Pajiba

I loathe - LOATHE! - Beowulf. Its age and infamy for being the first story in the English language (that we're aware of) has contributed to its longevity, not the quality of the story. And, perhaps, the fact that men love stories of men fighting monsters, real or imagined, no matter how shitty the plot. At any rate, I have no desire to see Angelina as a cartoon monster; her real-life persona frightens me enough as it is.

I love - LOVE - beowulf, but I'm sure this version will only serve to harden a new generation of peeps against it. it's a kick-ass, visceral story that's surprisingly complex. Sadly, it looks like the dumbdownifaction of the classics is continuing unchecked. Mr. Gaiman, I expected better.

Couldn't agree more. It was visually stunning and a big leap in computer graphics. But it's ironic that you can make the CG characters do whatever you want, and yet you can make them act. Robin Wright Penn's character had two emotions: dull and, well, dull. All in all, it was entertaining despite the brief Anthony Hopkins nekked-ness (ewww),

"...Beowulf is certainly spectacular to look at, but it's often hard to take seriously.

It's a shame, too, because the screenplay written by Roger Avary and Neil Gaiman is pretty good, an intriguing, if unoriginal take on the bare facets of the story....."

The only shame here sir is your lack of professionalism on this review. You are biased against all forms of animation. YOU are hard to take seriously. I suggest you educate YO' ASS and take a view at Akira and Ghost in the Shell and tell me they're not as serious and epic as the best of the genre.

I'd call you an asshole but I don't to offend assholes.

I dunno BarbadoSlim, everyone tells me Akira is overrated. (Oh no, here comes the mob again).
I don't think the reviewer is dissing animation, really. But an important thing to remember with animation is-- it's not /meant/ to be realistic. That's the beauty of it. And this movie, despite going the animation route, is trying to be realistic. It's why I can't stand the CGI geekiness, as I've said before. When you take an art form that is representative, visually, of reality and then try and force it into realism, you merely highlight how it falls short of reality. It's the same concept that makes humanoid monsters more terrifying than insect..oid... monsters.

"..I dunno BarbadoSlim, everyone tells me Akira is overrated. (Oh no, here comes the mob again)..."

I don't think you'll be mobbed, there's some strong anti-animation snobbery here (sorry to disappoint you)*shrugs*
Even if you think Akira is overrated (which *I* don't), at least it's a demostration of how grand/epic animation can be.

A Canadian production company made their own version of the story ("Beowulf and Grendel"), starring Gerard Butler as Beowulf and Stellan Skarsgård as Hrothgar. It wasn't bad. It took the "realistic aproach" to the story and cut out the dragon and stuff.

That being said, it wasn't amazing and I'm in no hurry to see another Beowulf movie.

Let me just that, in my opinion, anyone who takes the the mantle of critic and wants to get into doing so with animation should, at the very least, look at Hayao Miyazaki's work: Princess Mononoke, Porco Rosso, Castle in the Sky, etc. Hell, even Kiki's Motherfucking Delivery Service, BEFORE shitting on the genre.

I say this because it is CLEAR, that the reviewer has ZERO respect for animation as a serious medium. I think this film is landmark in the sense that at least ONE American production company is willing to use animation as a dramatic medium, not just for kiddie fare.

*great for the investors IMHO

@be right back -- "renders them to be pale facsimiles"? Yeah, that's great writing, chief. Stones, glass houses, etc. *sigh.

Well, now I know which Neil Gaiman scripted movie I'll be going to see first, Stardust (It's still playing in the UK) Wanted to read the book first, and couldn't find it
Cue off topic rambling:
It was hidden in the Graphic Novel section, along with a comic adaption of Neverwhere, -adapted into comic form by some guy that ain't Gaiman; WTF? That's how Neil got his name, getting someone else to do a adaptation,rather than the man himself seems just a little bit stupid-)

I think Mr. Stephens is describing this type of animation the same way you would describe an instrumental version of 'Welcome to the Jungle'. You can replace Axl's voice with that of a guitar, and while it will sound the same, it won't sound the same. Something about the song just falls flat.

