Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Another Couple Of BEOWULF Reviews Come In For You!

First? No way by vich1	Nov 4th, 2007 04:45:47 PM
Looking forward to this just for the imagery.
Cloest I got to first ever: Now about 3D by Tripster2001	Nov 4th, 2007 05:05:17 PM
I am going to watch this in IMAX 3D. I am a lover of the right film in IMAX and in 3D. Some movies only use 3D to get more viewers, and some use their box office hits to expose some of it. I saw Harry Potter 5 with the 3D and thought it was wasted. But Beouwulf with it spectacular imagery and action makes if an excellent candidate in my view. I find it funny that movies that are highly visual in their story telling are often seen a less important. These days an oscar is most likely to go to a small overly verbal piece than a truly visual one. Film has always been about the visual and I think that IMAX type technology is its future. That's my nickel on the subject.
Painfully short? by Staldo	Nov 4th, 2007 05:08:55 PM
What are your criteria for calling Beowulf short? are the repetitive proto-literary stanzas of Gilgamesh more your taste in ancient epic hero poems? Any movie that is primeval enough to have the hero screwing a female-serpent beast and giving birth to monsters has my vote.
Still Upset About CG by Prague23	Nov 4th, 2007 05:19:12 PM
But I'm willing to give Beowulf a chance. As a resident of Prague, I'll see the film in a regular cinema first, no 3D, and if it holds up and IF it plays here in 3D at the IMAX cinema (which will be dubbed in Czech) I'll catch it there after just to glimpse this 'future of the death of cinema example' that way as well. Hopefully with the huge cost of 3D and/or IMAX, I'll never have this as my only international option in my lifetime. 'Twould be a sad day...
TO ALL THOSE OUT THERE WHO 'FIRST!' by dalbatron	Nov 4th, 2007 05:20:44 PM
To all those people who rush to type 'first'or any position, on any talkback. You are living proof that someone can be a winner and a loser at the same time.... Just thought i'd mention it...
What is the appeal of Angelina Jolie? by rainbowtrout1265	Nov 4th, 2007 05:24:23 PM
She looks malnourished and veiny...yuck.
Beowulf isn't cinematic??? Source material is thin? by moondoggy2u	Nov 4th, 2007 05:26:33 PM
Moriarty, where did you dig up this boob?
Lucky for some by Tubbs Tattsyrup	Nov 4th, 2007 05:46:28 PM
I look at this stuff about IMAX 3-D, then realise it'll be at least a decade - if ever - before we get such a theatre where I live. Poos. Otherwise, I will be seeing this in a traditional theatre, because it looks like creamy goodness.
beowulf wasn't a poem... by big_log	Nov 4th, 2007 06:00:21 PM
...it was old english prose.
This years little miss Soulless 3D Gimmick by Pipple	Nov 4th, 2007 06:21:07 PM
I forgot Crispy Gloves was in this movie... he's always interesting...
CGI For Kids ™ by Prossor	Nov 4th, 2007 06:26:01 PM
Is that the program they used for the CGI in this movie?
Hollywood is trying to drown us in CG. by GibsonUSA	Nov 4th, 2007 06:33:43 PM
But CG doesnt look scary onscreen. It looks fake.
wish Jolie wasn't in it... by Judge Briggs	Nov 4th, 2007 07:25:38 PM
only beef i have seeing it... she is really, really annoying
"Dare I say..." by Toonol	Nov 4th, 2007 07:46:31 PM
"...better than the original?" No, you dare not. Maybe after you write some poetry that's lasted _over_thirteen_centuries_, you can start offering suggestions.
Not to be a negative nancy, but... by SebastianHaff	Nov 4th, 2007 07:49:09 PM
Does anyone else have trouble getting over the fact that despite how cool the 3d is, and despite how great the film is regardless of the 3d, at the end of the day, it's still a cartoon? I'm just not much of an animation guy outside of Pixar and South Park. I'm much, much more excited for Avatar. Live action 3d done as well as it sounds like this was, is quite a bit more intriuging to me.
So it reminds one reviwer of Troy and the other says.... by IndustryKiller!	Nov 4th, 2007 07:49:37 PM
"As for the story, this was probably its weakest point." I'm really thinking people WANT to like this film more than they actually like it. I mean for christ sakes you have people trying to gleam something good from TROY?? I talked to a kid today who was at the USC screening and he said it was alright and obviously technically impressive but nowhere near something like Lord of the Rings. I think it will be a lot of fun for the kids of today but not much for anyone looking for the next brilliant genre film.
and it distrubs me that Zemeckis's vision is so thin... by IndustryKiller!	Nov 4th, 2007 07:53:12 PM
that he says this story couldn't possibly be done live action. That is just total and utter bullshit. and not to be a dead horse with the comparison but Lord of the Rings proves it can be done. It's sad when a man like Zemeckis, who could literally get the greenlight for any film he wanted to make, is limiting himself in such a capacity. Now 3-D might be the future, but you're a fool if you think computer animation is going to replace actors.
