rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Nov 16, 2007 16:52:34 GMT -5
We have some unfortunate news. Rorschach, one of ATC's critics, has taken an indefinite sabbatical from The Crap. We hope he returns to the Crap and to ATC when he's ready. Anyway, me, Bobby S., and Koda will review Robert Zemeckis' new BEOWULF....you know the drill.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Nov 16, 2007 16:53:24 GMT -5
i was gonna see this today but "American Gangster" was longer than expected
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Nov 16, 2007 17:08:28 GMT -5
i was gonna see this today but "American Gangster" was longer than expected It happens. BTW, how was GANGSTER?
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Nov 16, 2007 17:10:17 GMT -5
i was gonna see this today but "American Gangster" was longer than expected It happens. BTW, how was GANGSTER? Awesome, easily my favorite movie of the year
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Nov 16, 2007 20:20:54 GMT -5
It happens. BTW, how was GANGSTER? Awesome, easily my favorite movie of the year That's great man. As for BEOWULF...I don't know what to think of it. it can so easily be bad and good....I'm going just to see if Zemeckis has shot anything worth a damn beyond him masturbating with his computers.
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Nov 16, 2007 20:30:44 GMT -5
Well it seems that this movie is awesome to the max. Even people who HATED the trailers are loving it.
I mean I'm actually excited for it now, as opposed to the first trailers I saw. Reason is, in the early trailers I thought it was normal actors with some CGI effects added to those that needed them. At that time I thought it was bad CGI, and actually thought that some of the actors looked CGIed into the film as well. It wasn't until last month that I realized that the movie is motion captured and everyone IS CGI.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Pigwell on Nov 16, 2007 20:31:21 GMT -5
Well I just got back home from seeing this a bit ago. iIn the other Beowulf thread I left my thoughts. I enjoyed it but I don't see the movie going over well with most people.
|
|
|
Post by ThereIsNoAbsurdistOnlyZuul on Nov 16, 2007 20:40:48 GMT -5
Roger Eberts review, for some reason it is funny, or at least Ebert clearly had fun watching this movie.
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Nov 16, 2007 20:43:51 GMT -5
Yeah, that Ebert review was odd.
He makes it sound like the movie is so laughably bad, its good.
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Nov 16, 2007 20:44:31 GMT -5
Well it seems that this movie is awesome to the max. Even people who HATED the trailers are loving it. I mean I'm actually excited for it now, as opposed to the first trailers I saw. Reason is, in the early trailers I thought it was normal actors with some CGI effects added to those that needed them. At that time I thought it was bad CGI, and actually thought that some of the actors looked CGIed into the film as well. It wasn't until last month that I realized that the movie is motion captured and everyone IS CGI. Good. When you see it on sunday, come back and give us a review.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Nov 16, 2007 20:51:31 GMT -5
i'm gonna try and get to it tomorrow
|
|
|
Post by ThereIsNoAbsurdistOnlyZuul on Nov 16, 2007 20:53:33 GMT -5
Yeah, that Ebert review was odd. He makes it sound like the movie is so laughably bad, its good. That's not my take of the review. Given what I've read of Gaiman's stuff (a lot of it, but nowhere near all) I can easily see him making the script to be a bit tongue in cheek, to more blatant satire. Given it's source material, and from the trailers I've seen it doesn't go for austerity that would be it's proper due. But then somehow I don't see Zemeckis going along with a staid cinematic version of Beowulf. I think they aimed for visceral and fun, with an ironic subtext. Which would be something Gaiman has always managed to pull off. When I bother to see it I'll throw in my two cents, I am planning for sometime around Thanksgiving.
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Nov 16, 2007 20:56:43 GMT -5
Yeah, that Ebert review was odd. He makes it sound like the movie is so laughably bad, its good. That's not my take of the review. Given what I've read of Gaiman's stuff (a lot of it, but nowhere near all) I can easily see him making the script to be a bit tongue in cheek, to more blatant satire. Given it's source material, and from the trailers I've seen it doesn't go for austerity that would be it's proper due. But then somehow I don't see Zemeckis going along with a staid cinematic version of Beowulf. I think they aimed for visceral and fun, with an ironic subtext. Which would be something Gaiman has always managed to pull off. When I bother to see it I'll throw in my two cents, I am planning for sometime around Thanksgiving. Well, that makes sense to me.
|
|
Grendel
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
But ... why is all the rum gone?
Posts: 17,593
|
Post by Grendel on Nov 16, 2007 21:32:16 GMT -5
That's not my take of the review. Given what I've read of Gaiman's stuff (a lot of it, but nowhere near all) I can easily see him making the script to be a bit tongue in cheek, to more blatant satire. Given it's source material, and from the trailers I've seen it doesn't go for austerity that would be it's proper due. But then somehow I don't see Zemeckis going along with a staid cinematic version of Beowulf. I think they aimed for visceral and fun, with an ironic subtext. Which would be something Gaiman has always managed to pull off. When I bother to see it I'll throw in my two cents, I am planning for sometime around Thanksgiving. Well, that makes sense to me. Me too, and I hope to see this sometime next week. I have to work this weekend, and Wednesday and Thursday so those days are out. Yes, I am working on Thanksgiving. None of our managers are, but we have to be there.
|
|
Grendel
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
But ... why is all the rum gone?
Posts: 17,593
|
Post by Grendel on Nov 16, 2007 21:33:52 GMT -5
I see that Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 72%.
|
|
The Line
Patti Mayonnaise
Real Name: Bumkiss. Stanley Bumkiss.
Peanut Butter & JAAAAAMMMM!
Posts: 36,698
|
Post by The Line on Nov 16, 2007 21:41:15 GMT -5
How is Grendel in the movie? He is such a bad-ass in the book, but it seems like whenever he's acted out on any other media venture other than a book, it doesn't translate all that well
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Nov 18, 2007 6:34:17 GMT -5
BEOWULF (2007) - **1/2I'm not surprised that this film's strongest aspect is its mythical element. Neil Gaiman made his bones with the legendary comic book series THE SANDMAN, which too was about a tragic hero. His co-scripter Roger Avary has had experience with arrogant corrupt characters in PULP FICTION and his underrated THE RULES OF ATTRACTION. They take the olde English myth of Beowulf and set it in the end days of the old Gods, as Christianity spreads from the remnants of the Roman Empire into the lands up north. With that oral ballad's Cain symbolism and Gaiman/Avary's further additional Christian allegories, BEOWULF the script certainly becomes more King Arthur than Beowulf. Hell, its practically THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE for the fantasy genre, or thats what it tried to be. But quite frankly, their story is only fascinating on a cerebral level in terms of the concept because of their decision to make the hero pull a Tony Montana. The actors certainly take this story seriously. Ray Winstone is the boastful yet flawed actioneer and Angelina Jolie is perhaps the only Hollywood starlet that could be defined as a "seductress" in our current cinema era. So why is BEOWULF very meh in spite of the acting and script? Sadly, but not surprised really, the blame has to go to director Robert Zemeckis. He's been more interested in playing with his VFX toys than in creating an organic movie, and more and more, I can't believe this is the same guy who once shot BACK TO THE FUTURE and CAST AWAY. In fact, I think it was a mistake for Zemeckis to have shot this movie in CGI or body motion-captured or whatever the hell the process was. I just felt a sense of disconnect in a script which strives to be the EXCALIBUR of this decade. Perhaps, as Avary wanted before he sold the script away to Zemeckis, it should have been a gritty balls-to-the-walls live-action piece. Then again, with many shots and creatures inevitably perhaps going to end up as CGI, one can argue that Zemeckis decided to simply "screw it." But the other problem is that for a R-rated shot movie full of heavy violence and sex, I seriously thought we would finally get another smart/ballsy genre effort like Milius' CONAN THE BARBARIAN or Boorman's EXCALIBUR. But Paramount cuts down and digitally manipulates to get that PG-13, and it just feels so damn wrong for something like BEOWULF, as with Zemeckis. THUMBS DOWN
|
|
|
Post by Flying Leg Kicks on Nov 18, 2007 12:38:06 GMT -5
I was shocked to see this movie was rated PG13. There were some kids who couldn't have been more than 10 years old sitting next to me talking about how Beowulf was going to have sex with Grendel's mom. There is some graphic violence in it as well.
I thought the film looked better than 300, and I didn't see it in 3-D. Grendel is pretty badass as a monster because he's huge, ugly, and throws people around like rag dolls.
I thought it was a little satrical with how Beowulf fights him naked because it's like Austin Powers with shots that conviently cover his frontal area.
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Nov 18, 2007 18:13:49 GMT -5
I was shocked to see this movie was rated PG13. There were some kids who couldn't have been more than 10 years old sitting next to me talking about how Beowulf was going to have sex with Grendel's mom. There is some graphic violence in it as well. I thought the film looked better than 300, and I didn't see it in 3-D. Grendel is pretty badass as a monster because he's huge, ugly, and throws people around like rag dolls. I thought it was a little satrical with how Beowulf fights him naked because it's like Austin Powers with shots that conviently cover his frontal area. Considering all the would-be violent scenes, I thought the movie suffers for sterilizing itself too clean, but I guess thats just me. And yeah, the Powers-sillyness was pretty goofy.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,196
|
Post by Mozenrath on Nov 18, 2007 18:26:01 GMT -5
I wonder if the obvious go with the "Unrated" extended DVD will improve it.
|
|