(If this sounds crazy just listen to the original & then the John5 version & you'll see what I mean. If it is find-able on the interwebs.)

i had also always written-off animation as fun, but just somehow, not engaging(?), full(?)- i'm hunting for adjectives, help me out here, i want to say that something was always missing for me when comparing animation to live-action, anybody? anyway, that was my feeling. i enjoyed animated films (like Akira, Ghost in the Shell, Metropolis and, to a lesser extent, The Triplets of Belleville) but i would never put them in the same league as live-action films.

then along came Samurai Jack. holy fuck. was i ever blown away. maybe the dope had a lot to do with it, but for me this was the first time that an animated feature competed head-to-head with it's live-action counterparts, namely 30-60min fantasy drama, and, for the most part, kicked their collective asses. i highly recomend this show to everyone that hasn't seen it. avoid the 2hr. premier mini-movie though. this show works best in it's 30min. format.

I don't see how a critic recognizing the misuse of animation somehow equals him disliking the medium as a whole. There are things animation can do and there are things it can't. There are things live action can do and things it can't. You don't make a live action movie look like animation any more than you should meaninglessly make an animated movie look like live action.

I won't lie though, the best animation of the whole film (ie the most realistic) was the motion of that scrubbing woman's breasts. The guy working on her clearly understood the human body far more than whoever did Angelina.

As for the movie, I'm not sure. I hate purists when it comes to Beowulf because HELLO the story got to where it was by evolving, and if you don't keep changing it, and you force it into this static remnant of the past, then you basically kill everything that's good about the damn story in the first place.

That said, I think any changes that are made should be good, sensible ones that update the story in a meaningful way to the culture doing the updating. This movie didn't do that for me at all. It seemed pretty bland and unimaginative. I figured someone as talented as Gaiman could have been able to give the story a good facelift while still paying homage to its nuances, but instead it was "lol tits".

PS I love the Rurouni Kenshin OVAs! And Ghost in the Shell. Akira not so much, but I saw an incredibly poor fansub so that probably didn't help. Haha.

Er, I'm not sure why I'm the only one to point out that hand drawn animation such as Akira should in no way be compared to computer animation trying to be a live action movie. I have several artist friends who refuse to believe that they are the same genre. Even in combining hand drawn and digital animation you wind up with something lackluster. I think that a fully CGI trying to be realistic is a terrible idea. Things like The Incredibles worked much better because they used stylized characters which go back towards more cartoon or anime sensibilities.

Heck, watch the RK OVA's in English and you'll weep tears of blood.
While this comments section is already spattered with my signature, I felt I had to do throw out some more inadvertent fanboy insults.
I was ready to love Neil Gaiman. What I'd heard of him and glimpsed of him appealed to me. So, in the mood for some modern literature, I asked some people to recommend the best novel to start with, by Gaiman. No question, they said, American Gods.
I hate to say it, but I was sorely disappointed. I found it derivative and thought the prose amateur. This was supposed to be a creative genius? I felt like I was reading a mishmash of popular revisionist folklore. I get that that is what it was /supposed/ to be, to an extent, but I didn't see the mark of a genius. on any level.
I wanted to like the guy. Anyway, I'm not writing off the guy, but my point is, he's /far/ from infallible.

amea_garl: I thought the (sort off) sequel to American Gods, Anasi Boys was far superior, I think because there's a tighter focus on just a few main characters.

And echoing be right back The Sandman comics are a must read. One of the stories in the Endless Nights TPB made me cry a couple of times

Thank goodness everyone is keeping their heads level and not ravaneously foaming at the mouth to defend Gaiman. I really like the guy, and really enjoy some of his work, but nothing is stupider than his legions of narrow-minded fans that think he can do no wrong. Come /on/.

And a shout-out to the Rurouni Kenshin OAVs! That shit is a punch to the heart and leaves me in a wreck. The soundtrack is all kinds of emotional. This is almost my only exception to my prejudice (re: hatred) of anime. I LOVE it.

My favorite part was when the queen says "Many men have come to taste my lord's meade" and the entire movie theater lost it. It was great.

