I haven't seen Beowulf yet. I'm torn about something, and I thought I'd ask my trusty fellow board members for an answer.

So... I have this thing I often rant about to my friends regarding movies. The short of it is that I'm really sick of movies which feature the same old stars (Ryan Gosling excluded because he rules, there are some other exceptions as well) because the sight of their familiar faces takes me out of the story. Then it becomes one of those situations where I'm not watching the character but Julia Roberts or Brad Pitt or... Angelina Jolie, for example.

So I'm worried about seeing the movie because as a Viking descendent (I'm Icelandic) and a person with fairly good taste in literature (I like to think), I LOVE Beowulf. And I also love Neil's work, of course. And I'd hate to not see something Neil's done that incorporates Beowulf, it feels like a sin of fan-dom. But at the same time, I'm worried that Jolie's appearance in it (I have nothing against her per se I'm just sick to death of the sight of her face what with the tabloids and everything) will ruin the moment, and by extension the whole movie for me.

My favorite part of the original story is when Beowulf meets Grendel's mother and I think it's cool that they make her beautiful and not hideous, but still. Angelina? I mean I know she's beautiful but aren't there thousands of other beautiful women they could have used, instead of the one who to me is becoming almost cliche as far as being the go-to for sexiness is involved? It seems like it detracts from the ancient story, having her in there.

So for those of you who have seen it: Is it worth enduring the Angelina part to go see the film? I have a feeling the response will be yes, and that my loyalty to Neil will override my distaste for the "Jolie-Pitt clan" but I just wanted to see what any response might be.

Hope I don't sound too grumpy, normally I'm very cheerful.

i haven't seen the film myself so i can't answer your question, but i just want to welcome you back as it's been a while!

Well thank you so much! That's very sweet of you. Sorry I'm so intermittent. Apparently when you give yourself a handle that involves the fair folk in any way you automatically get signed up for a subscription to Poor Grasp of Linear Space-Time monthly. It's... pretty wild...

well, i am older since last time we spoke, so i'm not surprised to hear that

Hi FB, I am not a Viking and I don't have the same level of love for Beowulf that you seem to. However, I am much more of a purist type than most people (for example, I hate Pjackson's film version of LOTR, and I mean HATE) and so I was kind of dreading the changes in the movie vs. the story. And there are changes, yes, some significant ones. But overall, I was surprised at how interested I was in the overall story as interpreted by NG and RA. I did sense some NG-like themes in the story -- almost enough to make me buy the script book. In truth, I wish it had been about 10-15 longer, oddly enough, because I wanted to learn more about what was happening and why. I thought there was a pretty significant hole in the plot regarding Grendal's mom and her offspring, but not enough to make me completely hate it.

I think you should go with the expectation that the changes will bother you, and that Jolie as the mother will also bother you, but that you engaging on a scholarly study of comparing the stories. I found that the less I expected, the better I enjoyed myself.

Hope this helps!

except for her bizarre accent - why does she feel the need to do that? - she was actually tolerable in my opinion. Oddly enough, she seemed the most real in Zemeckis's weird need to CGI people. Possibly because she's so plastic as it is.

And she also seemed more believable that Robin Penn and Anthony Hopkins at "playing make believe" and dealing with the blue screen stuff. Possibly because she's so good at faking being a believable human being. (Can anyone tell I'm not really fond of her as an actress? Yes, she's beautiful, in a Barbie doll way, and no she's never dumbed herself down like Marilyn Monroe did - but Marilyn always seemed genuine, Angelina just seems like Rodney Dangerfield, afraid to turn off the act lest someone see the real person and be disappointed)

John Malkovitch in particular either couldn't be bothered to deal with the CGI or was miffed 'cos he didn't get enough lines, because his performance was just tossed in there.

I only vaguely remember the story, and I knew there were changes, but I couldn't possibly tell you what they were, so I rather enjoyed the storyline.

I wish it could have been done LOTR style, with regular human actors interacting with CGI when needed. But Zemeckis never asked for my opinion, so...

I enjoyed it, that night when I saw it, but I don't think I'm going to even rent it.

Don't sweat it FaeryBlood, go see the flick. It doesn't sound like your cup of tea, but at least it will satiate your curiosity. AJ only has a handful of scenes and tmoqm's suggestions for how best to enjoy the proceedings are spot-on. Lowering your expectations will really help. So will getting drunk first. (Are BK or McD's doing a meade-flavored drink tie-in? Or a suckling pig sandwich? Maybe a Grendel's Mother toy with collectible nipples...?)

As for me, I kind of enjoyed the bawdy atmospherics and ott action. And Anthony Hopkins in lusty, arm-waving mode is always great. The only thing I found odd was the way in which they kept hiding Beowulf's willy behind awkwardly-positioned sword handles and the like. Very silly. (The eternal question: How can Hollywood show some poor guy having his head ripped from his body and noisily devoured by a hideous demon-spawn and then get coy about genitals?)

Aaaanyway - it is basically a violent, sexy theme park ride with a few Gaimanish bits thrown in to give it a thickish veneer of intelligence. But, you know, better a veneer than none. (I'm talking to YOU '300'!) Now if only HBO would turn The Sandman into a series...

If you do decide to go see it, don't forget to let us know what you thought

"Never judge a book by its movie." *spoilers*

I'm not sure who coined that phrase, but it just popped up in my head.

Anyway, going back to the topic, I would agree with the previous comments of not expecting that much out of the movie.

