4/10
There aren't many films where your review reading will be associated almost entirely with the technical side of things, since I don't usually care much, but since this film is all technique and little heart I am forced to mention some of the things I'd usually avoid.
As you may well know, the film is made using a motion capture technique similar to the one used to such great effect with Smeagol/Gollum in the Lord Of The Rings films. This renders the movement of each of the characters more realistic than traditional animation and presumably a bit quicker to animate (since the actors do that for you) so more time can be spent on the process of rendering and wireframes etc meaning that the look of the film is fantastic - lush colours and vast wildernesses are created and remain totally in the control of the filmmakers.
Now, I'll be positive first and say that in many ways this technique is sucessful - the film looks great for the most part, and certainly the digital nature of the "camera" means that impossible tracking shots and action photography are possible, with none of the green screening or bad mapping that can characterise such sequences in composite work.
Much advantage is gained from this, so that the fights that bookend the film are some of the most impressive you will see and have a massive scope.
Unfortunately as with so much digital stuff it is the emotion of people's performances that just doesn't come through the process. While the classic "dead eyes" problem that has dogged most computer games (which this resembles more than anything else) is for the most part avoided with dancing firlight and reflections the participants don't resemble much more than animatronic puppets, and there is less emotion or range in their performances in my opinion than we get from Aardman's Gromit - and he doesn't even speak!
Also, the slight changes to people's appearance, noticable in the face of Anthony Hopkin's Hrothgar but most of all in Ray Winstone's Beowulf; rather than being clever is just distracting - they look very similar to their real life counterparts but just differ enough to really distract you. Add to this the bizarre fact that Grendel's mother appears to have high heeled FEET and the character design is just plain odd.
Ah yes, Grendel needs some respect, for two reasons - first he is truly grotesque and the art direction is fantastic for his twisted form plus he is performed brilliantly by the always reliable Crispin Glover (Marty McFly's dad!!!) so its a shame that the story requires his removal so early on. Other performances are fine, particularly Hopkin's jaded king Hrothgar but none are really exceptional, being buried under so many gigabytes of information - plus I still question how good a performance can really be in a blue room with no set props or art design to work with.
The certificate of this film also leads to a strange emasculation of the tale's violence, which while still present is not particularly bloody or convincing - and the sequence where he fights Grendel in the Great Hall resembles nothing so much as the old Austin Powers sequence (when he walks around naked and various things cover his wedding tackle "hilariously") so it raised too many laughs from me to affect in the way it was attempting.
The other problem I have is with foley.
In case, like Mrs Algo, you didn't know what foley is, it's the recording of sound effects you wouldn't normally notice, such as the rustle of clothes, the jangle of jewellery or swords etc or maybe someones footsteps crunching through the snow. Almost universally these effects are absent, as is the wind frequently noticable by its abscence, this may not be a big issue for some of you, but for me it drew me right out of the idea that this was some kind of "realistic" CGI and put the film right back into the cartoon pigeonhole. The absolute apeothesis of this is the scene with the queen and the young woman on the battlements... no wind, no rustling clothes, no nothing. Just dialogue. For me it's a big problem.
It's a shame since maybe with a 15 certificate (or even better an 18) and some foley work I'd probably like this film even more, but maybe I've penalised it based on missed opportunities.
Nevertheless, it gets a lowly 4/10 for its crimes.
Til Next Time!
A
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Spot on review, Algo.
ReplyDeleteI watched Beowulf over the Christmas break - twice in fact. Once to actually watch the movie and see whether I liked it or not and another to actually watch the film and see if it was well made.
From a story point of view I really found some huge flaws in the logic. Luckily I managed to escape English lessons without ever having to study Beowulf the poem so I don't know how accurate the story is. But here are a couple of inconsistencies and problems:
SPOILERS SPOILERS
1) If someone had killed your son and came to kill you, would you seduce him, make him the King of the land and protect him from harm? Not sure I would, but that's what Grendels mother did. Why?
2) What was with the drinking horn? It stayed with Grendels mother as a way of protecting Beowulf.. and then it miraculously appears out in the open, gets sent back to Beowulf and wham!bang! he's now fighting for his life. How did it get out of Grendels mothers possession? If she did it on purpose, why?
3) She is a monster who can take any shape and chooses to look like Angelina Jolie (And who can blame her). Her first son is a grotesque being who is 10 feet tall but has a hearing impairment and her second son is a dragon. Them's some wierd family gene's! What was all that about?
4) Do you know anyone who would/could deliberately amputate their own arm during a fight and still be conscious enough to continue fighting a wild animal? The blood loss would have made him pass out in short order.
Having said all that I thought the film was visually spectacular - although some of the camera shots took me out of the film - the initial track back from the Mead hall through the trees and up the mountain to Grendels ear was just a little too unrealistic. The dragon fight at the end was great to watch and very well done. I thought that the acting wasn't too bad at all - especially considering the conditions under which the actors were performing. Anthony Hopkins was superb as always, but John Malkovich? What was he doing in that film? How badly written (and acted) was his character? Very disappointing - and with an awful accent as well.
This is currently on my Sky+ and I will be getting the special edition DVD to check out a lot of the behind the scenes stuff. Maybe they will explain your 'foley' issue???
I would rate it probably a 6 on your scale - maybe a 7 if you consider that it has Angelina naked in it....
I think the point of the original story is that Grendel's mother shows Beowulf the consequences of being a "legendary hero", like Gene Wilder in Blazing Saddles he spent his whole time fighting off people who wanted to become heroes by killing him.
ReplyDeleteHer returning of the drinking horn is to show him his time is up - she's taunting him.
She's in no hurry to teach him a lesson (she's clearly immortal) and by letting him become jaded and tired she destroys not only his body but also his spirit.
She also uses him to get a new son (Beowulf is the Dragons dad!) and as soon as that son is old enough to destroy the kingdom it starts on the mission - she is not interested, clearly, in doing things herself.
Agree on John Malkovich - what he hell was that all about, and another chjaracter (like Brendan Gleeson's) whose face was close, but not quite the same as, his own - which was one of the things I found distracting.
Thanks for your comment! I wouldn';t be quite as keen as to watch it twice (asnd THEN buy it!) but clearly you enjoyed it more than I did...
A