I love -LOVE!- Beowulf also. My list of favorite books is long, and Beowulf is at the top (I know, I know, it's a poem). In my opinion the quality of the story is incredibly high. It's well written and has complex, interesting, and above all human characters. It's not just a window into a long past time, it's a much richer experience than just a glimpse. Yes it's not exactly a paragon of feminism, but, being a young feminist myself, it doesn't bother me. It was most likely written by a man, in a time when opinions about men and women were at least slightly different than they are now (joke! Don't kill me...). As an added bonus, a woman appears who is not a complete idiot or a love interest for the hero- a novelty in many fantasy stories.
I'm not against changing it or updating it - after all, if you're trying to transfer it to a modern medium, for a modern audience, you're going to have to make some changes. But to take a work like Beowulf, from approximately the 10'th century, probably earlier, and turn it into something resembling a video game? Come on, they don't even do that to books written now! I also don't see why it was necessary to combine it with the Arthurian legend (hero sleeps with seductive yet incredibly undesirable woman (monster creature and half-sister, respectively), has bastard child who grows up to kill him). There are plenty of legendary sources that had already contributed to Beowulf - why not return to them? Beowulf is already conquered by old age and passing time in the original. Why does he also need to be brought down by the woman?
...Ok, sorry, I got a little Englishy there. I'm not asking that they render it exactly from the source, but some sense of the grandeur and humanity of the story, the values that they honored then would have been nice. "I am Ripper. Tearer. Slasher. My name is strength! And lust! And power! I! AM! BEOWULF!"
My soul dies just a little.
Basically, I am just lamenting that this is yet another piece of crappy film Hollywood churns out with seemingly no effort. This movie could have been so much more. I got incredibly excited when I first heard a Beowulf movie was in the works, but I guess I'll have to keep waiting.

That first sentance should not have an *and but a comma and that should be *effect. I clearly cannot type tonight.

Um, be right back, Mamoru Oshii's AVALON was a live-action film, not animated.

To say someone's wrong for generally disliking the Animation genre is just plain bloody ignorant,and possibly pretentious too.Akira,Ghost In The Shell etc are merely a handful of good animations-a mere drop from the ocean of shitty animations churned out each year-they're good on their own,sure,but definitely not representative of the genre.Every year we get-what-one?two?-good animations,the rest are usually disastrous,so to say that this vast majority,and base an opinion that the genre's terribly disatisfying & tedious as a whole,would be a bit lazy,but not completely incorrect either.

That said,I love anime's,but not as much as I love live films.

Case: You're right, but what I meant was that its images are so heavily processed that they are similar to the computer-animated actors of "Beowolf," etc. The effect is actually more like "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" or "300," but the point is that there's a deadening of affect caused by the mixing of "live" and computer-generated that I think doesn't happen in either pure animation or live action.

You wily Pajibans changed the title of this review, right? Or maybe I'm just senile.

Also, isn't it funny when he's all, "I AM BEOWULF" in the exact same cadence and tone as the "THIS IS SPARTA" dude? I mean, in the trailer, because I am totally ambivalent towards this movie and its source material.

why the hell does my post look like that? crap. i won't post at 4:30am next time. promise.

Sure it looks like a great film (and I'll add a better review after I see it Tues) but someone tell me what it actually has to do with Bewoulf?? Last time I checked Grendel's mother was a MONSTER - whoever the hell cast Angelina Jolie in that role needs shooting!!
p.s. guy that noticed the connection with 300 - me too and its so lame!!

I must be dimwitted here but I don't understand the concept of having the actors available (and they actually acted out the scenes, didn't they?) and yet basically erase all the nuance and subtleties by smudging the humanity out with CGI. That'd be like making an omelette without the eggs.

Brad, you probably thought you were getting a hot piece of ass that you could lay around the house and conquer all day. But unfortunately that wasn't the case, turns out babygirl was on a mission to save the world and somehow you got caught up in her vortex. In hindsight maybe Jen was the lesser of two evils, but you couldn't get pass the idea of you and her and her sucky friends drinking lattes all day at some hollywood sidewalk cafe trying not to get photographed. Now you are stuck, and to top it all off, Beowulf blows. So lets recap shall we, hot piece of ass w/a god complex, pesky kids, sucky ex w/sucky friends. Damn what happened, I had it all, money, women and fame. I should have listened to George.

To hate animation is as ignorant as saying "I hate music" and as deserving of ridicule.

I hope that was sarcasm, otherwise, I'm gonna have to strongly disagree here. I get that there are anti-animation snobs, but I think there is an important distinction to be made. Being anti-animation doesn't automatically make you a snob - only if you look down upon those who love the genre. And it certainly doesn't make someone deserving of ridicule just because they don't like a specific genre of film (or anything else). I understand that those who love the genre are unfairly mocked by some idiots at times, but turning around and ridiculing those who don't worship at its' altar isn't fair, either.