The movie is fine, but alot of scenes really just look awkward. One thing that really stuck to my brain (and I know this is simply trivial), is Grendel's mother's naked feet having stillettos attached to it. Yes, it adds to the stalking femme fatale thing or whatever, but it's simply weird.

When it comes to Angelina playing Grendel's mother, it's alright, I suppose they were going for everyone's personification of the vamp.

All in all, some details could have been refined a bit when it comes to the animation and the story. But it can be enjoyed, just see the movie without preconceptions.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Slowpoke,

I also am a HUGE fan of the original "Beowulf" and Gaiman, and I have to say I really liked the movie.
Yeah, it was altered a bit to make it an exciting film, and it was done really well.
I kinda feel the way you do about "big-names" distracting from movies, but I'll have to say that I was impressed by Angelina. It doesn't even look that much like her, anyway.
All in all, I highly reccomend seeing it!

Thank you all for your responses! I love my fellow Neil fans, always there to give detailed information and input when requested.

Smaug: : )
Madness: Lowered expectations are almost always a good idea. Wise advice, thanks.
Maeve: I know, her fake accent crap is completely ridiculous. It’s funny because Brad also sucks at pseudo-foreign accents (Seven Years in Tibet, anyone?) so hooray for Hollywood elite. I totally agree about how she can never turn off the act. Although I found it somewhat endearing in Rodney Dangerfield (he was so vulnerable and thinly-veiled-secretly depressed I wanted to play along to help him protect his sensitive little feelings). But the never turning off the sexiness drives me NUTS. Not trying to be sexy and just kicking back and having fun in a pair of jeans and a t-shirt would be FAR more fun to watch than constantly “smoldering” (I personally think Cate Blanchett genuinely smolders while AJ just half-squints and lip curls). It’s tiresome. Hopefully when I become a wildly successful actress I’ll remember these words and behave accordingly. Remind me to do so. : )
Afdj: Hey, your eyes are like a slightly bluer version of mine. Holla! (Sorry, do we not say ‘holla’ on Neil Gaiman message boards? Someone let me know. Also, I hereby nominate you as Marketing Director for McDonalds AND Burger King. Looking forward to my new happy meal toys. Also, more willies in movies = yes. This reminds me I still need to rent Eastern Promises, cuz Viggo = yes PLEASE. 300 was also awesome and yes that was one where I hands-down REFUSED to care about any historical inaccuracies. HBO + Sandman…. Drooooooool. Somebody get on that!
Slowpoke: They put stilettos on her too? Sigh. : | Excellent catch phrase though.
Endless: Yay for fellow Beowulf fan.

Okay so I’ll go ahead and add it to my netflix then. Thank you everybody!

i saw it a couple of nights ago and was *dreadfully* disappointed. this whole mo-cap thing just DOESN'T work when you're trying to make the characters look like actual people. it was plasticky, clunky, the lip movements were in the SLIGHTEST bit realistic, it cheapens the dialogue, which i couldn't bear to listen to for a lot of it, because i knew it *should* be good dialogue, and it just looked so dreadful.

there's a moment of Austin Powersness in the middle, when Beowulf does some acrobatics and somehow ends up with various items obscuring his junk. could they not have just given him a frickin' loin cloth? SOOOO much less contrived. and although i, personally, very much enjoy la jolie, i was horribly disappointed by what happened with her, too. the organic stilettos were just... gratingly wrong, as was most of everything. specially any movement from horses. they looked SO wrong, and ridiculous.

it would have been better to be hand-drawn animation, or live action with *some* CGI in there. but as it is? just horrible. disappointing, offputting, sad, upsetting, and ridiculous

I just watched it last night on DVD and quite enjoyed it. It took me a bit to get used to the ultra-realistic mo-cap look that Zemeckis likes to do (ddn't he get the message from Polar Express reviews that photo-realistic mo-cap is unsettling?), but I overlooked it for the most part.

Things I dug:
Grendel using Old English/Anglo-Saxon to communicate. It further expanded the notion that the pre-Christian world was dying, that the world was moving on.

Grendel's mother being the one constant---she is everything that builds and destroys empires: power, lust, greed.

I actually was quite amused at the "cock block" hiding Beowulf's "Little Grendel" (as I calld it)--in that fight, Beowulf is a cocky (so to speak) blowhard jock. It added a bit of humor to a very, very dark story.

Things I think could have been better:

The John Malkovich character has this sudden, unmotivated change of heart over Beowulf. He was just going through the motions as the heavy/Grima advisor. No development at all.

In fact, all of the characters could have been developed further-- there was too much time spent on making the film eye candy and not enough time spent creating characters that an audience can empathize with. I realize condensing a 3000 line poem is difficult, but I was annoyed by the end on how much screen time was devoted to epic establishing shots that could have been devoted to story development.

The visual style of the film could have been so much better developed had they forgone photo-realism and perhaps used a look inspired by Medieval art. Then they could have gotten away with the unrealistic movement of the horses (I caught that too, Tilly) and the suddenly-weightless acrobatics performed by a beefy dude.

Hello - So it's out on DVD? I've been waiting for it - I wonder, do you know if you can get it in 3D on DVD? Was the copy you watched in 3D Alaura?

Oh! I wish! Althought some bits might have been too horrifying to bear, had they been in 3D.

We got the "unrated" version, which has much more brutally graphic scenes than the theatrical release (which we also saw on DVD at someone else's house). I'm not sure if there is a 3D version on the special DVD we got-- I'll check it out and let you know.

Thank you - that's kind. x