Industry is right...but still..... by Tripster2001	Nov 4th, 2007 08:28:19 PM
I have to fully agree with Industry killer. I know Zemeckis is deeply invested in CG and 3D technologies and as such he is tunnel-visioning his work. I mean LOTR aside isn't he the one that made Forest Gump talk to dead presidents and remove Sinise's legs digitally and this is over 10 years ago. We have leaped in tech since then. Still I think there are stories that can be told very well in CG and this is one.
rainbowtrout1265 by conspiracy	Nov 4th, 2007 08:57:06 PM
OK..About Jolie...as a film fan I'm sick of her half assed "talent" as much of the next guy. But as a "Guy" I do see some appeal to the sleezy tart...she has alot going for her. 1. She reportedly shagged her Brother. 2. She openly talks about liking S&M..mostly the M 3. Is a low morals home wrecker..meaning shes good about throwing a buddy a fuck now and then, married or not 4. Likes other women. all in all quite the spank bank resume don't ya think?
Fuck Beowulf..Hows about some Roger Rabbit 2? by conspiracy	Nov 4th, 2007 09:10:17 PM
Really Zemeckis..bury the hatchet with the Mouse already and make another fuckin Roger Rabbit flick. Eisner is gone, the rest of the bozos that pissed in yours and Spielbergs' punch are gone...come on..if you MUST keep up with this CGI overload at least use it where it will work with good effect...Making Toons!
I love Reign of Fire & 13th warrior by jah_kingdom	Nov 4th, 2007 09:23:02 PM
Why did that 2nd reviewer have to go and dump on Reign of Fire & 13th warrior. I think both those movies are pretty entertaining. I've recently seen both and really felt they're greatly underrated. but what do I know i found all of the LOTRs snooze fests.
yeah I'm getting Jolie-ed out by GibsonUSA	Nov 4th, 2007 09:24:55 PM
Nothing against Angelina but its too much....when she walked into the Wanted trailer I literally said "Shit! Not her again..."...its like casting people need a sexy girl, they call her.
Moriarty... by JackBauer24	Nov 4th, 2007 09:25:46 PM
I've been told that the IMAX 3D presentation is in fact inferior to the RealD one? Is this so, because I can't decide which format to go see this in - IMAX is tempting because of the big screen, but I just get the feeling that perhaps this was meant to be seen projected digitally.
Terrible film...so immature by Undead03	Nov 4th, 2007 09:57:41 PM
I saw Beowulf at an industry screening Friday night. It’s a terribly busy looking film, and difficult to follow. The screenplay is the best Neil Gaiman’s done, which isn’t saying much since his screenplays have all been confusing messes and insulting to the audience. The 3D was fun, but gave may people headaches after a few minutes, and was very distracting from the already difficult to follow story. The mocap was on par with Monster House, but not much better. And was the film ever UGLY! The designs were about as appealing as a piece of month old road kill! Both the characters and backgrounds are so overwrought with sweaty detail that they’re hard to watch. The entire experience was incredibly depressing. Especially since many people who worked on it were sitting around me and I had to pretend for the moment it was fine. But I almost went into convulsions while watching the film. A more mature, challanging, visually engrrossing, and thoughtful film like Ratatouille, a film that respects it’s audience and thrills by entertaining ALL of your emotions, has more “animation” in any one scene than the entire mess that is Beowulf. Sigh.
3D headaches by littlefoo20	Nov 4th, 2007 10:20:24 PM
That sucks. This sounds like a really good movie to watch in 3D. But I always get a splitting headache after watching 3D for prolonged periods of time. That just sucks.
ABOUT ANGELINA JOLIE'S HOTNESS by BringingSexyBack	Nov 4th, 2007 11:07:22 PM
I thought she was excellent in A Mighty Heart (terrible title, great movie). Seeing her portrayal of Marianne Pearl, it's no wonder that the news media never could get a grasp on who that woman really was. She was/is a unique soul, and I think Angelina's best moments were at the end, when she found out about Daniel's murder and how she coped with it afterwards. It was a revealing look at Marianne, the worldly people she and Daniel were.
