matter of taste right? Others might see it as a legit twist on the tale. So leaving my admittedly biased feelings about the plot aside, let's look at the technical and artistic merits of the film, if any.

As others have noted, the animation is a problem. First, the facial expressions are, to put it kindly, muted. It reminds me of that really bad, blocky 3D computer animation. It would have made better sense to either do live action and digitize in the monsters, or to go completely animated. Either would have led to the willing suspension of disbelief so neccessary for any storytelling. Instead, we are uncomfortably aware of it at all times.

The film managed to take a cast of reasonably competent actors and make them look really, really bad. When Anthony Hopkins saw what his performance had been reduced to, I'll bet he wished he'd really flung himself off of that cliff....

And who decided on the look of Grendel? Either someone salvaged John Hurt's Elephant Man prothesthetic, or the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man managed to sire offspring after the Ghostbusters toasted him...laughable.

And then there's the poor choices made throughout the film in the 'realism' aspect (which I assume was a concern, otherwise why not just animate?) Allow me a single example:

Beowulf in the buff fights Grendel. Beowulf is struck, tossed, and generally thrown through things during the battle, as well as being slid along a rough plank floor. Yet at the end of the battle there is not a single mark nor splinter on him.

Yup, my disbelief is suspended.

It's neither fish nor fowl this movie, and I very much doubt it will make it onto anyone's top 10 list, unless it's a "worst of".

Well, I got that off of my chest. I know I feel better. I'll even be able to skip my Doctor Phil session today. I look happier, don't I?