Daphne and Daniel are quite right. Animation is simply another form of the medium. Some of it is good, some bad, and a lot of it is mediocre. And some folks just don't like it. That alone isn't enough to warrant disdain for them.

Besides, the fact is most animation IS focused towards kids, and like most other "kid-friendly" stuff, they treat its audiences like idiots. I have met few folks outside of college who even KNOW there is animation beyond Saturday mornings. So a lot of times, the "snobbery" against animation is really expression of ignorance and shouldn't be looked down upon. You don't beat a jerk by being a bigger jerk.

I agree with Vermillion, I like most people would have never thought of Animation being anything other than entertainment for kids. But recently a dear friend introduced me to Japanese Anime Porn, and let's just say I have a new admiration for Animation.

Nope, it wasn't sarcasm. And "worship at its altar" is unfair hyperbole. Did I say you had to worship animation or be worthy of disdain? Nope.
I also wouldn't call animation a 'genre', but the last thing we need here is a semantics debate. Animation is a form of storytelling, it's a medium. It's not just a type of movie.
The wholesale dismissal of any medium is, in my opinion, ludicrous. Considering the /vast/ variations in animation styles, even more-so.

"the 'snobbery' against animation is really expression of ignorance"- Vermillion

Vermillion, I love you man, but I rail against ignorance every day, and I will continue to do so. Ignorance in and of itself is forgivable, but the unwillingness to learn deserves disdain.

There are things I used to dislike intensely, and utterly dismiss. Comic books/graphic novels and rap for example. But having kept an open mind, I have found varieties of these things which I /love/. If I had caved to prejudice and taken the poor examples of these things as representative of the whole, I'd be missing out on some stuff that brings me a great deal of joy.
The misuse of a medium does not equate to that medium's inferiority. So what if 99% of animation is kiddie pulp or animated porn? That doesn't make the 'genre', medium, what have you, /inferior/.

I agree with you amea_gari more so than I do with vermillion. I think you have a better grasp of the argument. And it's a pleasant surprise to see that you like Anime Porn also.

And "worship at its altar" is unfair hyperbole.

No less hyperbole than someone who declares that anyone who hates animation is worthy of ridicule. We get it - you're open-minded. You rail against ignorance. That's great. Many here are open-minded, and there are some who aren't. My point is - if someone dismisses animation, even after viewing only what would be considered the worst of it, that's their prerogative. They are not required to consider other, higher-quality animated works before coming to that conclusion. In a perfect world, yes, a medium (since you so rightly put me in my place for using genre) should not be dismissed due to mediocre or bad productions. But it's hardly the first, and I doubt it will be the last. Please note that I'm not referring to people who would insult those who love animation - just those who don't like, may even hate, animation.

Amea_gari, I hope you can see through Daphne and Vermillion's feeble attempts to discredit you. The hate that they show towards Animation and all how like Animation is very troubling. I applaud you for having a open mind when it comes to Animation.

Yes, do listen to the person who's first response to this review is a spiel against the SPOUSE of one of the actors. The attempts at sarcasm is indeed both unnecessary and quite awkward.

amea_gari, I also said that you don't fight a jerk by being one. Just because someone is stubborn and close-minded against something, it isn't your duty to correct them. You can try to expose them to these tings if you wish, but if they are truly unwelcome to different ideas, then all your efforts will be in vain. Don't stress yourself out over them. Besides, if it isn't right for them to scorn you, what makes it right for you to do the same?

Aniston is a hot piece alright, if you like trannies.

I prefer females who don't look like men.

Vermillion, I think you're taking Pookie a bit too seriously.
You're right, I shouldn't be a jerk and I shouldn't go so far as to /ridicule/ a person for their inability to go beyond their prejudices. In fact, I don't think I actually have ridiculed anyone for that, besides saying they deserve ridicule.
But it's ignorant. How can you defend ignorance?

Daphne said: "No less hyperbole than someone who declares that anyone who hates animation is worthy of ridicule. We get it - you're open-minded. You rail against ignorance. That's great. Many here are open-minded, and there are some who aren't. My point is - if someone dismisses animation, even after viewing only what would be considered the worst of it, that's their prerogative."

First of all, I am not hyperbole. Nor is my statement hyperbole.
Secondly, despite some silly song from the 90's (was it?) a prerogative, while being a right, is not inherently valid. Just because someone happens to think something, doesn't make it valid, right, just, or reasonable.
See, I think you're missing my point. Did I ever say a person doesn't have the right to dismiss animation for whatever reason they can come up with? Nope. But their right to hold that opinion doesn't make that opinion reasonable. If reasonable people can make an argument (which many people in this comment thread have) against such beliefs, then by all means they should. And that is what I have done.
Look, Daphne, if no one takes the time to promote open-mindedness because close-minded people have the right to be close-minded, what kind of world are we fostering here?
For the record, I am not even saying it's ridiculous for someone to say they dislike animation. In general, I dislike rap. It's when I declare that all rap is terrible, that rap is inferior, that rap is just for gangsters-- that's when I cross the line into stupidity. And that is /precisely/ what numerous people do when it comes to animation.

amea_gari: Thing is, my sister was once one of those people you say deserved ridicule. She held disdain for animated media for quite a while, and resisted my attempts at changing her mind while poking fun at my love of the medium. One day, she sat down and agreed to watch a few animated shows to placate me, and while she isn't an otaku or anything, she is at least willing to try stuff out.

So maybe that is coloring my view of your statement. I do not consider my sister deserving of ridicule, either before or after her experience. I am not defending ignorance, simply saying that ignorance isn't resolved by derision. I know I have I have insulted quite a few folks whose ignorance was quite great, and it didn't do anything but piss me off even more. A fool doesn't get any smarter from someone telling him how foolish he is, which is what you are advocating.

Pookie: I apologize. I fear that I am quite tired, and my sense of humor may not be functioning properly. As a gesture of good faith, I will admit to harboring a desire to "Cane" Ms. Aniston at certain points in my life.

I hope you guys are getting totally trashed from this. I don't drink, but I might as well help you all get hangovers.

Unfortunately, blanket statements like 'I don't like animation (or insert any other medium here)' are necessary. There's only so much time in a day and one has to narrow the field of entertainment options to deal with the choice out there. So you have to make generalizations about what you do and don't like.
Some people just don't connect with certain things. They might find that an animated character doesn't connect or stir the soul the way live-action can. This doesn't make them ignorant and hateful.

Tiki, by your logic I can say "I don't like Russians," because there's only so many people in a day I can get to know, and I haven't met any Russians I connected with.

Ignorance is not a good excuse for ANY kind of opinion. Ever.

Gudrun - I think the same thing every time I see the commercial for this movie.
And about Beowulf in general, I really did hate having to read it as a first-year English Lit student. I know I should have liked it because it's important and all that, but I didn't. Six years later, my mind less clouded by beer, I may now have a greater appreciation for it. That doesn't change the fact that I likely won't see this movie.

You know, TK, even as an anime nerd, I'm with you. It's scary in here...

No, Russians aren't a genre of people. But the same kind of ignorance and prejudice that causes people to form opinions based on their ignorance is what leads to people making blanket statements about everything from food, to culture, to race.

After reading this thread I am thanking my lucky stars that I'm visiting late today...Oy, I don't think I could keep up if I tried.

I'll just add that, from seeing the trailer a few times, I've come to the conclusion that this film isn't for me - maybe I'll Netflix it eventually.

I thought Beowulf was hilarious. I was laughing pretty much the whole time. Like Beowulf's nekkid scene? Priceless. I thought the film on the whole was ridiculous, 'so bad it's good' - the perfect example of Americans' love of sex and violence. I'm thinking (hoping?) that this was the filmmakers' intention.

My boyfriend and I renamed it Bare-Ass. It was too much like watching video game graphics. All the character's faces looked dead. And who the hell wants to look at a cartoon Angelina when you can look at the real thing?

oops..WTF!?!

Looking at all the sidetracked comments and wondering... did any of you actually SEE this film that supposedly started all this debate?

I saw it tonight - IMAX, 3-D, all the bells and whistles, and sweet mother of mercy, this thing is BAD. Bad animation, bad writing... the only thing that saved it at all for me was imagining the fun that Mystery Science Theater 3000 would have had with it.

Save your money and your sense of equilibrium. I would rather see Anthony Hopkins full frontal naked for two hours than ever sit through something as stultifyingly awful as Beowulf.

Well. . . I! AM! AN! ENGLISH TEACHER!

Seriously, just don't.