OH, MY POINT WAS ANGELINA WAS NOT SEXY AT ALL by BringingSexyBack	Nov 4th, 2007 11:09:33 PM
in that movie. It was totally about the portrayal of a real person, and that's a nice break from Angelina the movie star.
UNDEAD03 THAT'S AN INTERESTING REVIEW by BringingSexyBack	Nov 4th, 2007 11:18:06 PM
I was very skeptical hearing one of the reviewers say that the CG rendering is the best to date, considering that the trailer showed some pretty poor and stiff rendering. Stuff that's subpar to what we've seen in LOTR and King Kong, even. I mean, Kong wasn't a great movie, but the CG was amazing - there was life and soul behind his CG eyes, where Zemeckis' characters still have that mannequin look.
CG COULD NEVER REPLACE LIVE PEOPLE LIKE THIS by BringingSexyBack	Nov 4th, 2007 11:22:05 PM
http://tinyurl.com/2473nl
Looks like a God of War cutscene by jub3i	Nov 4th, 2007 11:39:09 PM
don't know whether that's good or bad...
ALWAYS AGREE WITH XIMAN! by XiMan	Nov 5th, 2007 12:33:00 AM
LOL! (sorry) But seriously: ANGELINA JOLIE is a fucking Oscar-winning, 2 time Golden Globe winning, soon to be 2nd Oscar nomination having (A Mighty Heart) actress. She can't help it that she is sexy enough to make men cheat on their wives and women fantasize about "their first time with a a woman"... LOL! (sorry, again)
BTW -- Zemeckis is RIGHT!!! by XiMan	Nov 5th, 2007 12:36:01 AM
Besides the fact that this film would really cost too much in live-action... who the fuck could really play Beowulf??? And I'm sorry, but Russell Crowe--NOOOO! Then it would have looked like a rip off...of GLADIATOR! There was no one who wanted this to be live-action more than me, and I left the theater saying....MASTERPEICE!!!
RAY WINSTONE destroys GERARD BUTLER by XiMan	Nov 5th, 2007 12:43:48 AM
And anyone who says different is a 300 PLANT!
Ximan by lantern48	Nov 5th, 2007 06:10:23 AM
Good for you dude. You have some redemption now man. Most of these idiots on this board are wanna be know it alls with no life, who actually know very little about anything. It makes them feel big to yell out Plant. Stupid sheep. That's all they are. One kid brought up how Beowulf was reviewed on another site and got a 1.5. He apparently didn't bother to notice that all those reviews were for the live action Beowulf, starring Christopher Lambert. Don't sweat the yammering idiots here. Just replace whatever nonsense they're spouting with RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE.
I was looking forward to this... by Knuckleduster	Nov 5th, 2007 06:52:18 AM
... and the positive reviews certainly help, but seeing that trailer was like seeing granma masturbating. Total buzz-kill. It looked like a fuckin video game, with soulless mannequins dressed up as gay vikings. I can't help feeling that guys like Zemeckis and Rodriguez are falling so hard for all the new tech that they end up ignoring everything else. I enjoy good visuals and I'm still gonna go watch this, but story and performance has to count for something.
If you make a CG writer, do they belong to the Guild? by Abin Sur	Nov 5th, 2007 08:13:56 AM
Maybe that's a way around the strike...
☺ I'm so precious! ☺ by ironic_name	Nov 5th, 2007 10:39:52 AM
might see this.
TONIGHT, (insert badass plan) !!!!!! by Staldo	Nov 5th, 2007 04:08:51 PM
I just noticed that the key to the young male audience is to have a protagonist that a)kills a bunch of people b)screams a lot in a funny accent about the fact that he kills a bunch of people. Scarface, Braveheart, Bill the Butcher from GONY, Maximus the Gladiator, King Leonidas, all are adored, all have those two qualities. Watch for my blockbuster featuring a Finnish serial killer with Tourette's and that yelling disease Will Farrel had on SNL weekend update.
quality #3 by Staldo	Nov 5th, 2007 04:17:12 PM
also the funny accent screaming badass has to die at the end
But does the blood still look like poorly rendered globules? by Kurzinski Valentine	Nov 5th, 2007 06:01:39 PM
I need to know, yo. The mature-rated trailers all had that fucking terrible blood that looked like some DeVry graduate's weak attempt at particles.
Don't believe the Hype by catlettuce4	Nov 5th, 2007 10:20:51 PM
If you're into digital Man-Ass this flick is up your alley, otherwise an honest reviewer would say "Beowulf has some serious flaws." This site is sadly becoming a PR rag.

Talkbacks

Another Couple Of BEOWULF Reviews Come In For You!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks